If it's a joke about him, even if it was a good natured one, he will be insulted by it. And he probably knows how the courts work, but he doesn't care. He wants it his way or else.
-
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
Trump Wants To Challenge Licenses
- Thread starter TheBigA
- Start date
- Status
If it's a joke about him, even if it was a good natured one, he will be insulted by it. And he probably knows how the courts work, but he doesn't care. He wants it his way or else.
DOJ is no longer looking into the 7 year old Comcast-NBCUniversal merger:
https://nypost.com/2018/12/27/justice-department-backs-off-comcast-nbcuniversal-merger-probe/
https://nypost.com/2018/12/27/justice-department-backs-off-comcast-nbcuniversal-merger-probe/
Here's the latest quote about wanting an investigation into the media:
"Nothing funny about tired Saturday Night Live on Fake News NBC! Question is, how do the Networks get away with these total Republican hit jobs without retribution? Likewise for many other shows? Very unfair and should be looked into. This is the real Collusion!"
Look up the definition for the word retribution: Punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for a wrong or criminal act.
"Nothing funny about tired Saturday Night Live on Fake News NBC! Question is, how do the Networks get away with these total Republican hit jobs without retribution? Likewise for many other shows? Very unfair and should be looked into. This is the real Collusion!"
Look up the definition for the word retribution: Punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for a wrong or criminal act.
What but the DOJ cancelled the investigation on the Comcast/NBC deal and the FCC never questioned any NBC O&O's license due to the Presidents allegations.
If theres no evidence on the allegations against NBC/Comcast WTH is this about??
Apparently a personal vendetta. Then again, now that he has a new AG, we might see a new investigation.
As comparison to the sick mess in the White House today:
President Lyndon Johnson, reflecting on his treatment by the Smothers Brothers [tv show], responded by writing:
"It is part of the price of leadership of this great and free nation to be the target of clever satirists. You have given the gift of laughter to our people. May we never grow so somber or self-important that we fail to appreciate the humor in our lives."
Thirty years of mostly right-wing commercial talk radio pandering to fear, prejudice and resentment have contributed to the current degenerated state of our government.
As for trumps tirades against "Liberal media" -he'll soon have more pressing things to worry about.
LCG
President Lyndon Johnson, reflecting on his treatment by the Smothers Brothers [tv show], responded by writing:
"It is part of the price of leadership of this great and free nation to be the target of clever satirists. You have given the gift of laughter to our people. May we never grow so somber or self-important that we fail to appreciate the humor in our lives."
Thirty years of mostly right-wing commercial talk radio pandering to fear, prejudice and resentment have contributed to the current degenerated state of our government.
As for trumps tirades against "Liberal media" -he'll soon have more pressing things to worry about.
LCG
As comparison to the sick mess in the White House today:
President Lyndon Johnson, reflecting on his treatment by the Smothers Brothers [tv show], responded by writing:
"It is part of the price of leadership of this great and free nation to be the target of clever satirists. You have given the gift of laughter to our people. May we never grow so somber or self-important that we fail to appreciate the humor in our lives."
Thirty years of mostly right-wing commercial talk radio pandering to fear, prejudice and resentment have contributed to the current degenerated state of our government.
As for trumps tirades against "Liberal media" -he'll soon have more pressing things to worry about.
LCG
President Lyndon Johnson, reflecting on his treatment by the Smothers Brothers [tv show], responded by writing:
"It is part of the price of leadership of this great and free nation to be the target of clever satirists. You have given the gift of laughter to our people. May we never grow so somber or self-important that we fail to appreciate the humor in our lives."
Thirty years of mostly right-wing commercial talk radio pandering to fear, prejudice and resentment have contributed to the current degenerated state of our government.
As for trumps tirades against "Liberal media" -he'll soon have more pressing things to worry about.
LCG
As you may know, his successor was not as magnanimous.
That's a really bad comparison, as the mid-60's were under the regulation of the Fairness Doctrine and what we might call a much more rigid interpretation of "Equal Time" during election periods.
