TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Why do Libs want to stifle Free Speech?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why do Libs want to stifle Free Speech? - Page 2  

post #31 of 56
That's only because Jerry Springer is a revolting little creep who makes millions off people's misery. That show makes me physically ill. People can watch it if they like but I have no desire to derive entertainment from watching the very saddest and most pathetic members of our society embarrass themselves on television while some rich guy sits there and encourages them to do it to bring him fame and wealth.

It's kind of like dog-fighting to me. Reprehensible and disgusting.
post #32 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by silentNate View Post
Ummm.... There have been accusations of rigging on this topic- apparently most troops want more music on the radio (especially rock and rap music) rather than politics
That I believe. I can't imagine the service people stuck over there in the confusion, heat, isolation are demanding more Rush Limbaugh over songs that remind them of home...hahahaha.
post #33 of 56
There are plenty of liberal talk radio shows. There are even syndicated liberal talk radio shows. But Air America failed miserably, and they did get someone as loud and obnoxious as Rush to be their mainstay. Actually, they got a lot of people as loud and obnoxious as Rush.

Radio stations are not non-profit entities. They are out to make a profit. Why should they be forced to carry programming that is unprofitable because the people in Washington don't like what does make money? If you don't like Rush (or Hannity, or any of the other conservative talk shows) don't listen. Easy enough. It's the number of listeners that stations use to base the rate of advertising on. I know that Air America was on a lot of stations - it was on here in Denver for a while. They went bankrupt, and that was after being bailed out quite a few times by private donors. What does that say about their market share?
post #34 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
That's only because Jerry Springer is a revolting little creep who makes millions off people's misery. That show makes me physically ill. People can watch it if they like but I have no desire to derive entertainment from watching the very saddest and most pathetic members of our society embarrass themselves on television while some rich guy sits there and encourages them to do it to bring him fame and wealth.

It's kind of like dog-fighting to me. Reprehensible and disgusting.
I've met him. In his defense he is a decent politician with really good ideas that are liberal but most people would like.

He meant his show to be like Oprah or Maury, which started off in a similar place as Springer. Except they went the other direction, and Springer ended up having drag queens fight KKK members. And so you can rest peacefully-- the Springer show is about as real as WWF


And need I point out NPR again, which has been around practically as long as radio and shows no sign of slowing and is an entire station, syndicated, liberal, and popular?
post #35 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
And need I point out NPR again, which has been around practically as long as radio and shows no sign of slowing and is an entire station, syndicated, liberal, and popular?
No, but the fact that NPR is an entire station, syndicated, liberal, and popular begs the question - will they then be required to put on a certain amount of conservative talk shows to balance out that station? Or is it OK for them to operate as is, while they are trying to shut down the likes of Rush?
post #36 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
No, but the fact that NPR is an entire station, syndicated, liberal, and popular begs the question - will they then be required to put on a certain amount of conservative talk shows to balance out that station? Or is it OK for them to operate as is, while they are trying to shut down the likes of Rush?
I'm pretty sure NPR isn't trying to shut down Rush Limbaugh. Even if I were, hypothetically, for the government regulating the political bias of radio there's no reason to think that would involve shutting down the most popular one. The point of it would be to ensure that some other guy who was a liberal got a chance to have a show too-- equal-opportunity political bias.

I trust the government to regulate political bias about as far as I can throw it. Plus I don't really care about the radio because the only time I listen to it is the five times a year I'm in a car.
post #37 of 56
Sorry, I made my pronouns confusing. What I meant to say was, Would it be OK for NPR to continue to operate as usual, while the government tries to shut down the likes of Rush?
post #38 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
Sorry, I made my pronouns confusing. What I meant to say was, Would it be OK for NPR to continue to operate as usual, while the government tries to shut down the likes of Rush?
that does make more sense!
post #39 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
Sorry, I made my pronouns confusing. What I meant to say was, Would it be OK for NPR to continue to operate as usual, while the government tries to shut down the likes of Rush?
I have 6 radio buttons in my car and 4 of them are tuned into local NPR type stations. I listen to them at least 2 hours a day all year long. I disagree that they are liberally biased. They are mostly focused on news from around the world. Since that news is not filtered, I believe a lot of people think they are liberally biased. I have never once heard any of them bashing republican politicians like Rush does to the democrats. Comparing NPR station programming to Rush programming is like comparing an apple to a worm - they aren't even in the same family.
post #40 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
accusations from who ? the libs?
of course they say they dont get there fair time.
Shows like jerry springer failed. Most real people dont want to hear, that stuff.
Jerry Springer ran for years... I checked the website and it's still running new episodes. Jerry Springer did NOT start off with all the sensationalism. I remember when the show started and it was a talk show very similar to Oprah and others of that genre. I think if he had failed, his show wouldn't have been running now for all these years. In fact, it started in 1991, and was the number one talk show for awhile, at one point even beating Oprah on the scale. Actually, a lot of this I didn't know and it was interesting to read...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jerry_Springer_Show

Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
That's only because Jerry Springer is a revolting little creep who makes millions off people's misery. That show makes me physically ill. People can watch it if they like but I have no desire to derive entertainment from watching the very saddest and most pathetic members of our society embarrass themselves on television while some rich guy sits there and encourages them to do it to bring him fame and wealth.

