Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Liberals Want to Outlaw Conservative Talk

Well sort of.

Unable to achieve success in talkradio via the free market, liberals now plan to use government intervention to achieve their goals of more "liberal voices" on the air. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer want to bring back the so-called "fairness doctrine" and other regulations to "balance" programming. Its not just the liberals who are after talkradio but Republicans such as Trent Lott upset that their "free ride" on many conservative programs is over.

As reported by The National Review, longtime Clinton crony John Podesta has authored a treatise on what has to be done about the "problem" of conservative talkradio.

What's next? Are they going to outlaw blogs?

See the problem for you liberals is you might be able to try to outlaw the speech you don't like. However, the dangerous precedent you set will eventually come back to harm you when your opponents are in charge.

If it were up to some of the members of the City Council and the Mayor, laws might be passed that would impose government control on radio programs such as that of Doug McIntyre (pictured above) or blogs like this.

And even if the liberals get their laws, its likely they won't have the intended goals. Should stations be able to air unfettered and wildly profitable conservative talkradio programs, they will drop the format and political coverage altogether in favor of talk programming similar to Howard Stern or Tom Leykis or even other formats such as sports, music or foreign language broadcasts. And even if the government mandates certain types of programming be covered (such as they once did with community affairs programming) the broadcasters will find ways around those rules, such as airing the programs at 7:00 a.m. on a Sunday (as many still do voluntarily).

The best bet is to let everyone express their views and then let them be judged in the marketplace of ideas. But do liberals get that? I imagine some do but their numbers are shrinking everyday.

Labels: , , , , ,


Anonymous PochoPatriot said:

Isn't this just typical of libtards?

June 26, 2007 10:53 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This is so blatantly idiotic it is astounding that the libs have the chutzpah to propose it.

Have they no shame??

It underlines the unwillingness of people to listen to that drivel voluntarily.

It is almost as bad as Mayor Sam making us scroll through Zuma Crybaby's unintelligible rants to read his pearls of wisdom.

June 27, 2007 12:11 AM  

Blogger Walter Moore said:

I think this is more an "incumbent" thing than a "liberal" thing. What they would love is for all TV and radio to work just like L.A.'s Channel 36, where the City hires the "reporters," and every "interview" is just another t-ball fluff piece.

June 27, 2007 3:21 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This is about freedom of speech. Feinstein also has chimed in on the issue. They are afraid of the power and impact talk radio is having on issues. Given the power of shows like KFI that tell their listeners the truth of what's really going on in this city of course politicans want to shut them up. People aren't reading newspapers like they use to because their filled with bullshit and not facts or publishers are failing to cover what's really going on in our city. Thanks to the AM talk radio shows we get to hear it factually because local media has gone down the toliet. Thanks to numerous blogs its another place for people to read what's going on. If it wasn't for this blog and Zuma's batcomputer investigations people wouldn't know about all the corruption going on in city hall.

June 27, 2007 6:45 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Walter Mayor Sam linked to the Podesta report and it makes it clear they think the problem is conservative radio.

June 27, 2007 8:09 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Hugo Chavez #1

June 27, 2007 8:14 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Mind blogging that no local news coverage of the Mayor's Conference right here in LA. One of the Mayor's refused to stay because he said that all the democratic presidental candidates were allowed to give speeches yet no republicans were invited. This is how our corrupt Mayor works. Its a good thing we have these type of blogs and talk radio to blast these bastards.

June 27, 2007 9:07 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Blogs already are outlaws.

June 27, 2007 9:14 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Didn't this take place in South America or something? A president took the oldest radio station off the air.

Our elected officials keep telling us that our troops are fighting in Iraq and elsewhere to protect and safeguard our freedoms, our Democracy.

If something bothers me on TV or radio I turn it off or change the station. The electeds can do that too and perhaps work on some CA campaign/corruption reform laws.

They are elected officials and they don't have thick enough skin to take what a few are saying.
They giving credence to those that may not otherwise have any. Or do they?

