Posted on 02/05/2009 10:45:03 AM PST by raccoonradio
These cities have one or more NPR stations already.
Hold on! I'll try and find the link, but a "progressive" station in Miami is switching to all Fox Sports talk, and certain "community organizers" are decrying the move as a switch to "right-wing hate radio."
The fun never ends.
It will be a giant mistake.....
They have no idea what they are about to wake up.....
Blame it all on the teaching of Saul Alinsky!
But yet, that waste of oxygen is more than happy to get her screeching voice on 760 WJR (Paul W. Smith (local conservative)Rush, Hannity, Levin) as often as she possibly can. The other senatidiot Levin was on just this morning.
Can’t have it both ways Debbie.
I hope Rush finds a small Carribean island, and broadcasts from there - and calls it Radio Free Amaerica. He will be penetrating the newest iron curtain.
Question: Would these idiots dare impose the fairness doctrine on sat radio?
Hey Stabenow...anyone prevent you from speaking your mind?
Even tho what you had to say was some of the stupidest drivel to grace the airwaves, you were allowed to speak.
So stfu.
I agree. It's all so stressful. But think of the great campain slogan the One left us with:
No we couldn't.
Yes, I had heard that the Miami station would be going sports. The same thing happened to several prog talk
stations—New Haven CT, Portland ME, Akron OH , and Memphis come to mind. Sports makes money. So does conservative
talk; the former prog talk station in Providence, WHJJ, now
runs Quinn and Rose, Beck, Rush, Hannity, Levin, etc.
Fairness
There is currently under way an effort to return the Fairness Doctrine that will in effect limit free speech on the public airways. The Federal Communications Commission can reinstate the rule with no action by the US Congress or the President. The thought is that utterances on the radio must be fair and that a second view must be given equal time.
The public airways are actually a spectrum that has been divided into numerous specific frequency ranges that are corridors along which a radio wave carrying information is transmitted.. This proposed action regulating the information carried is a Federal matter since the airways are considered to be part of interstate commerce and require a Federal license. The states have no say in the matter.
The purpose of this essay is to develop a logical thought pattern that will permit the various States to gain some control of intra state transmission of information. That would be particularly true of my State, Tennessee.
Within the State of Tennessee information is transmitted and transferred by several methods but in this piece consideration will be restricted to two, printed publications and cable TV.
All printed material be it newspapers manufactured within the state borders or magazines, CD’s, DVD’s, recorded tapes or other similar publications from numerous sources are transported on the Tennessee public streets, roads and highways. These transportation corridors are in every respect similar to the spectral corridors regulated by the FCC except the roadways are regulated by the state of Tennessee. It is there fore a very logical step to conclude that based on the logic of information flow regulation by the FCC over federally regulated corridors, a similar regulatory body can be established by the State to assure that fairness is achieved in information carried or transported on the state regulated corridors and roadways. Printed publications must be fair to be transported over public ways.
In a similar vein, the state of Tennessee should be able to regulate the use of rights of way that are actually part of the same streets, roads and highways noted above. These rights of way are heavily used for various purposes including the physical presence of fiber optic and coaxial cable that are in fact information corridors similar to the FCC regulated corridors that are the public airways. The cable companies transporting on the public rights of way should be subject to the same fairness regulations governing the printed media transported on the adjacent roadways. Cable information must be fair to be transported over public rights of way.
There is no difference. Printed media and cable TV information are both transported along public ways .There is no difference between printed media transported over public roads and voice utterances transmitted over radio waves. Thoughts are transmitted over public ways.
Then there is the question of the first amendment and free speech. It can be argued that such regulation is a violation of the First Ammendment to the Constitution. That is obviously not the case or the FCC would not be able to impose the Fairness Doctrine. There is no action in the regulation preventing the free exercise of the right to say what ever the writer or publisher or news commentator desires. They can say what ever they want with no fear of any retribution by the State of Tennessee. If they desire to propagate the speech using the public ways, then they are subject to fairness regulation. The precedent for the State regulatory authority is the FCC regulated Federal authority.
