Liberal Talk-Radio Station Air America Files for Bankruptcy, Will Go Off the Air

I truly don't understand why I'm allowed to think for myself either. Товарищ Stalin should fix this for us.

 

I'm afraid I don't do well on veiled sarcasm or any other implications. Any chance of explaining what you mean?

 

ironically, the closest we have come to 'concentration comps' recently was the 2004 RNC in NYC - when they literally caged in all those protesters. if you want to talk about freedom of speech/1st amendment issues, it was under the bush/cheney administration that we saw the most serious erosions - and those who criticized them for it were labeled unpatriotic america haters, usually by the people who are now talking about stuff like 'concentration camps' and how conservatives are so persecuted.

how did you feel about the couple who were arrested for wearing anti-bush t-shirts?

 

Great post.

+1 rep.

 

Because of this little thing called free speech. News reporters have the right under the First Amendment to interpret the news any way they feel free - they are not obliged by the public to be "objective", whatever that means, as no piece of information can have no bias at all. Furthermore, whom decides what is objective and bias-free? The government, which means we have the government running around in the press, deciding what is objective and free of bias, something which is obviously a very bad idea.

 

turn the farking channel if you don't like what you are seeing/hearing.

 

I'm afraid I'm in no way, shape or form, qualified to answer any of this, but I'll just give my 2 cents.

I think a good example to look at is the BBC. You get your government run TV station which is one of the most well respected and oldest broadcasting stations in the world. And in fact, it has been criticised for being both left and right wing, which should say something about the actual bias of the BBC. Whose to say that the USA can't establish, or at least try and regulate their TV industry so that they actually report the news, rather than their opinions.

I'll give one rather extreme example, just to illustrate the point. There was that video of a Fox news anchor showing Barack Obama giving his wife a fist bump. The anchor says, 'blah blah blah....a terrorists fist jab?' when listing what she thinks the fist bump could imply. Now to me, that's not news. That's the station's opinion that's being broadcasted as news. To me, news is simple a report on events or facts that have occured in the recent day(s), and news stations have a duty to the public to do so (although making money is obviously a concern, so should delivering the news in a fair and objective way. Citizens too have the right to debate matters with correct and accurate facts, not opinions blared through the TV screen).

 

I was being serious, I really didn't understand what your first post meant. Please could you explain it?

Please?

 

I don't think it has to do with free speech. But it has to do with standards of journalism.

Also please show me how the government decides what's objective and bias-free. I haven't seen any legislation that puts that power in the government's hands.

 

What, pray tell, is the difference between a news report and new commentary? (Do you like how I worked religion into the question?)

 

LOL's....hmmkay...

 

I'm fairly liberal, but I've never listened to Air America.

I guess they dont act as fearmongers like conservative radio hosts in order to keep listeners. But, I've never listened to them before, so what do I know.

 

Stupid? Stupid because your opinion is that those mentioned are somehow more righteous.

You can opine that Olbermann, et al are not shills that spin (albeit in a way you agree with), but you'd be wrong.

They are entertainers. They make their large paychecks off of spinning topics and saying things to make people watch and/or listen.

If you think that Olbermann says nothing but truth and O'Reilly nothing but lies, then there just is not much point talking to you about it. You are being unrealistic.

 

If liberals did not tune into Matthews or Olbermann, they would not be on the air anymore. Your premise is a tad flawed, sir.

 

It is a shame how little Americans know of their own history. America (shamefully) has come much closer to "concentration camps". Ask the Japanese.

 

You seem to be saying (and I readily admit that I may be reading meaning into your post that you do not mean) that Matthews/Olbermann are equal in importance to Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly because M/O are on air like L/H/O.

Would you agree that L/H/O reach more ears/eyes than M/O/RM (I include Rachel Maddow, feel free to substitute the liberal of your choice)?

 

I agree with you that it's ok to lie if you have few listeners, because it will have little impact on the country overall.

 

While more people may watch/listen to L/H/O, my premise is the same. It was stated that liberals have nobody like them because liberals can think for themselves. If that were the case, M/O/RM would not be on the air because there would not be demand for their show and there would be no ratings.

The fact that those programs are on and have been for quite some time is evidence that liberals do watch those programs, at least to enough of an extent to make them profitable.

 

You forget that conservatives are inherently bad and stupid people.

 

And what does "standard of journalism" mean? You and bran are talking on how news should be "objective" and "bias-free" but that's impossible. A high school history class can teach you that every single piece of information in this world has biases in one way or another, and even the most innocuous of new reports can have biases.
And furthermore, whom would determine whether a news reports is biased or not? Obviously it would be the government, and since all news reports inherently have some form of bias, it would be up to the discretion of the government to decide which news reports are good or not, which is obviously a very, very bad idea and is blatantly against the First Amendment. This is what happened under the Fairness Doctrine, as previous administrations under the Fairness Doctrine, whether Democrat or Republican, abused the Doctrine to no end in order to muzzle their critics.

Furthermore, one has to analyze why the Fairness Doctrine was implemented in the first place. It was largely created out of a lack of information, due to the limited nature of radio programs in the 1930s and was hoped to objectify news purely because there were so few sources. Needless to say, there is not a lack of news sources by any definition today, and so the reason to implement the Fairness Doctrine obviously no longer exists.

Note exactly what you said. To me that's not news. But to some other person, it could very well be an important source of news, and it obviously is, given that Fox is a successful station. And Fox in that instance reported events or facts, ala Obama had a fist bump with his wife. Perhaps the interpretation of it as a terrorist fist bump is wrong (and I think it is) but Fox has every right to argue such a thing under the First Amendment, and just because you think that it is not news does not mean really anything unless you can manage to convinced Fox otherwise.