It's kind of like dog-fighting to me. Reprehensible and disgusting.
Well, it's only embarrassing if they're embarrassed.. and if they're willing to go up there (and lots of people fabricate this stuff just to get the free trip and the moment of spotlight).. they're not embarrassed. Jerry doesn't write the show, the producers do. Jerry actually started off as a real talk show host and the producers changed the content.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
I have 6 radio buttons in my car and 4 of them are tuned into local NPR type stations. I listen to them at least 2 hours a day all year long. I disagree that they are liberally biased. They are mostly focused on news from around the world. Since that news is not filtered, I believe a lot of people think they are liberally biased. I have never once heard any of them bashing republican politicians like Rush does to the democrats. Comparing NPR station programming to Rush programming is like comparing an apple to a worm - they aren't even in the same family.
I don't necessarily think that NPR is one-sided. I've often heard talk shows where they have liberals and conservatives, public and politician get on the air and discuss things and the hosts have been very neutral. I'm pretty sure that they're way beyond public bashing. They've got more class than that, from what I've seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
I just wish she wouldn't express her desire that somebody knock off Bush, Cheney, etc., when I call her, as international calls are monitored. She has Alzheimer's, and I've tried to explain about calls, emails, faxes, etc., being monitored, but she just doesn't get it. Her left-wing tendencies did become apparent long before the Alzheimer's, though. She just wasn't as vehement or vocal about them back then. Oh, well.
Actually, I had a conservative friend of mine start bashing me in an email once, and he told me that my liberal views were unpatriotic and went so far as to say that I was a traitor to my country and threatened to turn my emails over to the FBI for slandering the president. I told him go ahead, I want to see the absolute ruckus that would have happened. I agree with your mom, but only because I'll be darned if I'm going to let the government tell me I can't have an opinion on something and let them make me feel like I have to hide my conversations. If they're eavesdropping, they deserve what they get. I don't have any excuse, except I shouldn't need one. Being that it obviously bothers you though, I do sympathize.
post #41 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
I have 6 radio buttons in my car and 4 of them are tuned into local NPR type stations. I listen to them at least 2 hours a day all year long. I disagree that they are liberally biased. They are mostly focused on news from around the world. Since that news is not filtered, I believe a lot of people think they are liberally biased. I have never once heard any of them bashing republican politicians like Rush does to the democrats. Comparing NPR station programming to Rush programming is like comparing an apple to a worm - they aren't even in the same family.
Amy, I used that as an example, using the same words that Julie (who is a well-known liberal here) used to describe NPR.
post #42 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
Amy, I used that as an example, using the same words that Julie (who is a well-known liberal here) used to describe NPR.
Thanks - you had me confused!
post #43 of 56
The bottom line is that the government should have absolutely no say in how talk radio stations determine their programming. IMO, they have no right to say that a station has to be "balanced" and not lean towards one party or the other with their programming. The Fairness Doctrine violates the First Amendment, which is why it hasn't been upheld in the courts.
post #44 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
I've met him. In his defense he is a decent politician with really good ideas that are liberal but most people would like.

hmm not really, that why his show only lasted for 6 months here.
it did not get ratings,

i listen to NPR also. sometimes they have good stuff and sometimes not.

As for Rush on armed service radio, the people have a say,what goes on the air. to some degree. One of the shows the men picked was rush. but i guess if you follow the john kerry idea of the troops i can see why people whould find that hard to shallow.
post #45 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
hmm not really, that why his show only lasted for 6 months here.
it did not get ratings,

i listen to NPR also. sometimes they have good stuff and sometimes not.

As for Rush on armed service radio, the people have a say,what goes on the air. to some degree. One of the shows the men picked was rush. but i guess if you follow the john kerry idea of the troops i can see why people whould find that hard to shallow.
Actually, the Jerry Springer new episodes are showing on channel 6, WUAB, in Akron through Time Warner Cable, for zip code 44035.. dunno if that's close or not, but they are showing new shows in the area.. of course, you're probably at work when they're showing, 'cause they're on at 3 p.m. But his show, as I posted before, has run for 16 years and does get the ratings.

It does make sense, though, that most military men would pick shows that are mostly conservative in nature. I wouldn't say that's always the case, but I'm sure that they'd rather hear a conservative viewpoint considering that a lot of liberal viewpoints are antiwar. Still don't think this war is the fault of the military personnel, but.. it does make sense that they'd pick more conservative programming.
post #46 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
hmm not really, that why his show only lasted for 6 months here.
it did not get ratings,
Jerry Springer is on network tv every day of the week in Cleveland, old episode at 11 and new at 3, on channel 6. Not even cable. I don't know what you mean by it only lasted 6 months, it's a syndicated show that did better than Oprah for a long while.

(catsarebetter-- same channel, I know I'm repeating a lot of what you said, the cable is different for Akron than where Bruce lives though)
post #47 of 56
i was talking about his, Radio show, not his TV show.
i did give his radio show a chance, but it was to painful to listen to, But not in the same way his TV show is.

