sendero
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-30-04 04:22 PM
Original message |
What are we going to do.... |
|
... if the networks give one second more coverage to the Rep convention than they did ours?
What can we do? I've had about enough. The cable channels can do whatever they want, but the broadcast channels are chartered to operate "in the public interest" since the public owns the airwaves.
If they do what I think they are going to do, we are going to have to do something serious.
Ideas?
|
kentuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-30-04 04:23 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Write LTTE to NYTimes, WaPo, and LA Times as starters.... |
|
One letter in either of those papers could reach millions of readers.
|
CrispyQ
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-30-04 04:25 PM
Response to Original message |
2. I will be curious if they interview Democrats after every repub speech . . |
|
I was sick of that. Every speech & they had to interview some repub & get their opinion & slam of the speech.
|
PROGRESSIVE1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-30-04 04:31 PM
Response to Original message |
3. MASSIVE BOYCOTT!!! And it will be mean! |
Ignoramus
(610 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-30-04 04:39 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I thought cable was considered publicly owned "airwaves" as well.
|
realisticphish
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-30-04 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
Edited on Fri Jul-30-04 05:19 PM by realisticphish
that's why the FCC cannot have jurisdiction; the networks, if they are censored, censor themselves. A broadcast can reach anyone with a tv, but cable or satellite subscribers must purchase the acces, so they have the option of turning it off
:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat
|
sendero
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-30-04 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
.... they want to regulate cable content but they haven't yet trumped up a justification.
I've also read that they may find their justification in the fact that many (probably most in the not too distant future) recieve their "cable" channels over satellite (DirectTV, DishNetwork) which techically is using the airwaves as a transmission medium. But this issue is not settled, and if we can get a real commissioner into the FCC and rid ourselves of the current bath toy inhabitant, we might have a chance.
The fact is, Michael Powell has as much business heading the FCC as I do heading the Catholic church. I think he's already announced that he's leaving and it is not a moment too soon. In his realm, he's done as much damage as Bush*.
|
realisticphish
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-30-04 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
of course, they have to be unscrambled...but the fact that Powell is even in the postion at all is mind-boggling
:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat
|
info being
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-30-04 05:29 PM
Response to Original message |
6. We should band together and sue them. |
sendero
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-30-04 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
|
.... that is more in line with what I had in mind, I just don't know enough about the law to know if there is any way.
The FCC regulates the networks and there are a set of guiding rules. But it seems as though the FCC administrative judges can pretty much interpret the rules as they see fit, making them ineffective.
I'm wondering if there is a way we can hold the FCC accountable, I think that is, at root, what we are talking about here...
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 07:51 PM
Response to Original message |