Bill Clinton Supports Return Of Fairness Doctrine

[miles]

Yes. In the same way vehicle registration applies to Hot Wheels.

Drixxx, you're a dim bulb.

 

[Drixxx]

Well, I do not disagree with the Fairness Doctrine because of conservative programming. I am disagreeing with it because I think there should be a choice on what listeners want to listen to and programmers choosing what they want to broadcast. I think the ratings will see who wins or loses.

Since when should ratings determine what's good? Would like to have every meal at McDonald's because they are the most popular?

Why should you let some programmer decide what you hear on your airwaves? Have you listened to the radio lately? Endless Hot 101's & JackFM's playing the same 12 songs over and over. Or AM Talk where you hear the same 10 personalities over and over.

Radio is crap. Mostly commercials and the same shit endlessly. You people act like we're getting something of value here that must be preserved at all costs.

 

[Drixxx]

Drixxx, you're a dim bulb.

Shut the fuck up, Miles.

 

[Ham Murabi]

LOS ANGELES -- February 13, 2009: Former President Bill Clinton told Mario Solis Marich on Clear Channel's Talk KTLK/Los Angeles that he'd like to see the Fairness Doctrine return, "or we ought to have more balance on the other side."

Michael Calderone reports on Politico.com that Clinton said there is "a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows." Clinton also conceded that Rush Limbaugh is "fairly entertaining even when he is saying things that I think are ridiculous" and said he didn't support the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine back in 1987.

Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) are on record as supporting the return of the Fairness Doctrine, with Stabenow saying she thinks hearings on the topic of "accountability" are likely. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has also said she'd like to see the doctrine back in place. No legislation to bring it back has been introduced, however.

http://www.radioink.com/Article.asp?id=1163521&spid=24698



Dems will be bringin' back the good old days.

Bill Clinton, the Whitewater capitalist, surely understands that the big money that supports Rush Limbaugh comes from advertisers. They like radio shows with loyal listeners.

 

[Wok]

Since when should ratings determine what's good? Would like to have every meal at McDonald's because they are the most popular?

Why should you let some programmer decide what you hear on your airwaves? Have you listened to the radio lately? Endless Hot 101's & JackFM's playing the same 12 songs over and over. Or AM Talk where you hear the same 10 personalities over and over.

Radio is crap. Mostly commercials and the same shit endlessly. You people act like we're getting something of value here that must be preserved at all costs.

Ah, but I can choose not to eat at McDonald's or hear certain crap on the radio. And why should I not let what somebody wants to put on the air? I am not their daddy.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Drixxx]

The Fairness Doctrine was dumped during Reagan's presidency after a federal court ruled that Congress had not mandated the doctrine and that it was up to the FCC to decide, it did, by finding the Doctrine could have a "chilling effect" on free speech. Don't be a dummy.

Vetteman, don't you think you have a right to speak YOUR mind, in YOUR community, which YOU pay taxes, on the airwaves YOU own?

 

[Drixxx]

Ah, but I can choose not to eat at McDonald's or hear certain crap on the radio. And why should I not let what somebody wants to put on the air? I am not their daddy.

You don't get it. The public airwaves belong to you. If want want to hear nothing but commercial free classical you can have that. The airwaves belong to the public, not radio corporations.

When you let the corporations decide you are letting them be your daddy.

 

[Ham Murabi]

Vetteman, don't you think you have a right to speak YOUR mind, in YOUR community, which YOU pay taxes, on the airwaves YOU own?

Tell you what, Drizzz, why don't you start your own radio station. Pick any frequency, since you "own" it, and I think you'll find broadcasters on the air have paid for what they use. You'll figure it out when an investigator from the FCC shows up.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Drixxx]

You guys can't seem to wrap your brains around the concept of the public airwaves as something you own as a public resource. Donald Trump cannot build a casino in the middle of Yellowstone no matter how much he whines about the free market. Hooters cannot open a jiggle joint in the middle of the Smithsonian then cry about their free speech rights are being violated. Why? Because the public owns them and we decides how it will be used.

 

[Wok]

You don't get it. The public airwaves belong to you. If want want to hear nothing but commercial free classical you can have that. The airwaves belong to the public, not radio corporations.

When you let the corporations decide you are letting them be your daddy.

I disagree because I like to have a choice on what I listen to. If a corporation wants to broadcast something, fine. As a person in the public, I should have a right to choose to tune in or tune out certain broadcasts.

I am all for free speech and freedom of choice. If there is the fringe screaming a point of view, great. I think the ratings and sponsors will decide who wins or loses.

 

[Drixxx]

I do, I support radio personalities by listening to their shows. I don't believe my rights require a radio station to give away half of it's airtime for free. Could your industry survive by devoting half of it's time to unprofitable activity?

