Not really. I just think you're an extra dumbass.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Hey look, another anti-Fox movie. Reminder Robert Redford got a studio to green light a movie "exonerating" Dan Rather.
Well, I mean we are the smart ones. It sure as shit isn't you.
Welcome to the free market.
Ever think that maybe it's at least in part a reaction to 30+ years of conservative talk radio?
I don't ever recall any liberals crying that talk radio is about 90% to the right. There have been a few left wing radio shows...Sirius/XM has a few but I doubt their listenership is much of anything else there would be more on commercial radio. I used to listen to quite a bit of talk radio but it has all become such a right wing circle jerk it isn't worth my time. The same people who were crushing orange man for his incessant lying, bullying, and child-like acting in 2015-2016 until he was the GOP nominee now all talk as if he is the second coming...just as Lyndsey Graham, Mitch McConnell and 90% of the GOP have done.
Don't subscribe to Showtime, HBO, Netflix, etc... do have Amazon Prime, have watched maybe a total of an hour over the last couple of years. Couldn't tell you about any ESPN politics other than what I hear people complain about on this board. I watch games when they're on...that's about it. I read most of my news other that what I might hear in the mornings when I'm eating breakfast.
There are 100s of tv stations and networks. If there is money to be made there will be somebody providing the programming. You know, maybe liberals are just better at television than conservatives just as conservatives do better at radio. Some fields/occupations just naturally attract people of certain ilks. My wife danced professionally for several years. She said about 80% of the men who danced at that level were gay. Musicians, actors...the entire field of the arts are dominated by people who are quite liberal. Few exceptions but they are just that...exceptions. That is true today and has been true from pretty much the beginning of time. Get over it and quit whining.
Trump cancels all student debt for disabled VETS. Liberal heads exploding all over the country. Lol
Really? Heads are exploding? Trump gives away more of someone else's money and conservatives are happy?
Broken clocks are right twice a day...
You could learn a lot from a broken clock.
Damn. I'm a disabled vet, but took out no student loans while finishing my bachelors and working on a masters. Anyway, good for them.
Why invade them when you can just buy em? Hell yeah.
Are you guys serious? This has been a central plank of Bernie's platform and has been getting trashed on here for YEARS as being crazy socialism. But the instant Trump does it it's an amazing great idea that no one's ever had before, the best! I'm happy about it and would like to see it extended to all Americans, but the hypocrisy on display is mind-boggling.
False. Bernie wants to cancel ALL student debt. Disabled vets have paid a price that we can never repay.
Just wanted to point out to you that you were misleading when you insinuated that no Fox news people were critical of a Trump. Several of the Libs on that network hate Trump. Makes for some entertaining exchanges when they clash with their peers.
I would prefer that disabled Vets have their student loans forgiven, than your average Joe.
wow...this is bad. I never watched the simpsons much but this clip is pathetic.
Revisionist history.
Yeppers, Libs never cared much about talk radio.
So much dumb today.
Talk radio in the balance
By BRIAN C. ANDERSON
MARCH 3, 2009
12 AM
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-mar-03-oe-anderson3-story.html
That the Democrats are keen to crack down on conservative talk radio -- crack down on free speech they don’t like, that is -- is now impossible to deny.
Two approaches are being contemplated. The one getting the most attention involves creating a new Fairness Doctrine. The old doctrine was a Federal Communications Commission regulation, codified in the late 1940s, that required radio and television broadcasters to provide airtime to opposing viewpoints and to cover issues of concern to their communities. The FCC, encouraged by the Reagan administration, junked the doctrine 22 years ago, rightly recognizing that the rule wasn’t so much mandating fairness as imposing a government-backed curb on free expression.
But now, leading Democrats have been openly urging its resuscitation. Though the new doctrine would apply to broadcast television as well, the Democrats’ real target is AM radio, where opinion is open and vociferous and where right-of-center talk shows dominate ratings -- the one medium in which conservatives and libertarians have an advantage.
“You either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side,” Bill Clinton argued the other day, “because essentially there’s always been a lot of big money to support the ... talk shows.” And Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) told liberal radio host Bill Press, “I think it’s absolutely time to pass a [fairness] standard.” Stabenow promised congressional hearings by the end of the year.
Although the Obama administration has said it is not inclined to support a new Fairness Doctrine, other top Democrats who have endorsed, or at least seemed sympathetic to, the idea include congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as well as Sens. Tom Harkin and John Kerry (who blamed his loss in 2004 on the regulation’s absence).
