Skip to comments.
McCain to Lead New Reform Fight For Free TV Time
Roll Call Magazine
| 6.13.02
| Mort Kondracke
Posted on 06/13/2002 8:49:26 AM PDT by meandog
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
A website friendly to McCain is conducting a poll on free TV time...but, I'm not going to list it because I know the disasterous effects of FReeping that will be wrought (done purely because of hatred of a fine American patriot)!
1
posted on
06/13/2002 8:49:27 AM PDT
by
meandog
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC
Donate Here By Secure Server
Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com Thank you Registered!
2
posted on
06/13/2002 8:51:35 AM PDT
by
Mo1
To: meandog
The fight for free TV time will be an epic battle, pitting McCain, a media hero, against the broadcasters. This is definitely a dragon-slaying job for St. George. Using someone else's property without compensation is THEFT!
To: meandog
I have a better idea. Ban all political advertising from TV, radio, and newspapers. Force the candidates to go directly to the people, one person at a time.
4
posted on
06/13/2002 8:56:17 AM PDT
by
jimkress
To: meandog
I think McCain is trying to get a show like Ozzy Osborne. "Cindy, where the #%#$ is the %@%@$ Metamucil?"
5
posted on
06/13/2002 8:57:37 AM PDT
by
pikachu
To: meandog
The real mystery is when you are going to reveal that you ARE John McCain.
6
posted on
06/13/2002 9:00:50 AM PDT
by
Clemenza
To: meandog
How much time per candidate will the stations have to make free? Obviously, you can't give every candidate who raises $50K as much time as they want. Will candidiates be allowed to purchase more time after they use up their freebies? Or are they specifically limited to the free stuff? That last one's definitely a question of Constitutional free speech (no poun intended). And, by the way, if they're not limited to the free stuff, then the restriction is not so important in terms of who advertises more - well-funded candidates will still be able to buy more time.
To: pikachu
I think McCain is trying to get a show like Ozzy Osborne. "Cindy, where the #%#$ is the %@%@$ Metamucil?" "It was the Strawberries, Cindy!"
8
posted on
06/13/2002 9:01:45 AM PDT
by
Clemenza
To: meandog
McCain is a socialist.
To: meandog
(done purely because of hatred of a fine American patriot)! Your "fine American patriot" lately enjoys urinating and/or defacating on the Constitution he swore to uphold and defend.
To: dubyaismypresident
The liberal mantra is "gimme, gimme, gimme..."
To: meandog
Candidates can't get their message across to the public through so-called "free media," i.e. news coverage, so they have to buy time for political ads. The whole idea is based on a false premise: that television is an effective means of informing the public on candidate characteristics. Whether it is via "free media" or paid advertising, the "message" that Mort is so wound up about is a simple grab for votes like an ad for Nike is a grab for money. And as such, it is not always in the best interests of the company (candidate) to present a complete and accurate picture.
Free media pieces are as scripted as the paid ads, and have as much substance. Though I disagree with most newspaper editorial boards (because most tilt leftward), editorials at least must adhere to rules of logic and truth.
While it would be impossible (illegal) to do so, the public would be better informed if television representations of candidates were banned altogether.
12
posted on
06/13/2002 9:30:24 AM PDT
by
Mr. Bird
To: meandog
The fight for free TV time will be an epic battle, pitting McCain, a media hero, against the broadcasters.
Huh? McCain is a "media" hero but he is up against the "broadcasters". In general, aren't the "media" and "broadcasters" the SAME people?
We owe "Lieutenant Dan" (ala Forrest Gump) McCain because of his military service. We just don't owe him as much as he has taken recently and what he wants now.
To: meandog
McCrazy's looking for an issue that will make the media like him, as CFR did.
Depriving the media of ad revenue ain't it.
14
posted on
06/13/2002 10:01:40 AM PDT
by
Oschisms
To: isthisnickcool
Let me start this off bluntly. I do not owe McCain jack s--t.Just like no one owes me anything for my 9+ yrs. There are literally hundreds of thousands of military who did as much or a hell of a lot more than McCain. I despise people who try to profit off there military duty. McCain would not have been a pilot had not his father been an admiral. He would have flunked ot of flight shchool. There are hundreds of facts that the press ignore about McCain. They have been brought out on FR many times. He is nothing more than another asshole senator!!!!
15
posted on
06/13/2002 10:04:55 AM PDT
by
cksharks
To: cksharks
That was blunt. I'd argue with you but I can't see anything I can disagree with.
To: dubyaismypresident
Using someone else's property without compensation is THEFT! And just whose property is being taken without compensation?. Try reading the article next time.
---max
17
posted on
06/13/2002 10:20:02 AM PDT
by
max61
To: dubyaismypresident
>>Using someone else's property without compensation is THEFT<<
It certainly is.
That's why I demand free television time for candidates, as partial compensation for the license which protects broadcasters from competition, and for they use of my (and your) airwaves.
To: meandog
As I have said before, this is wrong on so many levels.
Broadcasters are already burdened with price controls on political advertising. The amount of work required to protect a TV station's income stream in the months prior to political seasons is phenomenal.
A station must be extremely careful not to accidentally schedule a low dollar client - or zero dollar bonus spots for the higher paying clients - in large revenue generating time periods.
If you let Mom & Pop in for $50, or 'super-size' Toyota's buy with a free spot, McCain gets the same rate when he comes calling.
Then there's the blanket two hours of political coverage per week. Rule #1 in TV: All markets are different. In some markets, especially the big ones, there are dozens of politicians fighting for air time. Some smaller markets, may not even be as big as a congressional district. Is it fair to make Ottumwa, Iowa AND New York City dedicate the same amount of time each to political coverage?
TV stations don't have the same liberty as radio stations when it comes to commercial inventory. A radio station can create room for more commercials by simply deleting one song per hour. That's not the case in TV. The amount of commercial time available is determined by the programming (except for local news, which CAN be easily manipulated for inventory purposes) If you get six minutes of time in FRIENDS, you get six minutes. You can't delete part of the show to make room for the politicians.
Free political ads would also take away slots that paid advertisers might have reserved - and in the political season, they would take away most, if not all of the TV stations inventory. These free spots would flood the airwaves beyond the levels they now occupy, displacing paying customers - who also have the right to buy advertising when they want and where they want.
There's a first amendment right no one talks about - perhaps Sears could sue McCain for violation of their rights as an advertiser?
19
posted on
06/13/2002 10:26:42 AM PDT
by
Hessian
To: meandog
Attention Arizona shoppers...
GET RID OF THIS FREELOADER !!
20
posted on
06/13/2002 10:28:44 AM PDT
by
unixfox
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson