If the liberals gave up a little more TV realestate (new & other media), the conservatives would probably end up giving up Radio realestate.

Its the imbalance in TV that plays a large part in the imbalance in Radio. Its a Zen thing.

Just tell them they can have "Fairness Doctrine II" as long as they give up PBS.

And half of the "alternative" papers.

And fire 40% of the reporters in TV and "mainstream" papers, replacing them with Republicans.

Let's see... Right wing talk radio or hip-hop music. That's a really tough choice... One consists of thumping and yelling and a torrent of vile language, and the other is black music. :)

Paul Hamilton,

You misspelled "Left wing."

Shutting down the talk shows is one way for them to try to climb higher than 14% approval (where the Democratic Congress is at).

They are now trying to use totalitarian tactics. It's pure desperation, and we need to be on guard, as they know they need to cheat to win in 08'.

I am surprised the liberals would like greater air time for voicing their own agenda because 1) it would mean they'd have to come up with one of their own, and..... Oops, I guess that about covers it. I thought it was a pretty cushy existence for them just to sit on the sidelines and critcize the Republicans. But, hey, if they want to get back in the game after AirAmerica then more power to them. You know, I love golf but pretty much suck at it so the handicap system helps me out against the more stronger and talented folks I usually play with. Kind of the help the libs will need getting back into this talk radio thing.

This is coming up now because radio played a part in killing the Amnesty Bill. And it wasn't just Rush. The "conservative radio talk show host who shall not be named" played a big part.

Rush has been a figure for a long time. The Left has felt they have trivialized him by ridicule and vilification. For the "conservative radio talk show host who shall not be named" they want to silence him without indirectly giving him additional publicity. He is over the top. But so is MoveOn.org and they've been effective in moving the political scene.

Paul says that liberals are calling for the government to "step in and take Conservative talk show hosts off the air and replace them with liberal talk show hosts" but that assertion isn't supported by anything in the article he's linked,as far as I can tell.

Maybe I missed that part when I read the article he linked to -- can anyone else find it?

You know, I love golf but pretty much suck at it so the handicap system helps me out against the more stronger and talented folks I usually play with.

Which is why you, like me, play for fun, don't expect to make money at it and know no one would pay to watch us play.

Now, if the leftists could understand that. They may enjoy doing radio (not so sure about that, they sound miserable) but suck at it, they shouldn't expect to make much money because no one really wants to pay to listen to them.

Maybe I missed that part when I read the article he linked to -- can anyone else find it?

Posted by: Lee Ward at June 21, 2007 02:33 PM

Okay, you've had your fun. Now listen, your Mommy is calling, so go back and play in your sandbox.

This has been argued for some time now and the funny thing is whenever you say to a leftist: "I have no problem with applying the fairness doctrine to talk radio, as long as we apply it equally to the broadcast network news..." (A sentiment I wholehartedly agree with btw)

They say: "But there is no bias in network news so there is no need to apply the fairness doctrine to that."

So the real question is are the lefitsts just liars or are they mentally deficient?

So the real question is are the lefitsts just liars or are they mentally deficient?

Ummmm, both. Mentally deficient liars.

>but that assertion isn't supported by anything in the article he's linked,as far as I can tell.

Lee, try here.

"thumping and yelling and a torrent of vile language"

It is true that these things are heard on right-wing talk radio. But that's because the hosts interview leftists and take calls from leftists.

Had Paul ever actually listened to right-wing talk radio he would realize its his comrades who are doing all the yelling and spewing the torrents of vile language.

Of course, Paul probably considers anything that contradicts the leftists dogma to be "vile language".

First, to answer P Bunyan - they're bold-faced liars. They arent about "fairness". They know the Fairness Doctrine will end conservative talk radio, because no radio station will take the chance of being judged "unfair" and have their license yanked.
Second - the Fairness Doctrine will be the death of AM radio. Before Rush, the car companies were starting to install FM-only radios. There will be no balance or "fairness" - there will be no talk, and subsequently, AM radio will fade away. This is the actual goal of the Lying Left (DBA Progressives). gc

LOL @ Paul's 2:48 post!

Right on the money!

P Bunyan:

All conservatives are thieves or murderers.

{You say something stupid, I'll reply with something almost as stupid.]

So no one else found a quote in that article that supports Paul's statement either?