If the public ways are restricted, then how can the speech material be propagated? The answer is quite simple. If the speaker wants to sell his material, he can set up a place of business where the public can come and buy what ever is for sale. The speaker can also go into an out of door site and speak whatever comes to mind to all within earshot. His rights of free speech are not restricted by regulations of the transport of the medium packets. It is the transport of those information packets on public ways that is regulated.
Has the woman never listened to the liberal National Public Radio which can be heard coast to coast with almost complete blanket coverage?
losing progressive talk-formatted stations in D.C., San Diego, Sacramento and Miami is “such a disservice to the public.”
Have you ever thought it might be because they have to compete with NPR for the liberal ear?
Love it!
YO, STABACOW ... Which part of “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW” did you MISS in Politician School??
I WILL USE my 2nd AMENDMENT to Protect my 1st!
Just sent the following to Sen. Stabenow -
“Dear Senator,
Your focus on the Anti-First Amendment Doctrine (aka The “Fairness” Doctrine) is abhorrent and treasonous. Allow me to recommend some reading material to you:
1. The Constitution of the Republic of the United States of America
2. The Bill of Rights
I am fascinated by the fact that the Anti-First Amendment Doctrine targets ONLY conservative radio talk shows and NOT liberal news organizations to include NPR, PBS, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the New York Times, The Washington Post, the LA Times, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Chicago Tribune and The San Francisco Chronicle to name the more prominent organizations. Would you care to comment on that, Senator?”
Thomas Athans is the Executive Vice President of Air America radio. press release below
http://airamerica.com/node/1258 Air America radio stands to gain SIGNIFICANTLY from any bills passed on these talks of "balance"
END THE CORRUPTION!!!
ah! Conflict of interest!
The following is by Tom Taylor of http://www.radio-info.com :
Michigan Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow only added to the suspicions of conservative talkshow hosts with her remarks on yesterday’s syndicated Bill Press show. We had these quotes for you on Radio-Info.com before noon Eastern time, and they’re provocative. Stabenow says the airwaves are “dominated by one view that…then overwhelms people’s opinions.” She knocks “the right-wing conservative talkshow hosts who are out there, just trying to make people angry and saying all kinds of things that aren’t true.” So to her, “there has to be voices on the other side.” She tells progressive talker Bill Press “it’s absolutely time to pass a standard” to bring “accountability to the airwaves.” Her method? Start with a Senate hearing. She tells Bill Press “I have already had some discussions with colleagues, and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.”
Liberal talk disappearing in D.C., San Diego, Miami – that’s got Senator Stabenow hot.
Progressive talker Bill Press brings up the recent euthanasia of Red Zebra’s “Obama 1260” WWRC, which dropped out of politics to do business talk. There are other recent examples in San Diego (Clear Channel’s KLSD/1360) and presumably Miami (see the next story). I think the wave of format deaths is the straw that broke the camel’s back, for some media-sensitive liberals like Senator Debbie Stabenow. Their reasoning is going to be that conservatives dominate the public-owned airwaves and it’s high time to investigate why some of these formats got flipped. Imagine Mark Mays
[Clear Channel] or John Hogan testifying under the glare of Senate lights about San Diego. Or Red Zebra owner Dan Snyder, about the erasure of “Obama 1260.” Or the potential cartons of material a Senate committee might request, looking into emails and other communications about specific format decisions. It would be ugly and unprecedented, and it’s not clear that Stabenow’s got enough support to get very far. But now the ruckus that began with Rush and Hannity fearing the return of the Fairness Doctrine may be entering a new stage.
Miami’s WINZ (940) going all-sports?
The Miami board at Radio-Info.com, and outsiders like the Miami Herald, take it as a fait accompli – especially with current Fox Sports Radio affiliate WMEN (which styles itself “WFTL 640”) being told it’s losing the affiliation. Every format change creates some dissonance, and this one will kick up a fuss. This is another situation (as discussed above) where a liberal-talk station is going away, while a conservative sibling - CC’s WIOD/610, with Rush, Hannity, Glenn Beck – remains. You can talk about the ratings and the revenue and who got into modern talk radio first with the big signals. But this discussion could go on all year.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.