Nader Scolds Rush Limbaugh over Back Rent

[Cornflake the Destroyer]

Taylor has it on the front page and the Hartford Courant ran it Yesterday--Nader Tears into Rush:

"You, Rush Limbaugh, are on welfare.

As you know, the public airwaves belong to the American people. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is supposed to be our trustee in managing this property. The people are the landlords and the radio and TV stations and affiliated companies are the tenants."

Keep Reading and tell me if he has a point...


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2043977/posts

 

[Tom Wells]

Of course Ralph is right.
Rush will simply counter that he is doing a public service of great value and worthy of the airtime, as many dollars are being
sprayed in his direction.
Until the old fairness doctrine is enforced again, or something else happens, Rush will declare that the market forces and valuations
are the only things that matter. In the current business model of radio as we play it, he's right.
Radio "the art, science and service" are subservient to the commercial and business aspects.
This was carved in stone way back in '27 when we decided on our commercially paid radio model, as opposed to England's
radio model, where set owners paid for a license to receive. For many years the industry was able to balance the needs
until deregulation permitted the unscrupulous to use "radio" in a growth, hype and selling cycle that disrespected everything
but the cash flow and appreciation in order to flip the property or otherwise leverage the income of the station by gutting
everything imagainable and going off the bird.

Rush is not always wrong or right. He is a commentator who is not mindfully circumspect of presenting his opinion in the most helpful way.
This mode and delivery is compelling radio, the zenith of which must have been Bob Grant on WABC or Warren Freiburg at WLNR.
Yes, it gets ratings and ad dollars but is ultimately not in the public's best interests, service, or necessity.

Until law or regulation with the old-fashioned idea of loss of license or non-renewal returns, nothing will change.

 

[TheBigA]

Yeah I read that. It sounds like Nader is a bit jealous, and wishes he and his ideas could attract that kind of money. We all want others to live by our rules. That's what the Right To Lifers want, and the left is no different. They want to control the message. Anyone who read Orwell's Animal House knows that the left is no more democratic than the right.

You can't regulate personal opinion. Rush is successful because he has a lot of people who agree with him. Not because he's on the radio. No amount of regulation will change that. It will simply change his venue. It's nice to view radio in terms of the 1920s or even the 1940s. But none of that matters any more.

The airwaves MAY belong to the public, but the radio stations and the content don't. Airwaves don't mean squat without transmitters, stations, and programs. And today, you don't need the public airwaves to reach the public. That means the airwaves don't matter. Rush can continue to say what he thinks in other media. the only difference is that radio loses another top talent, and it encourages more safe and bland radio. And how does THAT benefit the public interest?

The right wing has the ability to bring together their people in a group. That group can sometimes wield power, as they did with Reagan and Bush. That also makes them attractive to advertisers who seek a better value for their advertising dollars. Rush's salary isn't coming from the airwaves. Otherwise, all of us who work in radio would get paid as much as Rush. Rush's salary comes from ADVERTISING, and he's just better at attracting it than Nader.

There is a very clear disconnect between those who look at radio simply as a form of media, and forget that it is also driven by ad dollars. You can't have a free press without advertising support. What's happening now is that advertisers aren't limited to how they spend their dollars, and it's possible to operate the media for free in your basement. But to force radio into operating under content rules without regard to how radio makes its money is a formula for disaster. Even greater than what we have now.

I was a newsman in the days of the Fairness Doctrine. I was told not to cover controversial issues because we had to provide free airtime for opposing views, and the owner didn't want to do that. So we covered nice stories. Nothing controversial. Abortion was never mentioned. That meant radio was very bland and safe. Is that really what you want?

 

[PTBoardOp94]

So ... what exactly is Nader asking for?

How does one "pay rent" to the public via the airwaves?

 

[TheBigA]

So ... what exactly is Nader asking for?

How does one "pay rent" to the public via the airwaves?

This is an idea that's been bouncing around for years, and that is radio owners pay a portion of their revenue to the government for use of the airwaves. Sort of what the RIAA wants.

Consider if the RIAA gets its performance royalty, radio owners will be forced to pay 20% of their revenue (not profit) to foreign record labels in order to play music. If I'm in Congress, considering that law, I'm wondering why the labels are justified in getting that money, while the government gets nothing.

The fact is that Rush pays taxes on his income. That's the limit of his responsibility. It would be up to his employer or the affiliates to pay any additional fees. They are the ones licensed to operate, not Rush. Nader is getting a bit senile.

 

[gr8oldies]

I think Nader really doesn't get the connection between Limbaugh's salary and the fact that it's tied into how much revenue he brings in. Nader apparently believes that Limbaugh is a spokesman for the "corporate point of view" and is paid for that and it has nothing to do with advertising.

 

[adma]

Anyone who read Orwell's Animal House knows that the left is no more democratic than the right.

Uh, yeah. Next thing, you're going to tell us it wasn't over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor...

 

[TheBigA]

I think Nader really doesn't get the connection between Limbaugh's salary and the fact that it's tied into how much revenue he brings in. Nader apparently believes that Limbaugh is a spokesman for the "corporate point of view" and is paid for that and it has nothing to do with advertising.

I agree. There is a general lack of understanding by the public about how broadcasting works in this country.

We'll see a lot of myths thrown around when the RIAA goes to Congress for their performance royalty.