June 27, 2007 10:05 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Scary now they want to enforce laws for talk radio but the hell with enforcing immigration law

GOP preps for talk radio confrontation...Alexander Bolton
June 27, 2007
House Republican lawmakers are preparing to fight anticipated Democratic efforts to regulate talk radio by reviving rules requiring stations to balance conservative hosts such as Rush Limbaugh with liberals such as Al Franken....Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so drastically that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). say radio stations would take a financial hit if forced to air balanced programming because liberal talk radio has not proved itself to be as profitable as conservative radio. Air America, the liberal counterpunch to conservative talk radio, filed for bankruptcy in October...“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

The Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC discarded in 1985, required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial political issues. Prior to 1985, government regulations called for broadcasters to “make reasonable judgments in good faith” on how to present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues.

Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she planned to “look at the legal and constitutional aspects of” reviving the Fairness Doctrine.


June 27, 2007 10:17 AM  

Blogger Matt Wayne said:

The fairness doctrine only applies to broadcast, not cable or the Internet. Radio bandwidth, like airspace, belongs to the public and private use must be regulated to some degree or neither commercial broadcasting or commercal aviation would be practical.

No speech has ever been outlawed under the fairness doctrine, nor would be by its reinstatement. Remember "this station will grant equal time to representatives of another point of view"? That's the fairness doctrine.

It's a brilliant Republican talking point to turn this into "the libs can't compete so they want to outlaw free speech." The fairness doctrine generates MORE speech. Or do you think we're a better-informed country that we were 20 years ago?

June 27, 2007 11:56 AM  

Blogger Antonio Watch said:

As I understand it, the Fairness Doctrine was instituted when most cities had only ONE radio station.

June 27, 2007 1:59 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I never thought much of Ann Coulter one way or the other or listened to her, but in yesterday's exchange with Elizabeth Edwards she was so nasty, she seemed almost psychopathic. Rush Limbaugh comes off that way, too, and I guess Imus did. IF these people want anyone besides low-lifes to take them seriously, they should become more civil, as Elizabeth asked. Tho there seems to be a guilty pleasure in listening to/reading these people, they won't have real influence while they're so nasty.

But we don't need big-government liberal legislation about this.

June 27, 2007 2:42 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I just saw Zuma Dogg downtown. he was talking loudly in his cell phone about Greg Smith using a handicap space to park. apparently he has one of those placards.

June 27, 2007 3:27 PM  

Blogger Mayor Sam said:

Actually we're more informed and have more choices than ever.

The fairness doctrine is an anachronism in an era of modern communication.

And even radio has many more options with HD radio and satellite radio.

Its true - liberal talkradio was a bomb. So they want to FORCE stations to air their boobs!

June 27, 2007 3:34 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

if it's true about Greig Smith using handicap spots, some handicapped ought to do a sit-in in the lot; when a g. f. of mine had a badly broken leg while ago and we couldn't find a handicapped spot cuz it was taken by a usually rich jerk in a fancy car, it was a real bi--h. And hancicapped can't park in spots not marked for it that are "reserved" for others.

June 27, 2007 3:49 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

remember that villaraigosa, la raza atzlan and Marcos wanted to go to court to remove Doug from the air?

June 27, 2007 4:22 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"If you can't stand the heat in the kitchen, neutralize the oven."
-- secret C.I.A. manual

June 27, 2007 5:24 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

In today's LAT, some guy called Wu who says he's head of some Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight, says Rocky has "a strange relationship with the billboard companies," including, that when sued by them in response to City demanding they cut size and lights and stop murdering trees around them, the C/A office WON, but Rocky undercut their own victory by giving them whatever they want...including being even bigger than ever and going digital on roads and freeways, where they're a traffic hazard. Wu says Rocks is working FOR the billboard companies and his deals have hurt the people "for generations to come."

June 27, 2007 5:46 PM  

Blogger Tony Potato said:

Is it about the Dems forcing stations to run Dem boobs on the air or is it about giving equal time to candidates during elections? I believe that the fairness doctrine refers to the latter.

I don't believe the fairness doctrine would be applicable to a show that discussed conservative philosophy without profiling candidates. It would not require that equal time be given to a show discussing liberal (whatever that may mean at any given time) political philosophy.

I believe that candidates for elections must be mentioned to invoke the fairness doctrine. If this is not the case, perhaps it should be.

