Posted on 06/08/2011 9:50:49 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Elections have consequences.
Elections have consequences.
And believe it or not I could have a good case for “forcing conservative opinion on public radio”. Because it’s TAXPAYER FUNDED! (And yes, NPR did not get de-funded.)
In Boston (believe it or not) most of the talk stations skew conservative: WRKO (Entercom), WTKK (Greater Media), WBZ (CBS), WXKS (Clear Channel). On the left side of the dial is one guy, Jeff Santos, who buys time on an AM station to run progressive talk. Swell.
Oh...and there are two powerhouse NPR stations, WBUR and
WGBH. We can’t forget them. Liberal to the max.
Can the FCC tell WRKO that it has to run liberals as well as conservatives? And can the FCC tell WGBH or WBUR that they have to run conservatives as well as liberals?
“Fresh Air With Terri Gross—And Michael Savage”
“Ed Schultz—And Rush Limbaugh”
Actually in the latter case, Ed’s ratings would go way up :)
Conservative talk works. Liberal talk can work—with taxpayer funding on NPR... But otherwise... We’re talking Air America tanking in liberal BOSTON. Why should the government force, say, WRKO to pick up Stephanie Miller,
or WTKK to run Ed Schulz? For “equal time”...?
They plan on achieving “The Fairness Doctrine” through “diverse” ownership.
Interesting situation in Boston where black-owned Radio One changed format of WILD AM 1090. It had been black-oriented talk shows like Rev. Al Sharpton and some soul music, gospel, etc. As of 6/1 it’s now running China Radio International under a “leased marketing agreement”.
Well, there’s your diversity (time bought by Chinese govt.
no doubt founded by buying up U.S. and credit card debt).
Money talked. Bye bye Rev Al
Universal Hub: “Shocker for Al Sharpton fans: Boston Radio Watch reports the station’s owners have signed a long-term lease with China Radio International to broadcast “news, music, language lessons and human interest stories from China live from Beijing.”
Wait a minute, the guy who’s supposed to be sneaking fairness doctrine in under the guise of net neutrality just officially killed fairness doctrine? If you maintain your position, you need to get your tin foil hat recalibrated.
Genachowski had better hire a guy to start his car and stay far away from Fort Marcy Park until Obozo can find his replacement.
Figured something was up when their winter ski report no longer referred to hitting the slopes.
Most of the criticism of net neutrality is the mistaken idea that it involves the fairness doctrine, which as we see is officially dead. People all the way up to Speaker Boehner believe this, which makes them look quite stupid to anyone who knows the facts. But to be fair, he's probably just parroting what the telco lobbyists fed him along with their campaign donations. AT&T is his top contributor.
The other mistaken belief is that net neutrality is an introduction of government regulation into the Internet, when in fact the government has been regulating the Internet since the government created the it.
They’ll just come at it from a different direction.
but they will leave the local content back door.
A response I got when I posted this story on a radio-interest messageboard:
>>Having managed during the so called “Fairness Doctrine” I can tell you it was no treat with all the nut jobs coming out of the woodwork asking, NO DEMANDING time. I swear I spent 3/4 of my day dealing with that crap.
Be ready for your power rates to sky rocket this fall and winter. 40% increases across the board aren't impossible.
Genochowski is too much in bed with the marxist left of Free Press NOT to go for Net Neutrality which they wrote and promoted.
This isn’t a skunk in wolf’s clothing but a marxist in a suit.
People beware of this guy.
you heard it too???
The 0 will order another, more restrictive version in a very short time. This dictatorship is NOT to be trusted!
He doesn’t need the fairness doctrine anymore.
They’ve got net neutrality. And localism.
Why worry about the Beamer when they’ve got the yacht?
A huge portion of talk radio is highly dependent upon research that’s done by online conservative groups, both large and small.(From MRC to freepers, for example)
So by attacking the internet, it’s a huge kneecap to talk radio by default.
Good, then we need to keep net neutrality so that can't be interfered with. You don't want only sites with rich backing (*cough* Soros *cough*) being able to put out the news. Then we'd be absolutely dependent on those very few well-financed conservative outlets such as Breitbart. You'd find some great independent video exposing a leftist, post up the link, and many of us wouldn't be able to watch it because the source didn't have the cash to pay our ISPs for the privilege of their data going across the ISP's network.
Even worse, the telcos have their leftist ideologues too, and may just decide not to carry (or rather, block) Breitbart and Drudge regardless of payment, and maybe FR too. That's what you get without net neutrality. This is what is referred to as the "cableization" of the Internet, and it will mean the destruction of the free flow of ideas on the Internet. Enforcement of net neutrality prevents it.
The left/right view of the FCC is too simplified. You also need to add who is owned by whom. Why would Genachowski be for net neutrality? FREE PRESS!!! LEFTIST!!! MARXIST!!!
Too simplified. He has a huge interest in companies that operate on the Internet. This guy created the Fox and USA broadcasting companies, he serves and served on the boards of many large Internet companies, he founded investment firms specializing in Internet startups, and is an adviser to another that even funded Facebook and Network Solutions.
Obviously, this guy’s economic interests lie in keeping the Internet as open as possible. Any interference with the free flow of data by the telcos would cost him and the companies he’s associated with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.