St Louis progs attempt to oust Rush fails

[raccoonradio]

http://www.*************/Big-Journalism/2012/03/13/Progressives Fail To Oust Limbaugh At AM Station

Though some Cards day games will silence El Rushbo, other than online
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/dan-caesar/article_be3b6ca9-e95c-513f-83c3-caf54c84b771.html

 

[ropertex]

Nice try, but a poll on a website on a station carrying Limbaugh is meaningless. 53% of Americans think Limbaugh should resign. But like all decisions, it comes down to how much money the show brings in, and is sticking with Limbaugh worth the risk of a license challenge.

 

[johnbasalla]

There should be no accepted license challenge against a station that airs any particular talk show. To do so violates the right to freedom of speech. The only exceptions would be if there are specific threats against persons or a person, or ones that clearly violate an established FCC law.

 

[HotTalker]

Nice try, but a poll on a website on a station carrying Limbaugh is meaningless. 53% of Americans think Limbaugh should resign.

Guess what? Polls of the American public at large about any radio show are as meaningless as a website poll. At best 5% of Americans listen to Rush. Those listeners and Rush's sponsors ALONE should decide when he gets pulled. Not a bunch of disgruntled media people jealous of his success or professional troublemakers like Media Matters.

 

[ropertex]

There should be no accepted license challenge against a station that airs any particular talk show. To do so violates the right to freedom of speech. The only exceptions would be if there are specific threats against persons or a person, or ones that clearly violate an established FCC law.

Is a station, using the PUBLICLY OWNED AIRWAVES, "serving the public interest, convenience and necessity" by
airing 3 hour blocks of distant satellite fed programs that are partisan political propaganda?

 

[borderblaster]

You aren't going to get the FCC into the business of legislating content. They have no interest or budget to micromanage 14000 radio stations.

 

[HotTalker]

Is a station, using the PUBLICLY OWNED AIRWAVES, "serving the public interest, convenience and necessity" by
airing 3 hour blocks of distant satellite fed programs that are partisan political propaganda?

It's "public interest, convenience OR necessity" (the word OR makes a HUGE difference in law) and finding programming that you actually want to hear is certainly interesting to the public, and convenient.

Unless you want to turn that spotlight right on government funded public radio and folks like Pacifica, which I'm sure you don't. Because they're so "fair" and "honest" and never take sides.

Attitudes like this is why the FCC can't do enforce important stuff like technical violations at this point. They're too busy dealing with ridiculous challenges to licenses because people think the government's job is to make sure they never hear something that challenges their narrow world view.

You aren't going to get the FCC into the business of legislating content. They have no interest or budget to micromanage 14000 radio stations.

I sure hope you're right. These people sure are trying hard, and these types never give up. It's like fighting The Terminator.

 

[KeithE4]

There should be no accepted license challenge against a station that airs any particular talk show. To do so violates the right to freedom of speech. The only exceptions would be if there are specific threats against persons or a person, or ones that clearly violate an established FCC law.

Is a station, using the PUBLICLY OWNED AIRWAVES, "serving the public interest, convenience and necessity" by airing 3 hour blocks of distant satellite fed programs that are partisan political propaganda?

If the FCC could shut down stations carrying Rush Limbaugh, they could also shut down stations carrying Randi Rhodes or any other partisan talker, liberal or conservative. Do you really want that?

 

[HotTalker]

If the FCC could shut down stations carrying Rush Limbaugh, they could also shut down stations carrying Randi Rhodes or any other partisan talker, liberal or conservative. Do you really want that?

The people who have this mindset honestly believe that their, and only their, programming fulfills FCC public interest requirements. That and they know that the opposition on the Right doesn't go after hosts nearly as much, and is much less successful when they do so. The MRC files a complaint about Family Guy every single week, and never gets anywhere.

 

[MC]

CBS station, I'm sure CBS is not that concern about one show on one station. It might be easier to sell ads on Hucklbee.