 

[DouglasB]

Taylor has it on the front page and the Hartford Courant ran it Yesterday--Nader Tears into Rush:
"You, Rush Limbaugh, are on welfare.As you know, the public airwaves belong to the American people. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is supposed to be our trustee in managing this property. The people are the landlords and the radio and TV stations and affiliated companies are the tenants." Keep Reading and tell me if he has a point...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2043977/posts

Politics aside, Mr. Nader is making a reach. Mr. Limbaugh is a content provider to radio stations. Mr. Nader's beef, if he has one, should be with the licensees who operate on the airwaves, not with a content provider. Further, I would be very nervous about the government determining what is good broadcasting content and what is bad broadcasting content. Audiences usually determine that is successful and what is not.
The Democrats and Liberals hate Limbaugh. Is this any surprise?

 

[quadraphonic]

I guess Rush Limbaugh as a target can get you more press than using Clear Channel or station owners as a target?

 

[pocket-radio]

Rush is an entertainer... All the attention he gets is really over nothing. It make him seem creditable The media and his listeners are just used to suite his needs..like pawns.

beside his ratings.... he's just a big gas bag.. and a fat idiot

 

[DouglasB]

beside his ratings.... he's just a big gas bag.. and a fat idiot

I bet your mother is very proud of you.

 

[Tom Wells]

Rush is an entertainer... All the attention he gets is really over nothing. It make him seem creditable The media and his listeners are just used to suite his needs..like pawns.

beside his ratings.... he's just a big gas bag.. and a fat idiot

You are lowering yourself by such statements, and decreasing the value of your commentary in the same way Rush does.

It is hard to gain respect and influence with honorable people when you disrespect others.

I'm sure you have a better choice of words available to make the same point without name-calling.

 

[adma]

Rush is an entertainer... All the attention he gets is really over nothing. It make him seem creditable The media and his listeners are just used to suite his needs..like pawns.

beside his ratings.... he's just a big gas bag.. and a fat idiot

You are lowering yourself by such statements, and decreasing the value of your commentary in the same way Rush does.

It is hard to gain respect and influence with honorable people when you disrespect others.

I'm sure you have a better choice of words available to make the same point without name-calling.

Didn't hurt Al Franken. He called Rush a big fat idiot and rode that all the way to the US Senate...

 

[pocket-radio]

Ladies, Rush, Glen Beck, Laura, & Sean insanity are all well paid actors & entertainers. If you haven't noticed, they dredge up dirt, omits facts and create drama to attract listeners and ratings. That's how they fill up their wallets. I find the clown circus entertaining too, I wonder in a former life if they drove the little clown car? Anyway, their rants, dialogs, winnings and well crafted speeches had no effect on the presidential election.
I mean they can attract ratings, but Americans see them for who they're are....Entertainers..

So I guess it will be four more years of winning clown circus radio or possibly eight.

Rush is a big gasbag and fat idiot.. My advice is to seek out an endorsement from weight watchers
and layoff the ring dings. it is what it is girls..

 

[TheBigA]

I mean they can attract ratings, but Americans see them for who they're are....Entertainers..

That's fine. As the great sage Daffy Duck once said, "Consequences, schmonsequences, who cares? As long as I'm rich."

That's the deal. They can attract ratings and that's exactly what they're intending to do. They don't care if you agree or disagree, just as long as you watch. And people do.

That's the mistake so many people make in this discussion. They actually think these conservatives are trying to change people's minds. That's not their goal at all. Most of them don't even agree with what they're saying. But they know it attracts a huge audience, and that translates into a big paycheck. Nader's problem is he simply doesn't understand that game.

 

[Tom Wells]

If I may be so bold as to speak on behalf of Mr. Nader..... as someone who voted for him,
he doesn't think service in the public's best interest is a "game", nor does he believe that the public is best served by
bluster and divisiveness.

 

[TheBigA]

If I may be so bold as to speak on behalf of Mr. Nader..... as someone who voted for him,
he doesn't think service in the public's best interest is a "game", nor does he believe that the public is best served by
bluster and divisiveness.

Calling something a "game" is a figure of speech. Perhaps you or Nader shouldn't take things so literally.

 

[DouglasB]

Didn't hurt Al Franken. He called Rush a big fat idiot and rode that all the way to the US Senate...

Al Franken, politics aside, is a professional comic and author. If pocket-radio had quoted Al Franken in the first place and not merely appropriated the title of Franken’s book and passed the thought on as his own, that might buttress the point he/she was making. But, by merely parroting Mr. Franken, he/she comes off either as an arrogant weasel or a thief of words. Either way, he/she is perceived as less than credible.

Adma, you also appear to be uninformed since the senate race in Minnesota is still not settled.

 

[adma]

Adma, you also appear to be uninformed since the senate race in Minnesota is still not settled.

I realize that: but technically, he remains "elected" (or at least "the winner") until/unless the courts dictate otherwise. And even if the courts dictate otherwise, the fact that he came *that* close is telling enough--especially relative to the conservative-radio-blowhard realm that's dismissed him as a left-liberal windbag on a radio network that "no one" listens to, ergo "no one" would vote for him, etc.

And as we all know, it isn't like George W. Bush's 2000 victory was any less "questionable"--it all depends on which side of the spectrum one lies, I suspect...