I do agree, given the proliferation of all sorts of digital media, that the fairness doctrine seems "quaint" to use a Cheney/Gonzales/Addingtonism. I also think that conservative talk radio is mostly geared towards hot-headed white guys. Liberal radio lacks the same sort of demographic to appeal to and that is why it failed. I think that the liberal/informed/progressive class is online and podcasting.

June 27, 2007 7:50 PM  

Blogger Red Spot in CD 14 said:

Good Evening Bloggersphere,

What has not been stated here is the one-sided bias that the left has over "MSM", known as "MAIN STREAM MEDIA". Let me give you a couple of examples, "LA ANTONIA TIMES" (Print Media). CBS (Broadcast Media). what you don't here is complaints from the "LEFT" about their "FELLOW SCRIBES AND ANCHORS" in the "MSM". We can list countless of examples on the local and national levels, George "LITTLE RED" Skelton, Tim "KIM IL" Ruttan, Dan "RED" Rather, Luara "LIBERAL" Diaz. But TALK RADIO is what drives the "LIBERAL ORWELLIANS" crazy.
This, I predict will crash on burn.



P.S. s"A"ncha Watch is in hibernation, or in the "FIRST TRIMESTER".

June 27, 2007 8:16 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

There is a reason that conservative talk radio is successful and the other isn't. It is called free market but not as the liberals would portray it. The MSM networks can't stand the competition from liberal talk show hosts so they are keeping them out of the market place. The posit that there is no liberal talk show media is ludicrous. Just Watch Katie, Brian or Wolf.

June 27, 2007 8:52 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This is an ideological and financial tactic by MSM.

MSM is in decline--examples:

**combined share of audience for 3 network nightly newscasts down to 25% (from 97% in late 70's)

**newspapers across nation suffering massive losses of circulation & ad revenue

**NY Times bonds downgraded, and the company is facing an assault on its two-tiered share structure

**auction of Tribune Company, one of the oldest and largest MSM companies, ends with price far less than company wanted & by a non-media buyer (through an ESOP)

**Yahoo! is hiring sports journalists away from newspapers: boxing reporters from LV Review-Journal, many from LA Times sports section

And on & on. You get the picture.

These guys are desperate!!! They know that the new democratic majority in Congress is razor-thin (this is why there is no timetable in the Iraq war funding bill). A swing of House or Senate seats either way gets the GOP back in control, or close enough to stop any major democratic policies. This is their one shot to silence contrary (& lucrative) voices.

If trends continue, papers will shed more jobs, networks will do less news, and MSM will continue to lose its power and profitability.

If ABC was willing to dump Ted Koppel for David Letterman, you know that no one at any MSM news division is safe.

Even on the liberal side, the tide is against MSM. Huffington Post, DailyKos, and numerous liberal bloggers and powerful and effective voices for the left. They sure as hell don't need the MSM anymore to get their message heard. Just ask Howard Dean.

When "the net generation" gets older, they're not going to watch Geritol ads on TV at 6:30 like their parents and grandparents did.

June 27, 2007 9:15 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Walter, we all know you are getting contributions from developers. Why else would you say you "support" them (6/27/07 3:29am). While we're at it, why were you still awake and blogging at 3:29am anyway?

If you're not taking contributions from developers, we'd like some proof. Please share who has been giving you that $7000 each month.

June 28, 2007 12:04 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

USA gonna go down. China... the next superpower baby. This country is totally beholden to this great communist state. We borrow money from them, they manufacture most of our goods, and we import a lot of their produce and seafood. Let the takeover begin. And believe me, for you people achin' for a war with China, they are not a lightweight like Iraq. Expect major casualties, and they have nukes. People of color finally have a state they can look up to. Anglos going down!!!!!

June 28, 2007 12:08 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Shame on you Walter, now that you want ot run for office, you are also public property, the same judgements you use on other people, will be used on you. Yes Walter, we know you would know about fluff-pieces. You really are walking yourself into all sorts fun stuff we can say about you.

July 01, 2007 1:34 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Mr. Matt Wayne, we all know by now that there are no brilliant Republicans. It does you no good to blame Mayor what's his name, every Republican Senator, and Congressman is in a much higher position than he, so where are all the brilliant Republicans. I certainly have not seen any. Not lately anyway!!!!!!!!!!!

July 01, 2007 1:45 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home