Censorship: The New Amerikan Way

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

actually, scuds is right. allowing the opposing point of view to be aired may be many things-but censorship wouldn't be one of those things. i don't know that the fairness doctrine will fly-it doesn't seem that liberal talk radio does nearly as well as conservative commercially. but the complete takeover of licenses by one side (for lack of a better way to put it) isn't exactly the american way either...

i read the first link. i'd be hard put to think that site is one to really get the whole story from, seeing as that freakish ann coulter is on the page.

Your view is totally misguided unless you live in a time warp. In 2009 there is hardly a lack of access to information or opposing views. In the pre-internet days where there were 3 network tv stations and limited radio licenses it was almost palatable. In 2009 it is censorship, plain and simple. The govt controlling what can be said in any media form should be a scary thought regardless of your political leanings. For some reason Rush Limbaugh drives the leftys crazy but denying him his right to speak his mind is disgraceful. The govt is already seeping into places it should not be and the Fairness Doctrine is a nothing more than govt control of a medium it should not be near.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Your view is totally misguided unless you live in a time warp. In 2009 there is hardly a lack of access to information or opposing views. In the pre-internet days where there were 3 network tv stations and limited radio licenses it was almost palatable. In 2009 it is censorship, plain and simple. The govt controlling what can be said in any media form should be a scary thought regardless of your political leanings. For some reason Rush Limbaugh drives the leftys crazy but denying him his right to speak his mind is disgraceful. The govt is already seeping into places it should not be and the Fairness Doctrine is a nothing more than govt control of a medium it should not be near.

isn't censorship the complete removal of information? how is a liberal airing somehow censorship?

in no way am i advocating removing any shows at all. but how can someone call trying to get the 'other side' on the air censorship? it seems it's the exact opposite.

i always thought that the market would dictate what would or could be aired, and it certainly seems that liberal radio doesn't fly. but if the issue comes down to broadcast licensing being out of reach to one side, then wouldn't that be an issue?

i guess all i'm really arguing is that it's incorrect to call having both sides on the air as being censorship.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by Danzig

isn't censorship the complete removal of information? how is a liberal airing somehow censorship?

in no way am i advocating removing any shows at all. but how can someone call trying to get the 'other side' on the air censorship? it seems it's the exact opposite.

i always thought that the market would dictate what would or could be aired, and it certainly seems that liberal radio doesn't fly. but if the issue comes down to broadcast licensing being out of reach to one side, then wouldn't that be an issue?

i guess all i'm really arguing is that it's incorrect to call having both sides on the air as being censorship.

I dont see anyone being denied the right to express their point of view , it cant be helped if no one wants to tune into a certain point of view. Supply and demand yeah?

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Honu

I dont see anyone being denied the right to express their point of view , it cant be helped if no one wants to tune into a certain point of view. Supply and demand yeah?

That's majority rule. It's what Conservatives tend to gravitate towards. If they're wrong about something, then there is no way they can possibly correct themselves. That's why there would be segregation (still today) in the South. "If you don't like it, then leave." Most people wanted it. So, how would it have changed? Change had to be forced on them by the Federal Gov't, because they would of never changed on their own(opposing views weren't encouraged.) They couldn't correct it on their own. If you don't encourage opposite views, then how would you ever be able to recognize a flaw in the popular thinking? You wouldn't. You couldn't.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

That's majority rule. It's what Conservatives tend to gravitate towards. If they're wrong about something, then there is no way they can possibly correct themselves. That's why there would be segregation (still today) in the South. "If you don't like it, then leave." Most people wanted it. So, how would it have changed? Change had to be forced on them by the Federal Gov't, because they would of never changed on their own(opposing views weren't encouraged.) They couldn't correct it on their own. If you don't encourage opposite views, then how would you ever be able to recognize a flaw in the popular thinking? You wouldn't. You couldn't.

You just qualified for the damn fool because i know you aren't a communist.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You just qualified for the damn fool because i know you aren't a communist.

