This should scare the day lilghts out of every USA citizen.... Censorship on the horizon? Sen. Stabenow wants hearings on radio 'accountability'; talks fairness doctrine This morning, radio host Bill Press brought up the recent closing of liberal station Obama 1260 when speaking with Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, and talked about whether there needs to be a balance to right-wing talk on the radio dial. BILL PRESS: Yeah, I mean, look: They have a right to say that. They’ve got a right to express that. But, they should not be the only voices heard. So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine? SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place. BILL PRESS: Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the United States Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable? SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep. Although Obama has been publicly opposed to reinstating the fairness doctrine, conservative radio has talked nonstop about the fear of it returning (or perhaps something like it with another name) while there's a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in Congress. UPDATE: A commenter points out that Stabenow is married to Tom Athans, a liberal talk radio executive.
Really. Stop. Now. It was old and annoying when the liberals blamed bush for everything, but there is no need to stoop to their level. It is sick how the liberals want gov't to control everything. I can't see how anyone can condemn the patriot act, but turn around and even think for a second this is a good idea. There is a reason why there is not a left wing talk on the radio ... it would actually require them to think for themselves instead of someone to think for them. Besides, very few people take Rush serious.
How does this work? Or am I misunderstanding you? If a talking head has a huge flock of followers, doesn't that mean that those people are 'having someone think for them'? Or is that what you meant? It would seem logical that if you are going to break out the 'think for themselves' angle, then the opposite wouldn't make sense.
Mainstream media in the United States is one of the most censored sources of information of any first world nation. It's not going to get better any time soon, either.
This is a Liberal plot, but not what you guys are thinking. Winger radio is so freaked out about the Fairness Doctrine that they go bonkers for 48 hours or so every time a Dem Congressman mentions possibly reinstating it. This cuts into their time to lie about the economy and fret about terrorists attacking Tyler or wherever because Obama thinks the Constitution means something, so it's all good for the Dems. In another week or so, look for another Dem to say something about the Fairness Doctrine and watch the cycle repeat. No matter how often people make the observation that there is no credible legislative proposal and the President is against it, wingers freak out. Case in point... this thread. Nobody but people who listen to winger radio know what the Fairness Doctrine is and nobody except those who listen to winger radio are against something that has not and will not happen. Theoretically, I would be against a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, but since that stands zero chance of happening, I support the Liberal strategy of freaking you guys out every few weeks. (This is the last time I let you in on our secret. For the next 10-20 threads on this topic, I will just chuckle and smile.)
I love talk radio. I listen to Sirius Patriot every day to and from work. It is really interesting, and they do bring up good points. I don't listen to Rush, but do listen to Hannity, Mike Church, Bill Bennet, Andrew Wilkow, Mark Levin, and Michael Reagan.
Oh, gods. I don't want to see Rush co-anchoring the nightly news with Brian Williams, or Glenn Beck with Katie Couric, or Hannity with Charlie Gibson. I prefer my nightly news as far left as possible, thank you very much.
The government listening in on my private conversations without probable cause scares me. The government forcing people who use the public airwaves to present competing points of view doesn't scare me at all. It only scares conservatives because they'll have no place but satellite left to push all of their ridiculous propaganda.
I completely understand what you are saying. If I have the opportunity to listen to Rush for his 3 hours, I will listen maybe 30 minutes max. I do agree with him that his listeners are more informed than any other base, but I quite often think he is very wrong. He screens his callers like any other media screens their interviewee's to promote their point. I have friends who think "Rush is always right" and take his points hook, line and sinker. But all I can do is take what I hear and form my own opinions, not to a particular party lines thinking.
Wow! You scare me! Big Time. According to your thinking, you believe the government should censor anything verbal on public property. The proposed idea of censoring public airwaves does not scare me due to it not happening, but the thought of people like you actually think its ok. You thought the patriot act was bad? Imagine if another Cheney gets in office and censors EVERYTHING liberals have to say. Republicans are not always right and liberals are not always wrong, but at least Republicans recognize that big government allows the Cheneys of any party to come into office and take full advantage of their powers.
Not according to available evidence and research. The following article specifically talks about O'Reilly's POS program, but the "base" you are talking about is the same as the one that Rush enjoys. _________________________________________________________________ ‘Stoned slackers’ watch Jon Stewart? Bill O’Reilly's viewers are actually less educated than Stewart's http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6117542/ updated 12:45 p.m. CT, Tues., Sept. 28, 2004 NEW YORK - The folks at Comedy Central were annoyed when Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly kept referring to “The Daily Show” audience as “stoned slackers.” So they did a little research. And guess whose audience is more educated? Viewers of Jon Stewart’s show are more likely to have completed four years of college than people who watch “The O’Reilly Factor,” according to Nielsen Media Research. O’Reilly’s teasing came when Stewart appeared on his show earlier this month. “You know what’s really frightening?” O’Reilly said. “You actually have an influence on this presidential election. That is scary, but it’s true. You’ve got stoned slackers watching your dopey show every night and they can vote.” Comedy Central executives realized, and O’Reilly acknowledged, that he was poking fun. But they said they didn’t want a misconception to persist. “If the head of General Motors was watching O’Reilly’s show, that could be very important to us,” said Doug Herzog, Comedy Central president. “If you listen to O’Reilly, you get the sense that it was crazy longhairs behind the show,” he said. “And it’s not. It’s great, smart television that attracts a well-compensated audience, most of whom are voting age.” No sense of humor at Comedy Central? Relax, said Fox News Channel spokesman Rob Zimmerman. ‘Who is more undecided than stoned slackers? Ice cream or pretzels? Ice cream or pretzels? What’s it going to be?’ — Jon Stewart ‘Daily Show’ host “Comedy Central must have lost their sense of humor,” Zimmerman said. “Without Jon Stewart, Comedy Central would turn into the Great American Country Channel.” Comedy Central also touted a recent study by the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey, which said young viewers of “The Daily Show” were more likely to answer questions about politics correctly than those who don’t. Comedy Central had no statistics on how many people watch “The Daily Show” stoned. Although seemingly taken aback by repeated “stoned slackers” references while talking with O’Reilly, Stewart was ready with a joke. “This election is going to rely on the undecided,” he said. “And who is more undecided than stoned slackers? Ice cream or pretzels? Ice cream or pretzels? What’s it going to be?” Whether it’s the slacker or no-slacker zone, O’Reilly is entering it Oct. 7, when he’s scheduled to appear on “The Daily Show.” So if Stewart’s audience is comprised of stoned slackers, how would Herzog describe O’Reilly’s audience? “I’m not getting into that game,” he said.
Yep. Part of it is not letting ultra wealthy right wingers subvert the Constitution by filling the heads of those who lack critical thinking abilities with only one sided right wing propaganda-- hence the "Fairness Doctrine". Free speech implies the right to not have media monopolies dominate all the speech , whether these venue are owned by the government as seen in the old Soviet Union or a small wealthy group in society as we see in the current US.