Yep, there's nothing there that supports Paul's overblown statement of censorship. That's why he responded with the "Reading is Fundamental" link - one wonders if he's spent enough time there himself.

Lee, refer to the last three para's. You have to use your brain a little and understand what they're arguing, and the effect of the changes they argue for. I know it's hard for you.

Now, get out of your Mommy's lingerie drawer and get back to the Disney channel.

That's odd JFO, I've yet to read a post from you that wasn't stupid.

What exactly are you trying to add to the conversation?

Do you want the fairness doctrine re-instated?

Do you believe it should apply to the broadcast network news?

(This is a test to see if JFO can actually post something that is not stupid.)

So no one else found a quote in that article that supports Paul's statement either?

Posted by: Lee Ward at June 21, 2007 03:06 PM

You're out of your sandbox again. You need to get back over to Wizbang Blues, you're running behind on the typical 1.5 comments average for each of the 20 posts on the frontpage. Paul Hamilton is waiting on your response to his response to your response to anothe Wizbang Blues contributor.

Hey Lee, perhaps if you read the title of the article you might have an idea.

It never ceases to amaze me, lefty nitwits like Lee will sit there and act all obtuse when it suits them and yet, they will whine that Bush implied that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 even though they can't find a quote to prove that.

They're all about penumbras and emanations when it fits their, braindead, agenda, but when it proves them to be braindead totalitarians? Nope, not there, can't see it.

Since I answered your question Lee, perhaps you could answer one for me.

When you stick your fingers in your ears to ignore facts you don't like, do you say, "LALALALALALALALALA" or "Ican'thearyouIcan'thearyouIcan'thearyou"?

P. Bunyan, my very first "blog" on the internet -- and this was way before the term was even coined -- was an assignment on a right wing chat board where I watched the Rush Limbaugh tv show (remember that?) every day and posted comments about it so all the folks on there would have somebody to yell at.

So yeah, I've listened to that drivel before. I don't like it and I don't pay any attention unless there's some pressing need, but I know how it works.

From the 'American Progress' piece:
Ultimately, these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more choices for listeners, and more owners who are responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest.

If the problem is a lack of racial/ethnic and gender diversity of ownership as the piece claims, why did the 'Liberal' talk show "Air America" fail ? The founders were certainly 'Liberal'. It had a HUGE amount of media hype surrounding it. It was broadcast in the some of the largest markets.... but the authors of the piece think that maybe if the owners were of a different race/ethnicity and/or gender then it would have succeeded ? How utterly absurd.

How do wardie and paulie h. have time to be here? They are just "covered" up with comments over at bluie. snicker snort

Lee, you're supposed to read between the lines and assume that this:

Ultimately, these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more choices for listeners, and more owners who are responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest.

is tantamount to the title of this post:

Liberals Call for Censorship of Conservative Talk Shows

Which is a pretty big stretch but it's good enough to get the blood boiling over here at Wizbang.

The radio business has undergone so much consolidation that it's pretty much ruined anyway. If I'm not mistaken listenership continues to fall. Who needs talk radio now that we have the Internet? It's much more interesting and you get a lot more diverging viewpoints. People only listen to talk radio when they're trapped in their cars commuting. With satellite radio and other options coming online that will accelerate the decline of talk radio.

So, as a progressive, I wouldn't put amending the constitution so we can censor Rush at the top of my list. It didn't prevent us from getting control of Congress. Rush is harmless; I actually find him entertaining.

I just commented at Wizbang Blue.
In the story about how giving the Pentagon carte blanche is bad, I noted that the gay bomb story was from 1994. It seems that their reading comprehension is worse than I thought and not just some purposeful obtusity.

I guess Lee can't see that while the article doesn't specifically say "sensorship", by recommending that the government control who owns radio stations (like they would in a socialist/communist/leftist country) they are implying that the govenment should act to control what is broadcast which is definitely a form of censorship (and communism).

And Paul Hamilton, I don't listen to Rush, but I do listen to Bill Bennett (my favorite), Laura Ingram, Bill O'Reily, Mike Ghalleger, and Sean Hannity and 97% of the "yelling and vile language" comes from the leftist guests and callers.

I don't listen to leftist radio, but I'm curious, do they air right-thinging callers or interview right thinking guests as the right-wing radio shows do?

