Skip to main content

Obama Stands Up to Bush, the FCC, and Big Media.

Sen. Obama locks horns with the FCC and speaks up for diversity in media.


John Eggerton at Broadcasting and Cable has the story.
The fight over the Federal Communications Commission's Dec. 18 media-ownership vote set up a potential battle between the current president and a senator who wants to be the next one.
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) Thursday urged the House to follow the Senate's lead and pass a resolution of disapproval, an unusual legislative maneuver that would invalidate the FCC's decision to allow TV and radio stations and newspapers to be co-owned in the top 20 markets, subject to some conditions.
After the Senate approved the measure, Obama, a co-sponsor of the bill, released a statement saying, "I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to expeditiously pass the legislation."
He framed the vote, as he has before, as standing up to "Washington special interests," a campaign theme. "Our nation's media market must reflect the diverse voices of our population, and it is essential that the FCC promotes the public interest and diversity in ownership," he said.
The FCC decision to consolidate yet more media was opposed by 99% of public comments. As Paul Rosenberg noted in this comments, this might be the single least popular decision by the Bush administration ever. But Obama, as he did with his media and tech plan, took this further, and called for diversity and representation for the public interest in media ownership.
With ownership levels for minorities and women in media in the low single digits, Obama is really saying that it's time to reshape our media system. In discussing Reagan, one of the great conservative media reformers, remember he made the following comment.
"I didn't' say I liked Ronald Reagan's policies," Obama explained. "What I said was that was the kind of working majority we need to form in order to move a progressive agenda forward."
With the Pentagon Pundit scandal coming on the wave of a number of serious breakdowns of the public legitimacy of the press, the public desire for a new media system is strong. The technological capacity to create such a system exists, in fact, media has been dramatically reshaped already through the internet. Broadcast media, though, is still somewhat untouched, but this kind of serious structural argument about the media from the likely President is something that cable and broadcast executives, as well as progressives, should take very seriously.
I've heard quite frequently from political operatives that this race is not Obama versus McCain, but Obama versus the media. And it's clear that without breaking down the structure of the media conglomerates, public discourse will remain as polluted and dishonest as it is now. And so President Obama is telegraphing his intentions to be a media reformer. Now it's up to us to help him get there.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/mediaculture/85608/
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

It took the Republican party years to gain control of the media. They complain about the "liberal media" and have to the extent that the media is actually biased towards Republicans (I just can't find it in my heart to call a party that has pissed away our country, conservatives).

There is a chapter in a book which I read about a year ago and still recommend
"Take it Back" by James Carville and Paul Begala.
http://www.amazon.com/Take-Back-Battle-Democratic-Victo...id=1211244676&sr=8-2
It is a good read . Checked it out at the library.
Part of this is just a smoke screen to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to kill conservative talk radio. The left couldn't compete, so they wish to use government to enforce a ban on content they consider offensive -- how liberal of them!

As to consolidation, MSM is dying on the vine. If there is not some consolidation, there will just be more dead newpapers and eventually even less venue for the news.
quote:
Free speech is not free speech, if only one side of speech can be heard.


The government isn't stopping liberals from starting their own radio programs and networks. They are free to do so. In fact, they did and it failed financially. How is that the government's fault?

Besides, with all of those weird sites you keep spamming, I'd say the left is getting their message out very easily.
quote:
Originally posted by JJPAUL:
The government isn't stopping liberals from starting their own radio programs and networks.

True, Radio and TV will not air them in the south. So that you only hear one side in the south.


If there was an audiance for them then radio and tv would air them. It's all about the $$$'s. If no one is listening you go out of business cause the advetisers will not spend their money on your station.
quote:
True, Radio and TV will not air them in the south. So that you only hear one side in the south.


That's because liberal talk radio can't generate any ratings. Radio stations are a business, they have to make money. Running shows with bad ratings won't keep them in business long.

Besides, with all those weirdo sites you keep posting, how are you not getting both sides? You seem to spend a lot of time reading liberal rhetoric.
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by JJPAUL:
The government isn't stopping liberals from starting their own radio programs and networks.

