So I guess he should be calling himself stupid, LOL. — David H

Probably. But I wouldn’t hold my breath on he/she/it realizing it in the near future…..

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Obviously, there is a big appetite for this kind of political discourse (with phone ins) in this country.

So I’d say that the people who (in your words) “own the airwaves” have already spoken on the topic of nationally syndicated “talk radio”. By tuning in and listening in numbers that have made those shows very attractive to advertisers.

Nothing has stopped the other side of the political spectrum from being successful over the airwaves…nothing except themselves, the lack of an audience and, subsequently, the lack of advertisers.

I’d say the movement afoot among many Congresscritters at the moment to revive the (anti) Fairness Doctrine is because Harry Reid couldn’t stand the months’ long ridicule he (very rightly) deserved and Nancy Pelosi can’t stand to have it pointed out that she’s not very astute. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico strikes me as a shallow fool. Chuck Schumer ? eeks. However, I’d like to point out to those folks that we, the (rest of the) people have every single right in the universe to use the airwaves to point out the shortcomings, prejudices and personal limitations of our, uh, elected leaders.

It’s not the talk show hosts you mention who started the FD talk this go round. There’s quite a recent history of Congresscriters (most notably, Pelosi) pushing for its resurrection. Is it a coincidence that some of the biggest supporters of the (anti) Fairness Doctrine in Congress have been some of the biggest targets of “conservative” talk radio ?

You seem quite focused on the notion of “hate speech” and that (somebody, somewhere) ought to be regulating and controlling it. There are restrictions on using the airwaves for profane and vulgar attacks already, correct ? Much of the movement to notions of “hate crimes” and “hate speech” seems an offshoot of political correctness…”hey, you can say this but you can’t say that.”

However, I always wonder who, exactly, should be the definer and arbiter of what constitutes “hate speech” in a country based around a principle of free speech.

Some yahoo or yahoos at the FCC ? Pelosi ? (she’d like that…)

For the record, you drive through the Southwest these days and it’s tough to find a station that isn’t in Spanish ! LA is positively saturated with Vietnamese radio stations. Sheesh, so damn much “localism”, I’m choking to hear something in the lingua franca of America, English ! Anyway, I detect no freaking lack of “localism” over the nation’s airwaves at present, so, I will continue to argue that’s it’s the end around that it is to further control radio that “the Left” doesn’t like.

I’m not going to insult your intelligence. It’s obvious to me you have a grasp on telecommunication policy.

The localism principle has been central to the regulation of other communications policies such as cable television, Direct Broadcast Satellite, Microwave Multipoint Distribution Service and Personal Communication Service. None of these telecoms were ever affected by the Fairness Doctrine. And the definition of localism is still as much up in the air today as it was back in the 1920s.

Local radio commercials are not the same thing as local radio programming, or programming design to discuss local issues. I think its great your radio market has local programming. A lot of smaller markets don’t, or if they do, they either hide them on Sunday mornings, or put the bulk of the local public service programming in maybe one station out of six in the radio group. But all stations are required by the FCC to have in their public file examples of how they addressed local issues with appropriate programming. In practice radio companies own the stations but we supposedly own the airwaves.

The main gripe by many liberal and progressives is talk radio only provides one side of certain issues. And it’s not necessarily the right (as in correct or factual)side. Not to mention some of the mouthpieces command vast audiences.

If the people supposedly own the airwaves, don’t they have a right to hear something that doesn’t have a one-sided agenda or something that at times borders on hate speech?

And why is it every time we have a Democratic administration, the Limbaughs, the O’Reilly’s and the Steve Gills bring up the bogeyman of the Fairness Doctrine?

Don’t worry about the Fairness Doctrine. Ain’t gonna happen. And even if it did, Rush Limbaugh would not be affected since he’s an “entertainer,” not a journalist or news commentator. Same thing goes for a lot of the rest of them.

(ok, so I know what’s going on this weekend in the area, already, call me saturated with localism)

Enacting/enforcing “localism” standards would be a backdoor way of attempting to get (anti) Fairness Doctrine restrictions in place without re-enacting the (anti) Fairness Doctrine, per se….Can you imagine the nationally syndicated show(s) having to instill some FCC version of “balance” & tell what’s going on in their own region to a national audience ?

Who are the yahoos at the FCC to define “balance” in the first place ? Just folks with agendas who (might) even pretend to objectivity, like everyone else associated with government bureaucracy in these times.

Bottom line is that every attempt by “the Left” to compete in the marketplace of ideas on talk radio (most notably, Air America and yellers and screamers like Randi Rhodes and Al Franken) have fallen flat on their faces and not been profitable. I guess Alan Colmes, at night, is hanging in there with his show.

Overall, however, the Left is PO’ed and considers its failure to successfully compete something that, of course, should be remedied by the regulation of an all encompassing Jabba the Hutt Left dominated government.

And that, Pat, is not only a bad thing for the future of intelligent life on the planet, it’s a very bad thing for the future of our (still barely in tact) Republic.

But there are end arounds to an alleged lack of Obama support (besides which, he switched sides on many topics during the campaign, this lack of support for FD is almost meaningless).

End arounds like FCC requirements for “localism” in licensed broadcast stations, meaning that the stations have to devote X amount of time serving the “local community”, promoting topics of strictly “local” interest. This would be a way to deliver a side blow to nationally syndicated talk radio shows.

And so on.

No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.

~Mark Twain (1866)

Awhile back, I read that that cute little former heavy metal rocker guy who was raised in Southern California, Adam Gadahn, has been informing the big cheeze whizzes in Waziristan (Osama, assuming still extant, and Ayman al Z, the not so magnificent) as to aspects of American culture & politics that they could incorporate into their diatribes.

Pretty funny (assuming Gadahn is still alive, he “took” a wife over there and had at least one child) if the (not so) great doctor Al Z is getting speech tips from Adam G.

The author satirically overexaggerates that possibly reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would allow Zawahri equal access. Won’t happen. Zawahri on the airwaves, not that any sensible broadcaster would give him access to a microphone, would be considered hate speech. And the author, as a broadcaster and an attorney knows this quite well. I’m all for muzling hate speech. But I don’t think we have to have the Fairness Doctrine to do so. That’s what the off button is for.