Veeshir:

You note the title of the post which is "The Right Wing Domination Of Talk Radio And How To End It". I got to agree with Lee. The article may talk about ending the domination of The Right, but it doesn't advocate doing it by censoring anyone. I does make the point that 5 owners own 257 stations and control the content they provide their listeners. Concentration of media ownership should worry everyone, left or right.

It will be interesting to see what happens to coverage of Michael Bloomberg by the news service he owns. Oh, that's right, no need to worry about Bloomberg news' coverage of Hiz Honor, he's not running for president (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

"Hey Lee, perhaps if you read the title of the article you might have an idea."

I read it, and there wasn't anything there to suggest that anyone was trying to get conservative talk shows hosts "censored".

"Lee, refer to the last three para's. You have to use your brain a little and understand what they're arguing, and the effect of the changes they argue for. I know it's hard for you."

You are talking about the news article Paul linked to, right? Here are the last three paragraphs:

Two common myths are frequently offered to explain the imbalance of talk radio: 1) the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine (which required broadcasters to devote airtime to contrasting views), and 2) simple consumer demand. Each of these fails to adequately explain the root cause of the problem. The report explains:

Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management. [...]

Ultimately, these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more choices for listeners, and more owners who are responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest.

Along with other ideas, the report recommends that national radio ownership not be allowed to exceed 5 percent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations, and local ownership should not exceed more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations in a given market.

Nothing there says anything about taking anyone off the air.

Now that we have the relevant section of the article (according to Mitchell) can anyone point out how this supports Pauls post that "liberals have decided that freedom of speech is overrated and that the government should step in and take Conservative talk show hosts off the air and replace them with liberal talk show hosts." ???

Thank you, Rance. There aren't many left around here who are willing to speak up when they disagree with the mob - I appreciate it.

I'm against gov't censorship (of topics), but the media conglomerates monopolizing the public airwaves with their "synergy" should be busted up.

Ingraham and Boortz on the right seem to retain some dignity by not fluffing Product. Of course, they're rabidly pro-war (but, hey!). Pro-war equals Conservative in Bizarro World.

But the FOX radio shows: (I kinda like Gibson, and Brian and The Judge, but) MY GAWD! Always harping on firing this person, that person, fainting over this, farting about that. And it's almost always for a queer politically correct reason made up on the fly. (Inverse BDS; no Bush, no foul!)

Dixie Chicks, Rosie, Imus. (Of course, Rev. Al Sharpton is asked for expert commentary. Tawana Brawley references are strictly off limits. Risk-averse white men hosting; safety first!)

"conservative" media tries to rile the peasantry for the same ends as you mention here, all the time. Just in a more flaccid and dweebish manner. As if they have Groung-Up pull. Another conceit of media inbreeding.

So, as a progressive, I wouldn't put amending the....

Ha! I love how the liberals can't even call themselves liberals anymore. Yet conservatives still relish their name.

Love it, love it, love it. Tells you all you need to know.

It doesn't say to censor anybody? That's funny. They are trying to get the gov't to fix the imbalance, but no censorship.

My comment about penumbras and emanations stands.

And for the record, I probably mostly agree with Lee on talk radio, I don't listen to it and I don't really like it. Neil Boortz is okay, but Hannity and Rush bother me like nothing. Rush because he only seems to preach to the choir, Hannity because he's a nitwit and possibly the only person on TV who can make Alan Colmes look intelligent.

And one comment from Neil Boortz (whose website I read but whose radio show I've only heard (part of) once)
Talk radio is conservative because that's what the listeners want. Don't give me this "corporate ownership" nonsense. WSB radio in Atlanta, my flagship station, is owned by Cox Radio, Inc. Cox Radio, in turn, is owned by Cox Enterprises which, in turned, is majority owned by people who have been stalwart Democrats since day one. In fact, Cox Enterprises was formed by James Cox, the Democrat candidate for president in the 1920 presidential election. (Defeated by Warren G. Harding) Interestingly enough, Cox's running mate was someone named Franklin D. Roosevelt. Does Cox Radio put me on their talk radio stations because I reflect the political ideology of the principals? Hardly. It's because I get ratings! And that means I make money for them. They've tried liberal hosts .... and they don't get ratings and they don't make money for the company. Simple as that.

Like the grown adults who are too embarrassed to admit they read comic book so the call them "graphical novels."

They're graphic novels, American Idol boy, not graphical. And people who read them aren't at all embarrassed to say they read comic books; they just know the difference between the two. Anyway, tell it to Art Spiegelman.