...and invented in the first place, via PBS.
-
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
George Soros buying radio stations
- Thread starter johnbasalla
- Start date
Funny, but John Catsimatidis has repeated all of these false claims and more over his WABC airwaves. It was also probably the motive behind his alleged attempt to purchase WCBS (AM) from Audacy nearly a year ago
David, a million thanks to you and the others for the tremendous base of knowledge that you bring to this board. šš¼š. It is one of the highlights of my day to check in here and read the thoughtful dialog and your latest thoughts. ā Daryl Lynn
There is a very strong feeling on the right that the traditional networks are very left of center; the late-night talk shows actually confirm this. But, because of that, the conservatives find fault in the network newscasts, shows like "60 Minutes" and the morning shows, particularly the one with former Democratic Party activist Stephanopolus.
In other words, the extreme progressive opinions on the late-night shows taints all three networks. And those networks own OTA TV stations, which the FCC does regulate.
While the content providers should be totally free to create whatever they want, with ratings and the public being the judge, it is hard for any conservative to understand why all three major networks only have liberal-leaning shows. So there will be ongoing protests as it does seem "unfair and unbalanced" (to modify a cable network's slogan).
I agree that any and all FCC opinionated about content they do not and can not regulate should be muffled. I think Archie Bunker could have beaten him in a debate!
"Must say" moment: a good example of dialog is Michael and my discussion of population and migratory patterns. I disagree with his conclusions and even some of his interpretations of word meaning, but his points are well supported and worthy of evaluation.
Mike's remarks have made me, more than once, review my own thinking. I can't think of a better purpose for a discussion board!
This is removed from radio and TV, but: did you know that all theaters with reasonably modern equipment will provide either amplified / enhanced audio headsets to the hard of hearing or little subtitle screen devices for the deaf?
Before we totally quit going to movies about six years ago, my daughter would always ask for one; she just had to leave her driver license and return it after the show.
That's fine for them. It's not fine for the chairman of the FCC. He is supposed to be non-partisan. He works for all taxpayers, not just the ones on the right. Once again, there is no fairness doctrine, and there is no requirement that any late night show needs to appeal to any particular political party.
The Fox Network also owns OTA stations, and we don't see the news channel forcing its political views on its owned stations. We also don't see this FCC forcing Fox to present other sides.
As it is hard for anyone to understand why every commercial talk station in this country features one political point of view. There are many other topics to talk about besides national politics. If we are going to require fairness, that might be a place to start.
The networks are based in NY. The late night shows originate in NY and LA. The majority of people who live there tend to be liberals. Why's that hard to understand?
As you often point out. fewer people are watching national broadcast networks, so it matters less and less. Yet it seems to be top priority of this current administration.
Last edited:
Stephanopoulos left party politics in 1997---TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS AGO. You don't want to see (and I don't want to have to type) the long list of Republicans and Democrats anchoring shows and giving opinions who much more recently left their positions in party politics.
And that includes right-wing commentator Scott Jennings on CNN, who worked for the administration after the one Stephanopoulos worked for---and who is considered to be a strong candidate to run for Mitch McConnell's seat from Kentucky next year---while throwing bombs tonight on CNN.
CNNās Scott Jennings trashes Jimmy Carter, accuses him of ādabbling in antisemitismā
āAnd if itās possible, I think he was even a worse ex-president because of his meddling in U.S. foreign policy, because of his saddling up to dictators around the world,ā Scott Jennings declared about Jimmy Carter on Monday night.
www.independent.co.uk
CNNās Scott Jennings says heāll only run for Senate if Trump tells him to
The conservative CNN contributor ā who often goes head-to-head with Dems in fiery on-air debates ā refused to rule out a Senate run on Wednesday.
nypost.com
It's a trojan horse. An excuse to use. There is no point of crossover or commonality between late night and news. Lorne Michaels does not influence content or coverage on NBC Nightly, nor do the execs who oversee Colbert and Kimmel have any influence on CBS Evening or ABC World.
Nor vice-versa.
The only late-night talk show in lock-step with its news division is Gutfeld on FOX. And conservatives seem totally cool with that.
Gutfeld sparks backlash after reclaiming Nazi as his own ān-wordā: āBeneath contemptā
āYou know what? Iāve said this before. We need to learn from the Blacks. The way they were able to remove the power from the n-word by using it,ā Greg Gutfeld declared on Tuesday.
www.the-independent.com
And yay, me for saying lock-step when "goose-step" was right there.
And didn't I say that at the end of my post?
I know that, and certainly lived through the torment of having to deal with "Fairness" in a part of the U.S. where there were at least three parties and often four or five vying for the mike.
The Fox OTA TV network is not the same division of the Fox conglomerate as Fox News, a cable talk web. The Fox Network has no evening or morning news, and no late-night talk show.
Here is the Fox Network schedule for next few weeks: FOX - TV Schedule & Listings Guide
There are no news shows, no panel shows, no investigative reporting. There is a lot of Chef Ramsey, though. And MLB and game shows.
Been tried, and did not work. Perhaps someone will try again, what with so many AMs now near the "take them off life support" condition.
Air America tried liberal talk, and got lots of stations. Some were dog facilities, others in places like Miami, LA, Portland and Seattle (to name a few) were big signals on AMs that were in the top 4 or 5 signals in their markets.
As I said before (and based on decades of doing all-news and news/talk) extensive listening showed hosts that were "on the campaign trail" and giving political speeches rather than doing entertaining talk shows. None, except occasionally for the very talented Randi Rhodes, were fun to listen to. They were tedious and full of "I'm telling you to..." type preaching.
At the same time, Limbaugh was the "guy at the barbershop" or "the friend at the bar" guy who was opinionated but friendly and conversational. I saw many of the "Limbaugh Lunch" gatherings in smaller markets where locals, ranging from lawyers and accountants to business owners to the guy with the plumbing truck would drop in for a sandwich or whatever and sit at round tables while listening to Rush and commenting with others. I could not see any of the Air America shows creating that mood, and that is why I think it failed.
Would anyone try a liberal line-up of shows to offer to the many remaining AMs that have "good enough" signals? It would seem that there is an opportunity there. I think advertisers would like that, as then they could buy the conservative talk stations they avoid now out of fear of accusation of bias. If they buy both the liberal and the conservative talk outlets, they are "balanced" and partial to nobody.
But there is an expression in Spanish, "Dime con quien andas y te dirƩ quien eres" or "tell me with whom you associate and I will tell you who you are". Guilt by association, etcetera. Even I have a hard time believing that there is not a "mood in the building" set by the sum of its programming parts.
But Gutfeld is on Fox News, not the Fox Network. One is cable, the other is OTA. The OTA is mostly a bunch of cooking shows, some sports and some game shows... and no news and commentary. And things like "The Quiz With Balls"... FOX - TV Schedule & Listings Guide .
He said, without an ounce of irony.
Last edited:
CBS and ABC have no cable news outlets. NBC is spinning off MSNBC. NBC doesn't force its OTA TV stations to carry any programming from MSNBC. Now they they're being spun off, there will be no connection.
The networks receive no federal funds. They're not under jurisdiction of the FCC. They are free to be as liberal as they want all day long. That is their right under the constitution.
The same could be said for putting Sean Hannity as the host of a new late night comedy show. He isn't funny. His kind of comedy wouldn't play well in the Ed Sullivan Theater to a room full of New Yorkers. The late show hosts are playing to their in-studio audiences. They're mainly liberals.
But none of this addresses the primary fact that this administration is using the power of the government to force its political ideology on the entire population using the media, the cultural centers like The Kennedy Center, and anything else they can find. That's what this thread is about. The administration is horrified that a liberal is buying radio stations. To them, it needs to be stopped at any cost. That's not what government should be doing.
That's not the point. The government is forcing TV networks to remove liberal talk because it criticizes them. They're shutting down protest. That's what this is thread is about.
Last edited:
I've worked in very blue markets and encountered "extreme progressives." They regard the likes of Colbert as "corporate" and "neo-liberal." They're also prone to not vote due to purity tests and impatience. People proud of being far left or progressive as a label have no use for Colbert, Kimmel and even Jon Stewart.
The perception of these guys (and they are mostly Caucasian males of a certain generation) as extreme in any way is foreign to even conservatives in places such as Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and most of Europe. If anything, they're center left and pretty "establishment."
Not under the current administration. And if (for example) Soros had tried it, as he's supposedly plotting to do with Audacy or those Spanish stations his group was involved with, well, we know what the FCC and conservative media would do before the first minute of programming had aired. But as @TheBigA has pointed out, many advertisers don't want to be involved with "controversial" programming of any style. Conservative radio has a lot of its own "in group" accounts to supplant the loss that started with Limbaugh's poor taste remarks about Sandra Fluke.
Even the handful of more centrist and FM delivered talkers in blue markets, which you can count on one hand, are aiming to avoid outraging MAGA too much these days, and Carr isn't helping matters. I don't see any business besides Civic Media in Wisconsin willing to try to offer a centrist or left-leaning product. It'd be a lot of investment for a questionable return, assuming you were left alone by the FCC to even make a serious attempt. And I've asked this question a million times in the past, but I'm starting to believe the window has closed to develop a left-leaning or purely liberal talk format on terrestrial radio. Even though I believe its existence would be a healthy thing for media, radio and discourse. If I win the Powerball, I may re-evaluate.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channelā¢
While that is obviously true, those who are (incorrectly) sensing a left-wing bias against the other big three networks conveniently ignore that distinction. But Fox News (the cable channel) has content that neatly fits into their ideology, so in their eyes the nightly news on ABC, CBS, and NBC -- and the Sunday morning "talking heads" shows, and Colbert/Fallon/Kimmel -- should emulate Fox News.
