Talk Radio to pay for NPR, PBS

[bomelia]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88113

I find it difficult to believe there are true communists in our government... but they are there.

And I am REALLY hoping that someone in here can give a real defense of this.

Mike

[wtm442]

Originally Posted by bomelia

And I am REALLY hoping that someone in here can give a real defense of this.

Mike

Mike
The libs bring up the Fairness Doctrine because talk radio is 95% conservative (ie-Republican). Liberal talk radio has been tried and it falls flat on its face, losing money by the boatload (remember Air America). That one fact scares the $hit out of ultra-liberals because they secretly wonder if they are on the "correct" side of the political agenda. Is the government going to force radio stations to include personalities on their stations that the owners know will lose money because advertisers stay away from the left leaning kooks.

Whenever a liberal brings up the Fairness doctrine, just tell them OK, you can have 10 liberal commentators spread out over the airwaves, but we want 10,000 conservative reporters spread out over all of the corrupt liberal reporters on national and local newspapers and magazines.

Guess what their reply will be? It will be just like Caroline Kennedy.

Ah, ummm, like what if , um we, youknow, developed a universal policy that ummm, would like help all the children in under-um developed ... what was the question?

[427 S/O]

Mike, there is no legitimate defense.

Quote: Despite the heated rhetoric in the conservative press, progressives should remember that a new Fairness Doctrine would cut both ways. For every complaint about some noxious shock jock's rant, there's sure to be a coordinated attack on "liberal advocacy journalism."

In the words of the Supreme Court's 1945 Associated Press decision -- "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public."

[cobra de capell]

Does anybody ever stop to think that, a key reason that talk radio leans conservative because people are listening to them, and they have higher ratings than the Air America type liberal talk radio??????

Whenever conservatives complain about trash or explicit content on cable TV, they are told that, #1, these shows get good ratings, it’s what the public wants to see, and that’s why those shows are on TV, and #2, if you don’t like it, turn off the TV and change the channel.

Well, why doesn’t the same logic apply to talk radio? If people want to listen to Rush Limbaugh, and he has high arbitron ratings, isn’t that just like the trashy reality shows that get ratings on cable TV? And, shouldn’t these good liberals simply change their radio dial to some other programming if they don’t like it??????

[VRM]

First off - WND is the right-wing loony version of left-wing loonies Move On.

The founder, CEO, and main loony is anti-American.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=86469
He actually wants people to pray for Obama to fail!

And no - the Fairness Doctrine should not pass.

[bomelia]

Who cares if WND is loonie? Why bother attacking a source? Especially if the story shows up on other sites & papers? It is not an editorial... I will never understand the tactic of attacking the source as ones debating technique.

Google stabenow fairness doctrine and you will get 14,300 hits.

And yes, this is something to take notice of.

The only real loonie here is Sen Stabenow

Mike

[392cobra]

Originally Posted by VRM

He actually wants people to pray for Obama to fail!

And no - the Fairness Doctrine should not pass.

SO ???

Why would you want Obama to succeed when you disagree with what he wants to succeed at getting done ??

I too hopes he fails miserable. I don't want what he is selling. I believe he is bad for America and he will be remembered like Carter is.

[VRM]

Mike,
If I posted something with Move On as a source I would (quite rightly IMHO) get blasted by the righties on this forum. I don't know if you would be one of them, but that still does not make the source a good one. WND is nothing more than a right wing rant blog in the guise of a news source. Their fact checking is lousy, and I have seen a number of their 'articles' torn to shreds by someone who actually gets all the facts before jumping to conclusions about how evil the boogyman-of-the-week is.
You have 14300 potential sources - please find one that actually has some credibility.

Fred,
The Presidents job is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Right wing crystal balls have proven horribly defective in the last 8 years so you may want to hold off judgment until he actually fails something of note.

[SP01715]

Originally Posted by bomelia

Why bother attacking a source?

Because that is what liberals do. Their arguments are flawed, so they attack people on the other side instead.

[427 S/O]

Quote: Their arguments are flawed.

Nuff said.........

[bomelia]

Originally Posted by VRM

Mike,
If I posted something with Move On as a source I would (quite rightly IMHO) get blasted by the righties on this forum. I.

Are you saying that there is no basis in truth here?

[VRM]

Originally Posted by bomelia

Are you saying that there is no basis in truth here?

Not at all. There is some current Congressional support for it, and I personally am against it. However, the truth is that the bill has been languishing in committee since 2005, and nothing new favouring this has been introduced since then.

WND tends to exaggerate, omit facts, and misconstrue, so using them as a single source is usually not a good idea. In this case they are simply trying to keep the base all riled up with a red herring, even though there is nothing on the horizon at this time regarding this (and Congress is a bit busy). Congress needs to be watched at all times, but there is no point in crying over milk that has not even been poured into the glass yet.

Oh, and http://thomas.loc.gov/ and http://www.govtrack.us/ might be a better way for you to keep track of this stuff.

Steve

[bomelia]

Originally Posted by 392cobra

SO ???

Why would you want Obama to succeed when you disagree with what he wants to succeed at getting done ??

I too hopes he fails miserable. I don't want what he is selling. I believe he is bad for America and he will be remembered like Carter is.

I SERIOUSLY want Obama to fail.