The bulk of the media today suggests that the Fairness Doctrine should not have been repealed.
As someone who almost died (my print media partner was killed) while trying to report on events accurately, I am disgusted by the ready-fire-aim attitude of journalists today.
“As someone who almost died (my print media partner was killed) while trying to report on events accurately, I am disgusted by the ready-fire-aim attitude of journalists today.”
Did that occur in one of the “democrasies “ we rode in on a tank to Latin America?
The bulk of my friends come from that region. It still amazes me that while they know our sordid history there, they bear no hatred and actually like U.S.
“as the mid-60's were under the regulation of the Fairness Doctrine and what we might call a much more rigid interpretation of "Equal Time" during election periods.”
I don’t see how that would have influenced Johnson’s response.
It does remind me of a sorely lost opportunity by the Obama administration. Early on there was talk of reinstating the F.D. I actually had chance to hear some of the fear and hatred spewed by that bloated pill popper Limbaugh and other gasbags.
They were incandescent with fear and rage that this formerly ‘voluntary” rule would cut into their dominance and propaganda.
Obama, in a typical attempt to make peace with vultures ruled out any such return in some vain attempt at inspiring civility from vultures.
That is not how one deals with these people.
The threat should have remained as a hammer over a totally corrupt and damaging sector of this industry. That, and a series of speeches by Obama and his associates highlighting the lies and manipulations would have gone a long way towards curbing “alternate facts”.
We might have avoided this degenerated mess.
LCG
Did that occur in one of the “democrasies “ we rode in on a tank to Latin America?
The bulk of my friends come from that region. It still amazes me that while they know our sordid history there, they bear no hatred and actually like U.S.
“as the mid-60's were under the regulation of the Fairness Doctrine and what we might call a much more rigid interpretation of "Equal Time" during election periods.”
I don’t see how that would have influenced Johnson’s response.
It does remind me of a sorely lost opportunity by the Obama administration. Early on there was talk of reinstating the F.D. I actually had chance to hear some of the fear and hatred spewed by that bloated pill popper Limbaugh and other gasbags.
They were incandescent with fear and rage that this formerly ‘voluntary” rule would cut into their dominance and propaganda.
Obama, in a typical attempt to make peace with vultures ruled out any such return in some vain attempt at inspiring civility from vultures.
That is not how one deals with these people.
The threat should have remained as a hammer over a totally corrupt and damaging sector of this industry. That, and a series of speeches by Obama and his associates highlighting the lies and manipulations would have gone a long way towards curbing “alternate facts”.
We might have avoided this degenerated mess.
LCG
No, like most internal turmoil in Latin America, it was purely a domestic issue following the removal of a five-time president who had three previous times failed to complete his term of office.
With a few exceptions, the intervention of the US in Latin American politics has been quite limited.
"Fairness" dictated to a great extent how far the electronic media would go, since they knew that every action might have an equal opposite reaction. That's why the few stations that editorialized back then talked about sewer bond issues and not the Viet Nam War.
I'm really quite tired of the "pill popper" label that a few people put on Limbaugh. He had a problem, rather briefly, and he handled it. In an era where a large percentage of the population wants reduced sanctions on victimless crimes like possession, your attitude is reactionary.
And the fact remains that for at least his first two decades, the show was very entertaining and popular.
The Fairness Doctrine was not "voluntary".
Actually, it was pointed out that the diversity of media thus far in the Internet era accompanied by more radio and TV stations and a profusion of cable channels made such a rule obstructive.
I don't ever quite remember the Fairness Doctrine being this giant club where a government monitor made siure that 6 minutes and 37 seconds of pro-Republican Party commentary was balanced by exactly 6 minutes and 37 seconds of pro-Democratic Party commentary (let alone trying to balance the various factions within the parties, plus minor parties). A popular, but wrong, Facebook meme claims that the Fairness Doctrine would have prevented Fox News and the Drudge Report from being created. Limbaugh had a show during the Fairness Doctrine. What were stations going to be expected to do, put liberals on whether they had an audience or not? Or is the assumption that the Limbaugh listener would stay tuned for the liberal show, have an instant revelation and become a Democrat?