True, Radio and TV will not air them in the south. So that you only hear one side in the south.


If there was an audiance for them then radio and tv would air them. It's all about the $$$'s. If no one is listening you go out of business cause the advetisers will not spend their money on your station.



How do you know it won't sell? What are your fact on this?
quote:
Originally posted by JJPAUL:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by JJPAUL:
The government isn't stopping liberals from starting their own radio programs and networks.

True, Radio and TV will not air them in the south. So that you only hear one side in the south.


If there was an audiance for them then radio and tv would air them. It's all about the $$$'s. If no one is listening you go out of business cause the advetisers will not spend their money on your station.



How do you know it won't sell? What are your fact on this?


How many times has air america wither gone out of business or been sold after the current owner has run out of money??? It couldn't even make it in NY which is full of libs who think like you...
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
Part of this is just a smoke screen to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to kill conservative talk radio. The left couldn't compete, so they wish to use government to enforce a ban on content they consider offensive -- how liberal of them!

As to consolidation, MSM is dying on the vine. If there is not some consolidation, there will just be more dead newpapers and eventually even less venue for the news.


I would say the internet will be one of the main sources for news in the future, if it isn't already.

More people are rejecting TV and especially print media. Why? Not sure. I think it is just more convenient to access news from the internet.

So, do you think once the MSM big wigs discover the internet is the new "TV" when it comes to news that content on internet news sites will soon become a hotbead for censorship?
quote:
How do you know it won't sell? What are your fact on this?


I've worked in radio. If it made money, it would be all over the place. Sponsors would flock to it, program managers would fight to get it on the air, it would be all over the place.

But it's not, it can't bring in an audience. No audience, no money. No money, no affiliates. Pretty simple.
quote:
Originally posted by Si, se puede!:
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
Part of this is just a smoke screen to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to kill conservative talk radio. The left couldn't compete, so they wish to use government to enforce a ban on content they consider offensive -- how liberal of them!

As to consolidation, MSM is dying on the vine. If there is not some consolidation, there will just be more dead newpapers and eventually even less venue for the news.


I would say the internet will be one of the main sources for news in the future, if it isn't already.

More people are rejecting TV and especially print media. Why? Not sure. I think it is just more convenient to access news from the internet.

So, do you think once the MSM big wigs discover the internet is the new "TV" when it comes to news that content on internet news sites will soon become a hotbead for censorship?


Si, se puede!, Take a look at this.
Join the Fight for Internet Freedom

When we get on the Internet, we take a lot for granted. We assume we'll be able to access any Web site we want, whenever we want and at the fastest speed. And we assume that we can use any service – watching streaming video, listening to podcasts or sending instant messages – anytime we want.

What makes these assumptions possible is Net Neutrality, the fundamental principle that has made the Internet the greatest engine for free speech, civic engagement, and economic innovation ever known.

Net Neutrality means no discrimination. It prevents Internet Service Providers from speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination.
It ensures that we can connect online with anyone we want, share any content, get any information, visit any site and say what we want online, free from discrimination or interference. With Net Neutrality, the network’s only job is to move data – not to pick and choose which data to privilege with better service.

The Open Internet Is in Danger

But the free and open Internet we need and value is in danger.

http://www.freepress.net/savetheinternet
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by JJPAUL:
The government isn't stopping liberals from starting their own radio programs and networks.

True, Radio and TV will not air them in the south. So that you only hear one side in the south.


If there was an audiance for them then radio and tv would air them. It's all about the $$$'s. If no one is listening you go out of business cause the advetisers will not spend their money on your station.