PS i also find rush hard to listen to for more then 30 min, and even then it depends on his topic,
post #48 of 56
Thread Starter 
post #49 of 56
I haven't really decided what I think about the Fairness Doctrine. I live in Germany, where you have to pay for access to public television (often biased, although that is supposedly illegal). We have cable television, and I got so disgusted with Faux News that I threatened to cancel our cable subscription unless that option could be removed, but really, nobody is forced to view/listen to TV and radio stations/broadcasts that disgust them.
post #50 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
... Faux News ...
Oh, that's too funny, I like that one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
...nobody is forced to view/listen to TV and radio stations/broadcasts that disgust them....
This is true, but I'm thinking the argument is for equal airtime, not so that liberals can listen to any station and not be offended, as an example. The bigger issue here (on this particular issue), and that's not saying anyone here is uneducated or anything like that, is that they're broadcasting to the masses. People tend to believe the media, and therefore whatever the spin is that the media puts on things. Which is fine, if the media doesn't put a spin on it and gives both sides of the argument. The problem then, is that people don't then hear both sides, or don't hear all the facts.. they only hear the facts that support one side.

Now, that being said, I don't believe in regulating free speech. I do see the reasoning behind the argument though. I'm actually at least mildly surprised that liberal representatives are supporting this. I'm sort of torn, because while I don't think this "stifles" free speech, it seems to be more of a "forcing" to say more... or to include more. So, it's sort of a reversal of roles.

In some respects, though, these companies/media venues, do already stifle free speech, in that they disallow any viewpoint that doesn't match theirs. And if you follow that, then it's sort of enforcing free speech.. of course, that doesn't provide for the fact that these companies are owned and not a public forum..

I don't know, just tossing some ideas out there.
post #51 of 56
And here we go. I've been waiting to bump this thread, and the poop has finally started.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29263

The FCC has sent letters to some of the nation's most prominent military analysts -- some of them pro-President Bush and pro-war -- suggesting they may have broken the law when they appeared on television stations to comment on and explain the war on terrorism.

The FCC letters came at the behest of two House Democrats, who say the analysts parroted on air the private briefings they received at the Pentagon. This may have broken the law, the lawmakers said.

Democrats have more in store to try to muzzle conservatives. They talk of reactivating the so-called Fairness Doctrine in which federal government bureaucrats monitor radio and TV programs and rule on their fairness. Conservatives say the real goal is to kill right-leaning talk radio.

post #52 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
And here we go. I've been waiting to bump this thread, and the poop has finally started.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29263

The FCC has sent letters to some of the nation's most prominent military analysts -- some of them pro-President Bush and pro-war -- suggesting they may have broken the law when they appeared on television stations to comment on and explain the war on terrorism.

The FCC letters came at the behest of two House Democrats, who say the analysts parroted on air the private briefings they received at the Pentagon. This may have broken the law, the lawmakers said.

Democrats have more in store to try to muzzle conservatives. They talk of reactivating the so-called Fairness Doctrine in which federal government bureaucrats monitor radio and TV programs and rule on their fairness. Conservatives say the real goal is to kill right-leaning talk radio.

But the complaint is about sharing private info provided in a briefing. When a client pays us for an opinion on something, we can't publish it.

Laurie
post #53 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
And here we go. I've been waiting to bump this thread, and the poop has finally started.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29263

The FCC has sent letters to some of the nation's most prominent military analysts -- some of them pro-President Bush and pro-war -- suggesting they may have broken the law when they appeared on television stations to comment on and explain the war on terrorism.

The FCC letters came at the behest of two House Democrats, who say the analysts parroted on air the private briefings they received at the Pentagon. This may have broken the law, the lawmakers said.

Democrats have more in store to try to muzzle conservatives. They talk of reactivating the so-called Fairness Doctrine in which federal government bureaucrats monitor radio and TV programs and rule on their fairness. Conservatives say the real goal is to kill right-leaning talk radio.

Analysts that are regular network contributors aren't briefed with any classified material, are they? If not, what would be the problem? The only time I've seen classified material (that I know of) on a news program is when Geraldo was drawing maps in the sand
post #54 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Analysts that are regular network contributors aren't briefed with any classified material, are they? If not, what would be the problem? The only time I've seen classified material (that I know of) on a news program is when Geraldo was drawing maps in the sand
That would be the point.

The analysts aren't speaking as offical members of the administration. They are retired military, civilians.
post #55 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Analysts that are regular network contributors aren't briefed with any classified material, are they? If not, what would be the problem? The only time I've seen classified material (that I know of) on a news program is when Geraldo was drawing maps in the sand
I nearly laughed my tea out my nose on that one!
post #56 of 56
Fairness Doctrine is a joke.
if people wanted to listen to liberal talk shows, then the shows would make money.

but as it is they cant stay on the air.

i have thought for a long time, that reporters and such in the war zone do nothing accept get are troops killed.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
This thread is locked  
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Why do Libs want to stifle Free Speech?