Just to prove that fallacy, here are the stories ABC's World News Tonight with David Muir covered this evening:
- The heat wave across the eastern half of the country with triple digit temperatures across the entirety of the eastern coastal areas
- Collision of a barge that struck a sailboat in Miami, killing two young girls who were passengers, with two more in critical condition
- Casino shooting in Reno
- Trump saysthat he has the power to pardon Ghislane Maxwell; no commentary in the story, clip of him saying it during a press conference even though he admits no one has approached him about it, then more clips saying why he had a falling out with Jeffrey Epstein and saying he never "had the privilege" of visiting Epstein's island
- Trump again, saying there is "real starvation" in Gaza (more clips) but again, no commentary. Report includes Netanyahu says "there is no starvation", then another Trump clip where he disses Vladimir Putin, then details on trade deal with the European Union
- Report on man at Walmart in Traverse City MI threatening people with a knife, brief clip of interview with the private citizen who aimed a gun at the man "to draw his attention away from the others", update on condition of those injured
- Search for person who killed two people at a state park in Arkansas
- Feds arrest co-pilot of a Delta flight upon its landing in San Francisco, accused of sex crimes against a child
- Small plane crash in Palm Beach FL, plane skimming a car before impact
- New research study on lifestyle changes having positive effect on Alzheimers
- Deion Sanders diagnosed with aggressive form of bladder cancer
Paying all the "No Kings" protesters (hey George, did you lose my direct deposit info? And couldn't you spring for porta-johns?)
Itās not a fact-based allegation. It is a tactic intended to erode trust in mainstream media among low-information voters who donāt watch it anyway and wouldnāt know. But they repeat it to other low-information voters to the point where it becomes an article of faith.
And, cāmonā¦itās gotten to the point where anything other than slavish praise of the right is called out as bias. Davidās language in one of these posts (and Iāll be damned if Iām gonna go read it twice) is telling. The right āperceivesā the facts differently.
You have to ask yourself why that is. The answer is that Murdoch is no fool. Just as Soros is no fool with Audacy. Murdoch knows if he required his O&Os to run a right wing late night show or right wing evening news, it would hurt those stations in those very blue cities, and wouldn't attract the kind of advertising they currently receive. Other station owners like Sinclair try to force right wing politics on their blue state O&Os, and it's called out for what it is. People have beliefs and will not change them just because a TV station feeds them biased news. That's the case regardless of what side you're on.
No, this is a branding of the information efforts of ABC, CBS and NBC based on the obvious political slant of each one's late night talk show. This is sort of (and this is the best comparison I could come up with quickly) of considering that "all the stuff at Walmart is cheap Chinese goods."
In my comparison, we know that a lot of Walmart's products, particularly in the past, were low quality Asian imports and not the best quality. Fact show that in many departments they have quality goods which they sell for less due to volume. But Walmart has that image, particularly among those that first shopped there 30 or so years ago.
I've told over and over how specific news stories get told differently by different sources. I don't want to go into a discussion of the actions that don't involve radio or TV of the prior left administration that "the right" sees as destructive and wrong. But this is where we find that media gets overly analyzed.
I saw an analysis of one of Stephanopolis' segments in which people on the right criticized every adjective used in a whole show, attempting to show that the writing was biased. The degree of division we have seen develop in the last decade is frightening... but those who are not left of center also have rights to opinions.
That is not right. Fox-the-OTA-Network was established as an anchor for independent stations, with a bare minimum of two hours of prime time and not early evening network news, no morning show, no afternoon shows and no night talk show. It was set up as an alternative to the Big Three; at the same time two other industry companies tried to do networks and created WP and UPN, now the also-ran CW.
At the time that the OTA network was created, Fox needed an outlet for "free TV" first runs of their TV show productions. They succeeded, while WP and UPN, having the same general motives, failed.
But they have the same right to that presentation as the AM talk stations have to theirs. Late night shows have always made jokes about the government. It doesn't matter who is president. Unfortunately this president can't take it, and he's using his power to force it to stop. That's unconstitutional.
So you're saying the news departments base their coverage on late night talk? Are you insane? These are two different divisions, run by different presidents, who are appealing to two different sales demographics. This is BUSINESS, not politics. Try to understand that there is more to this world than politics.
It doesn't matter what it was established as. If Murdoch wanted to force right wing politics on his TV stations, he could do it. But he KNOWS it would be a bad business decision. Just as Soros knows forcing left wing talk on his radio stations would be a bad BUSINESS decision. That's why he's kept his ideology off his OTA stations. Fox had a late night show with Joan Rivers. Her comedy was just like the other networks. It failed. They never tried it again.
You said earlier that the FCC stays out of content. That changed in January. This FCC doesn't care what previous FCCs have done. They are pushing their ideology regardless of how improper it is. They will keep pounding away at every radio & TV owner until someone forces them to stop. This is the new reality TV show: Government Apprentice. Brendan Carr is just another contestant.