Vetteman. You own the airwaves. The radio station is operating on YOUR dime. Why is that such a hard concept to understand.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Drixxx]

I disagree because I like to have a choice on what I listen to. If a corporation wants to broadcast something, fine. As a person in the public, I should have a right to choose to tune in or tune out certain broadcasts.

I am all for free speech and freedom of choice. If there is the fringe screaming a point of view, great. I think the ratings and sponsors will decide who wins or loses.

Do you understand the concept of public ownership? It's like the public park. The local community decides what's best for your local community. Not Home Depot or Walmart.

 

[Drixxx]

Drixxx, don't be a fool. They are paying big time for the use of that airwave. That's what you don't understand, and now you want them to pay for something they can't sustain with their business activity. Keeerist!

Vetteman. Broadcast licenses are virtually free. Do you really think radio stations are paying market value for the frequencies they sit on. Never mind the TV frequencies. It's a give away to corporations. Do you know what networks charge for a minute during Superbowl? Do you what our cut is for using our airwaves? Zip. Zero. Zilch.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Send money for what? Why does radio need sponsors?

Why does radio need sponsors?

Well, there's electricity for one, perhaps a microphone would be nice. A guy or gal to push those cryptic knobs and slides on the board; OH! The guy who says stuff and the chubby but cute girl who screens the calls. Hmmmm.... and there's the FCC license fee that has to be paid to the Democrats' president, plus federal, state, county, and local taxes, health care benefits for the employees. Unless there are sponsors, the only people who will be paying the bills will be the Democrats' president's so-called government. They will call the shots and only conforming opinions will be heard. That's why radio needs sponsors.

 

[Wok]

Do you understand the concept of public ownership? It's like the public park. The local community decides what's best for your local community. Not Home Depot or Walmart.

But does the public own the radio station, pay the salaries of the host, etc.? Maybe that is the point. Maybe the government should pay for it all and we can all live in paradise.

 

[akatrex]

Typical lie from you miles. You are nothing if not completely predictable.

If anything the Fairness Doctrine would ensure that more voices are heard, not less. There isn't a single provision that would remove any radio personality from the air. Not one. El Rushbo "Oxycontin" Limbaugh would still be spewing his typical half truths. Michael "Savage" Weiner would still be waving his gay bashing flag. The stations would just have to allow a rebuttal to their arguments, not even equal time is required if I remember correctly.

Why is it that the "right" wants to keep all voices of opposition quiet?

We saw it throughout the Bush administration, any dissenting person was labeled unpatriotic, a traitor, or worse.

Let them get their own Radio Stations. They already dominate the TV and Cable Networks.

Oh thats right they had Air America.

What a FUCKING SUCESS STORY that WAS.

Hey Alan Colmes is available. http://www.alan.com/

Add acouple of more like Colmes and COMPETE for the ear of the people.

 

[Drixxx]

Why does radio need sponsors?

Well, there's electricity for one, perhaps a microphone would be nice. A guy or gal to push those cryptic knobs and slides on the board; OH! The guy who says stuff and the chubby but cute girl who screens the calls. Hmmmm.... and there's the FCC license fee that has to be paid to the Democrats' president, plus federal, state, county, and local taxes, health care benefits for the employees. Unless there are sponsors, the only people who will be paying the bills will be the Democrats' president's so-called government. They will call the shots and only conforming opinions will be heard. That's why radio needs sponsors.

I listen to commercial free broadcast radio all day long. Classical, jazz, news, talk, etc. You can too. Check them out. They're on the left side of your FM dial.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Drixxx]

But does the public own the radio station, pay the salaries of the host, etc.? Maybe that is the point. Maybe the government should pay for it all and we can all live in paradise.

Fuck that! If some radio station wants to pay Rush millions of dollars let them foot the the bill. What makes you think the public should be responsble for paying radio stations bills? They are using our airwaves, fuck'em. If they can't figure out a way to make a profit somebody else will.

 

[Drixxx]

Bullshit! They pay 1.615% of their yearly gross income over 150K in fees, and they pay a corporate tax on their profits.

So what? On public airwaves we own. We can charge whatever the fuck we want because we own them.

 

[Wok]

Fuck that! If some radio station wants to pay Rush millions of dollars let them foot the the bill. What makes you think the public should be responsble for paying radio stations bills? They are using our airwaves, fuck'em. If they can't figure out a way to make a profit somebody else will.

The public should not be responsible. I agree. I do not care if it is Rush, Maddow, Boortz or whatever.

 

[Drixxx]

Tell you what, Drizzz, why don't you start your own radio station. Pick any frequency, since you "own" it, and I think you'll find broadcasters on the air have paid for what they use. You'll figure it out when an investigator from the FCC shows up.

Dumbass. This is not a discussion of pirate radio. It's about public policy concerning public airwaves.