 

[HotTalker]

It might be easier to sell ads on Hucklbee.

Gonna be tough to sell ads on a show no one listens to. Huckabee is going to bomb on an epic level.

 

[raccoonradio]

Rush may have lost stations in Hilo and Pittsfield but in effect he gains new FM talkers
in Ft Wayne (WOWO's new sister station) and Fargo (I think that one is a mere 96,000
watts). Maybe other places too. Those expecting Rush to disappear like Air America
are bound to be disappointed.

 

[raccoonradio]

>>Is a station, using the PUBLICLY OWNED AIRWAVES, "serving the public interest, convenience and necessity" by
airing 3 hour blocks of distant satellite fed programs that are partisan political propaganda?

I agree. Let's shut down NPR and liberal radio (kidding, but you get the point)

People like Juan Williams (in his books, etc.) praise our freedom of speech, and you have freedom of choice,
too--to like or dislike shows whether it's by changing the station or tuning it off,
boycotting advertisers, etc. Rush makes over $50 million a year by serving his audience.
Don't like it, then go to taxpayer-funded (...in part...) NPR.

And, want a fairness doctrine? That means NPR would air as much conservative
content as liberal.

If Ed Schultz gets an audience as big as Rush, he should get a salary as big as Rush.
So be it. America, home of the free marketplace of ideas and where merit and demand
can create success.

 

[raccoonradio]

>>There should be no accepted license challenge against a station that airs any particular talk show. To do so violates the right to freedom of speech. The only exceptions would be if there are specific threats against persons or a person, or ones that clearly violate an established FCC law.

Exactly--Juan Williams mentioned the same thing in "Muzzled".

 

[MC]

Howard Stern, Beck and Dr Laura had fans that could not see anything happening to their "heroes" but times changes and so do advertisers and their demographics.

 

[HotTalker]

Howard Stern, Beck and Dr Laura had fans that could not see anything happening to their "heroes" but times changes and so do advertisers and their demographics.

Everything comes to an end at some point. As much as some people here might want it to be now for Rush, it won't be. He'll retire some day, but I bet he has at least 10 years left.

 

[MC]

There is about an 80% chance he will be somewhere with his show. Although there might be a 50-50- chance that something will happen like: losing some stations to Huckabee, satellite radio, etc. Paul Harvey was around along time.

His TV show did not last, nor did his NFL commentator job, or his "No Boundaries" neck tie business, nor the magazine he started with his wife...so he is pretty secure, but not completely stable in his career like everyone else.

 

[Bob1370]

"And, want a fairness doctrine? That means NPR would air as much conservative content as liberal."

It already does.

Haven't you noticed how many Republicans are interviewed and quoted? They run AT LEAST even with the Democrats on Morning Edition, Diane Rehm, Talk of the Nation, All Things Considered and other like programs.

NPR hasn't changed its basic programming approach since the Fairness Doctrine was still in effect over 30 years ago, and its programming back then passed the fairness test. If they brought the doctrine back, it still would.

 

[MC]

The TV had segment on the Chrystal Cathedral in Southern Calif. Boy that is a story of a melt down, From full church and a big TV show to now meeting in a movie theatre and bankruptcy. That is why I would never be so sure about what can happen to anyone or anything. Look at GM, if you told someone they would go BK in the 60's they would have say you were crazy.

 

[wadio]

"And, want a fairness doctrine? That means NPR would air as much conservative content as liberal."

It already does.

Haven't you noticed how many Republicans are interviewed and quoted? They run AT LEAST even with the Democrats on Morning Edition, Diane Rehm, Talk of the Nation, All Things Considered and other like programs.

NPR hasn't changed its basic programming approach since the Fairness Doctrine was still in effect over 30 years ago, and its programming back then passed the fairness test. If they brought the doctrine back, it still would.

Oh come on! Fox has plenty of opposing views on its air but there's no question where the bias lies. Same with NPR. Bias is subtle ... spin is often difficult to detect ... it's more than just a matter of statistics.