Here is the summation of the original Fairiness ruling, reversing Mayflower and allowing station advocacy as long as opposing point of view were also broadcast:
"To recapitulate, the Commission believes that under the American system
of broadcasting the individual licensees of radio stations have the responsibility for
determining the specific program material to be broadcast over their stations. This
choice, however, must be exercised in a manner consistent with the basic policy of
the Congress that radio be maintained as a medium of free speech for the general
public as a whole rather than as an outlet for the purely personal or private interests
of the licensee. This requires that licensees devote a reasonable percentage of their
broadcasting time to the discussion of public issues of interest in the community
served by their stations and that such programs be designed so that the public has a
reasonable opportunity to hear different opposing positions on the public issues of
interest and importance in the community. The particular format best suited for the
presentation of such programs in a manner consistent with the public interest must
be determined by the licensee in the light of the facts of each individual situation."
"Fairness" was ultimately upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court two decades later in the Red Lion case. Key in the doctrine was the establishment of the right to advocacy but with the obligation to present, in a manner decided by each station, contrary perspectives.
Getting back to the Saturday Night Live issue, the point should be made that in addition to the piece mocking Trump, it did the same to Pelosi and Schumer. That is to say, both sides are satirized, both sides are made fun of. That's what comedy is.
‘”With a few exceptions, the intervention of the US in Latin American politics has been quite limited.”
-This is so incorrect; I am surprised you would put it in writing. The U.S. has backed some of the worst torturing and murderous monsters in history.
Anyone wishing to refute your statement should look up “United States involvement in regime change in Latin America”.
“"Fairness" dictated to a great extent how far the electronic media would go, since they knew that every action might have an equal opposite reaction. That's why the few stations that editorialized back then talked about sewer bond issues and not the Viet Nam War.
-Daivd, I don’t know where you listened to talk programming during the F.D. era but Vietnam, civil rights, and racial issues were the red meat of the medium. The difference was that broadcaster could not allow only one viewpoint without s semblance of balance.
“I'm really quite tired of the "pill popper" label that a few people put on Limbaugh. He had a problem, rather briefly, and he handled it. In an era where a large percentage of the population wants reduced sanctions on victimless crimes like possession, your attitude is reactionary.”
That bastard got away with something that thousands are still moldering in prison for.
One big difference is they did not have expensive, well-connected lawyers and political connections.
“The Fairness Doctrine was not "voluntary".”
-Point taken.
“Actually, it was pointed out that the diversity of media thus far in the Internet era accompanied by more radio and TV stations and a profusion of cable channels made such a rule obstructive.”
If OTA talk radio is still as important as it claims to be, it might have benefited from maintaining an image of truth and credibility.
You and I both know why that rule was abolished and who thus benefited.
LCG
-This is so incorrect; I am surprised you would put it in writing. The U.S. has backed some of the worst torturing and murderous monsters in history.
Anyone wishing to refute your statement should look up “United States involvement in regime change in Latin America”.
“"Fairness" dictated to a great extent how far the electronic media would go, since they knew that every action might have an equal opposite reaction. That's why the few stations that editorialized back then talked about sewer bond issues and not the Viet Nam War.
-Daivd, I don’t know where you listened to talk programming during the F.D. era but Vietnam, civil rights, and racial issues were the red meat of the medium. The difference was that broadcaster could not allow only one viewpoint without s semblance of balance.
“I'm really quite tired of the "pill popper" label that a few people put on Limbaugh. He had a problem, rather briefly, and he handled it. In an era where a large percentage of the population wants reduced sanctions on victimless crimes like possession, your attitude is reactionary.”
That bastard got away with something that thousands are still moldering in prison for.
One big difference is they did not have expensive, well-connected lawyers and political connections.
