Some folks would like to restrict your right to even speak of the "fairness doctrine"...

[kentuck]

They would prefer it not even be a topic of discussion. Their reaction, in itself, is a form of censorship.

Because it is against their corporate interests. They prefer to tell their side of the story without any input from anyone else.

The story about the FCC 'study" is a perfect example. How dare the "government" interfere with the way they want to "report" the news?

They operate in the dark and they do not want anyone to shine any light on the way they do business. After all, what's the big deal? It's only propaganda.

[Scuba]

1. It may be propaganda, but I'm definately not the proper goose.

I ain't buying their shit.

[Cleita]

2. This is worrying. Here in California, a democratic and liberal state, the only

radio we get anymore is Rush/Glenn/Bill. One FM station in Los Angeles is able to air liberal talk radio that I know of. I believe the airwaves belong to the people. I can't afford lawyers but I really would like to know if there is a possibility of doing an eminent domain thing and taking back at least a few of the stations for liberal talk radio in the interest of a fairness doctrine of sorts. I think we should have a choice of whether we want to listen to Rush or Randi since, we the people, are supposed to own such air waves.

[NashuaDW]

3. Fairness Doctrine

"I believe the airwaves belong to the people."

I agree but to have the government dictate what type of talk radio is available is definitely not something you'd want. Broadcasting is a business ... they have to pay for the equipment, the talent, and the staff.

Don't you think that if there was a market for the liberal talk that some station would switch to it in a minute? If the market demanded it, the advertisers would be lined up to buy commercial spots. Air America showed that liberal talk, even in very liberal areas, is not commercially viable.

Your suggestion that stations be seized and converted to liberal talk is a little frightening. First, the listeners would flee, then the advertisers would follow them.
How much of the taxpayers money would you be willing to spend to broadcast to the small group interested in liberal talk radio?

When, and if, the public tires of conservative talk - the stations will switch to sports or top 40.

Until then we have to find other ways to counter their message.

[Jenoch]

4. You are right.

I live in the Twin Cities and both Minneapolis and St. Paul have been electing Democratic U.S. House members for decades. We have both houses in the Minnesota legislature, a Democrat governor and both U.S. Senators and yet our liberal radio talk station barely shows up in the ratings. The local Rush/Beck station is not at the top of the ratings like it was 10 - 15 years ago, but it does attract more listeners than liberal talk.

[MineralMan]

5. Really? I used to live not far from you,

and there were lots of radio stations. Most weren't talk-oriented, but there were lots of radio stations. You say that all of the stations there now run Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives. That's a surprise to me.

Perhaps you meant that all talk radio stations have a right slant. I'm not in that area anymore, so I can't tune in and see.

Liberal talk radio has never had good audience ratings. People don't listen to it. So, such stations don't make money. So, those stations change formats so they make money.

Get a bunch of like-minded people together and buy a station when one comes on the market there. Do the kind of programming you want to hear. If it's great and if people want to listen to it, you'll do great.

Talk radio just isn't something most liberals and progressives listen to. The proof of that is that such stations aren't successful.

[Cleita]

7. Ignore above. Wrong thread. I deleted because it wouldn't make sense to you.

[kentuck]

8. I really don't think it is about left or right?

It is about accurate or inaccurate. It is about right information or wrong information. And should wrong information go unchallenged? That is what the "fairness doctrine" is about. It is not about some perceived "balance", in my opinion.