They would never have changed if they weren't forced to.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

What other descriptions do the Conservatives have for someone not agreeing with them tonite?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

isn't censorship the complete removal of information? how is a liberal airing somehow censorship?

in no way am i advocating removing any shows at all. but how can someone call trying to get the 'other side' on the air censorship? it seems it's the exact opposite.

i always thought that the market would dictate what would or could be aired, and it certainly seems that liberal radio doesn't fly. but if the issue comes down to broadcast licensing being out of reach to one side, then wouldn't that be an issue?

i guess all i'm really arguing is that it's incorrect to call having both sides on the air as being censorship.

The monitoring of the content of a broadcast medium is censorship. The fact that liberal radio doesnt seem to be as popular as conservative radio is too damn bad. You can not with a straight face say that the liberal view is not being heard. The fact that the liberal party is in charge of Washington and suddenly we need to reinstitute a flawed and outdated policy that would almost exclusively negatively effect conservative radio (which is the only media outlet that is remotely has a right leaning majority) reeks of political payback. This is the same thing that the Dems moaned about for the entire 8 years of Bush. Yet here they are taking freedoms away under the guise of responsibility and transparency? Where is the ACLU on this?

What would the reaction be if CNN and MSNBC were forced to give equal time to both liberal shows and conservative shows? Put Limbaugh opposite of Olberman?

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Your view is totally misguided unless you live in a time warp. In 2009 there is hardly a lack of access to information or opposing views. In the pre-internet days where there were 3 network tv stations and limited radio licenses it was almost palatable. In 2009 it is censorship, plain and simple. The govt controlling what can be said in any media form should be a scary thought regardless of your political leanings. For some reason Rush Limbaugh drives the leftys crazy but denying him his right to speak his mind is disgraceful. The govt is already seeping into places it should not be and the Fairness Doctrine is a nothing more than govt control of a medium it should not be near.

No, what's scary is only one point of view being around. That's never good, and if you wonder how all this absurd stuff happens in history, it starts with the fact that opposing views aren't present. It's no wonder that you're not getting the representation in the media that you'd like(it's not like you encourage it as a career choice.) This intolerance of opposing views is one of the reasons you got beat. The people in the middle were thrilled to see someone who wasn't afraid to listen to the views of even known bigots. For a radio station to have to dedicate a small portion of time to an opposing view shouldn't be a big deal. If you're so sure you're right about an issue, then shouldn't your position hold up alongside an opposite view?

[Honu]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

No, what's scary is only one point of view being around. That's never good, and if you wonder how all this absurd stuff happens in history, it starts with the fact that opposing views aren't present. It's no wonder that you're not getting the representation in the media that you'd like(it's not like you encourage it as a career choice.) This intolerance of opposing views is one of the reasons you got beat. The people in the middle were thrilled to see someone who wasn't afraid to listen to the views of even known bigots. For a radio station to have to dedicate a small portion of time to an opposing view shouldn't be a big deal. If you're so sure you're right about an issue, then shouldn't your position hold up alongside an opposite view?

What is this debate club???? Its not , there is not just one point of view around and that is very apparent considering the outcomeof the last election , somehow the people who help elect the new president got their information I dont know how , they must be very resourcefull people is all I can say lol. I have to listen to all kinds of points of view when I listen to A.M. 1070 here in l.a. and sometimes during the last election the subject matter and points of view were so biased that I had to change that damn station , bastards for making me change the channel so I could have something I wanted to hear.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

No, what's scary is only one point of view being around. That's never good, and if you wonder how all this absurd stuff happens in history, it starts with the fact that opposing views aren't present. It's no wonder that you're not getting the representation in the media that you'd like(it's not like you encourage it as a career choice.) This intolerance of opposing views is one of the reasons you got beat. The people in the middle were thrilled to see someone who wasn't afraid to listen to the views of even known bigots. For a radio station to have to dedicate a small portion of time to an opposing view shouldn't be a big deal. If you're so sure you're right about an issue, then shouldn't your position hold up alongside an opposite view?

I didnt get beat. The GOP did. As a American citizen i am deeply concerned that the ruling party has decided to get involved with content of the media. I would support starting wars with the entire European union over govt invlovement of the information flow. Obviously there are some things that need to be controlled such as national security and such but i have a hard time seeing how conservative radio is somehow altering the landscape enough to involve govt oversight of content other than obscenity rules.

This is not a left/right issue at the core. The residual effects are that politics are certainly involved but this is a freedom of speech/govt interference issue. Anyone who doesnt see it as such simply isn't looking hard enough.