“The Fairness Doctrine was not "voluntary".”
-Point taken.
“Actually, it was pointed out that the diversity of media thus far in the Internet era accompanied by more radio and TV stations and a profusion of cable channels made such a rule obstructive.”
If OTA talk radio is still as important as it claims to be, it might have benefited from maintaining an image of truth and credibility.
You and I both know why that rule was abolished and who thus benefited.
LCG
I'm guessing by disingenuous response that you have never lived in Latin America. I spent more than half my adult life living there, and have worked in radio in 15 of the Spanish speaking nations continuing even today.
I created what is arguably the most successful political talk show in Latin America, programmed or managed several major news / talk stations ranging from Argentina and Ecuador to Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic... and Los Angeles, New York, Miami and other US markets.
Yes, gunboat diplomacy was a big thing... over a century ago. The US got Panamá to separate from Colombia in order to deed it the Canal Zone. United Fruit was a disgrace, but some of the incidents were at the peak of the Cold War when the fears created by Ché Guevara and the missile crisis made the US, in the fashion of all world powers of the time, protect its region.
But most stories reported by very outside observers exaggerated the US role significantly and the US population was told very biased reports about the region. Anecdotally, in my late 60's newsroom, we'd look forward to any issue of "Slime, the Weekly Fiction Magazine" that reported on our nation because whatever Time wrote was almost always about 90% wrong. Oh, and my partner in that news station went on to narrowly lose the presidential election, but is now the long time mayor of its largest city. I kinda' knew what was going on.
If you look at the math, in the countries of Latin America there have been over 1000 presidential elections in the last two centuries. There have been hundreds and hundreds of coup d'etat attempt and successes, assassinations and revolutions. There have been holy wars between liberals and conservatives, indigenous uprisings, separatist movements and massive scandals. If you look at the percentage with real, true US involvement (involvement means "presence" not "moral support") is limited to a small percentage.
I said "editorializing". Few stations then did station editorials, and when they did they were about community works projects and the like.
Talk stations required balance. But the differences between parties was much narrower then, and achieving balance much simpler.
He took prescription drugs in excess. That is currently a national issue, and were everyone to be jailed for it, there would be half as many people on the streets today (hyperbole intentional to prove a point).
The explosive growth of talk radio came in the aftermath of the death of Fairness. And that is when polarized stations like KFI took over balanced stations like KABC and left such stations in the dust. All Fairness did was limit the success of talk.
I certainly could not have done KTNQ as a 100% live and local talk station in LA in the 90's had Fairness existed; we would have been required to present conservative views held by nearly nobody in the audience.
Last edited:
Exactly. Which is why I believe if the FD were to be re-applied today, it would have to apply to ALL media, not just broadcasting, for it to have any effect. Just as I feel the payola laws should apply to all music platforms including streaming and satellite. Otherwise they're a complete mockery.
When literally anyone can self-publish, I don't know how in the world a government would even begin to enforce an online Fairness Doctrine. You read an article from Breitbart and an article from Daily Kos pops up, and you can't click off of it until you click (I have read and understood?). Facebook has tried that from time to time in "suggested articles" with little success.
Then requiring one type of media to do something while the rest is un-regulated is unfair. Just as enforcing payola laws on broadcast radio while streaming and satellite can accept label money is unfair.
I thought the payola rules only applied to individuals employed by radio stations taking money under the table in return for on-air promotion of certain artists and/or songs, not direct payment to station ownership for same. Theoretically, couldn't Sony write a huge check to some station (or an even huger check to a chain of stations) and flip the station(s) to all Billy Joel, all the time, for as long as it wants to, the way Sony now pays SiriusXM for a limited-time channel every time Billy has a tour starting? The only difference would be that the broadcast station would have to air a disclaimer telling the listeners that what they are hearing is bought and paid for, while SiriusXM can tell out-and-out lies and promote its single-artist pop-up channels as being "back by popular demand!"
- Status