But here’s the reality: A new Fairness Doctrine, which could be imposed either by legislation or through FCC rule changes, wouldn’t achieve more balance. Rather, it would obliterate political talk radio. If a station ran a popular conservative show -- say, Hugh Hewitt’s -- it would face pressure to run a liberal alternative, even though almost all left-leaning efforts to date have failed to capture either listeners or advertising revenue.
Now imagine all the lawyers that stations would have to hire to meet the new requirements, not to mention the burden involved in measuring and reporting just how much time was devoted to this topic or that. Many radio executives, already fighting for profits in a world of intense competition, would find the expense unsupportable and switch formats to sports or entertainment. Some might get out of the business entirely.
To get a sense of what a new Fairness Doctrine would do to talk radio, remember what the AM dial was like when the doctrine was in place. In 1980, there were at most a few hundred stations that broadcast any kind of talk radio nationwide. Today, more than 1,500 stations do.
The Obama administration may say that it doesn’t back a new Fairness Doctrine, but it has suggested it might support another reform, called “localism,” which should also worry defenders of media freedom.
Localism would impose greater “local accountability” on broadcasters -- that is, it would force stations to carry more local programming. Localism, as sketched out in a recent FCC report, also could require stations to set up permanent community advisory boards (including “underserved community segments”) that would have to be regularly consulted on “community needs and issues.”
This measure -- a kind of community organizing applied to the airwaves -- could complicate life for national syndicators like Salem Radio, which make conservative and Christian shows available from coast to coast. (The regulation also would impede liberal syndicators, though liberals are fewer and far less influential in the world of talk radio.) As a candidate, Obama supported both localism and the idea of relicensing stations every two years, rather than eight, as is currently the case -- which would make the new monitors a constant worry for stations.
Localism is wildly impractical. How would board membership be decided? Would liberals sit on the board of a conservative station broadcasting in an urban area? Or would, say, an Islamic community leader sit on the board of a Christian station that broadcast in an area with a large Muslim population? And what kind of power would these FCC-mandated boards wield? Would stations be able to reject their advice without jeopardizing their licenses? What seems all too likely is that groups of professional activists would colonize these community panels and demand that their preferred issues be covered.
The idea is as philosophically misguided as the Fairness Doctrine. After all, stations already serve their communities -- their listeners and advertisers. If they don’t serve them, they go out of business. Local-content shows flourish if, and only if, they can win an audience.
By what right does the government tell listeners what they can or can’t listen to when it comes to political speech? The upshot of enforced localism likely would be similar to that of a new Fairness Doctrine: a diminished presence of conservative voices as broadcasters shift formats or get out of the business entirely.
All this is blatantly unconstitutional. The 1st Amendment says Congress must make no law that abridges freedom of speech or the press. Imagine the outcry if Washington bureaucrats began regulating or “advising,” say, The Times for fairness or to increase local content. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has long applied different standards to airwaves and print, claiming that the scarcity of broadcast spectrum justifies government oversight.
Whether or not that contention was ever true, it is absurd in our era of satellite radio, cable television and myriad websites.
One hopes, then, that the judiciary will stop the Democrats before they silence their most energetic, and effective, critics.
Talk Radio: Do we need a new Fairness Doctrine?
http://am.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/21/talk-radio-do-we-
need-a-new-fairness-doctrine/
Fairness Doctrine fight goes on
https://www.politico.com/story/2011/01/fairness-doctrine-fight-goes-on-047669
https://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/the-fairness-doctrine/
Periodic attempts to bring back the fairness doctrine have been unsuccessful. Recently, several prominent Democrats have expressed interest in bringing it back, including Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former President Bill Clinton, who said on a radio show last month that either the fairness doctrine should be reimposed or "you ought to have more balance on the other side."
Also last month, Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow told liberal talk show host Bill Press that something like the fairness doctrine should be put on the agenda in Washington:
Stabenow: I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.
Stabenow (who is married to Tom Athans, a liberal talk show executive) said at the time that she was thinking of having hearings on the issue, but has since said that she has no plans to do so.
This isn't anywhere close to being true and falls under the profoundly misguided category I mentioned earlier.
Shepard Smith is just mad Trump wont sleep with him.
Bernie Sanders middle right. JFC. That's an outright lie. There is nothing middle right about Bernie communist Sanders
I’d probably agree with this. I think Chris Nolan is a fantastic filmmaker and he has made several very good movies in the last 15 years or so. I happen to be a fan of the MCU and like those as well. I do love classic movies though. They don’t make many true classics anymore. It’s all CGI and action.
Is fingerblasting still a thing for old people?
Similar threads