Thats because most people ,especially the simpleminded,(Mullet Wing ) think there is a simple solution to very complex problems and the right wing talk radio does in fact imply that. We see it right here on these forums: "if it weren't for the (pick one- environmentalist / Democrats / Global warming nuts / gays / abortionist / gypsy's / illegal aliens / space aliens from UFO's or whatever) then we would have gasoline at low prices again.
Just wave the flag, lay the blame on some group, recall a simpler time, and give simple one line solutions to these very complex problems.
There are a lot of people who actually do fall for that, because there are a lot of very simple minded people who want someone else to do their thinking for them.
Well, a president like Bush is the reward we get for that kind of behavior, and I guess we deserve what we got, but God help us, he is leaving this country in a mess that I fear will not get resolved in my lifetime nor the lifetime of my children.
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by JJPAUL:
The government isn't stopping liberals from starting their own radio programs and networks.

True, Radio and TV will not air them in the south. So that you only hear one side in the south.


If there was an audiance for them then radio and tv would air them. It's all about the $$$'s. If no one is listening you go out of business cause the advetisers will not spend their money on your station.


Thats because most people ,especially the simpleminded,(Mullet Wing ) think there is a simple solution to very complex problems and the right wing talk radio does in fact imply that. We see it right here on these forums: "if it weren't for the (pick one- environmentalist / Democrats / Global warming nuts / gays / abortionist / gypsy's / illegal aliens / space aliens from UFO's or whatever) then we would have gasoline at low prices again.
Just wave the flag, lay the blame on some group, recall a simpler time, and give simple one line solutions to these very complex problems.
There are a lot of people who actually do fall for that, because there are a lot of very simple minded people who want someone else to do their thinking for them.
Well, a president like Bush is the reward we get for that kind of behavior, and I guess we deserve what we got, but God help us, he is leaving this country in a mess that I fear will not get resolved in my lifetime nor the lifetime of my children.


As opposed to geniuses like you and your lib party who say gov't is the cure for all ill's...right. And just exactly what mess is GWB leaving us?? That's the problem with your type. You think every issue is some monsturously complex problem that bog brother needs to fix. When in fact, most "problems" can be solved much easier by starting with the simple attempts to fix and work your way up the line if needed as oppposed to going for the "big fix" that is often not needed and is over kill for the situation.
quote:
Thats because most people ,especially the simpleminded,(Mullet Wing ) think there is a simple solution to very complex problems


We've got a problem with health care, let's let the government handle it.

Kind of like that?

There are markets out there were liberal talk radio is successful, there are also markets where it fails.

You're trying to blame the radio stations for that, they aren't the ones who decides. It's the sponsors. The station has to be able to sell the inventory of the show for it to be profitable. If no one wants to buy time, the show fails.

No one is being censored, no one's free speech is being violated. There are a number of different mediums that liberals use successfully to get their views across. A fairness doctrine does more to stifle free speech than it helps.
quote:
Originally posted by JJPAUL:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by JJPAUL:
The government isn't stopping liberals from starting their own radio programs and networks.

True, Radio and TV will not air them in the south. So that you only hear one side in the south.


If there was an audiance for them then radio and tv would air them. It's all about the $$$'s. If no one is listening you go out of business cause the advetisers will not spend their money on your station.



How do you know it won't sell? What are your fact on this?

The fact that nobody listened and they're thusly OTA.
quote:
Sorry about that, my opinion that they're not on the air is the radio stations are own by corporations.


You're actually sort of right.

Corporations are in business to make money. Liberal talk radio can't draw enough ratings to make a profit, therefore the shows are canceled.

If the shows pulled in ratings and had interest from sponsors, I can promise they would be on the air. Thank God they suck, last thing I want to hear in the mornings is some moonbat's pollicialy correct ramblings.
quote:
Originally posted by JJPAUL:
Free speech is not free speech, if only one side of speech can be heard.


I turn on the local talk radio if I'm out in the car during the day or on the way home. There are liberals on there, quite a few. But if you look at their ratings they are so far behind Rush and Glenn Beck that it isn't even funny.
quote:
Originally posted by CrustyMac:
quote:
Originally posted by JJPAUL:
Free speech is not free speech, if only one side of speech can be heard.


I turn on the local talk radio if I'm out in the car during the day or on the way home. There are liberals on there, quite a few. But if you look at their ratings they are so far behind Rush and Glenn Beck that it isn't even funny.


Could you give us the stations call letters where you heard libs on the radio?

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×