1 posted on
02/03/2003 11:51:40 AM PST by
GeneD
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
To: GeneD
Molly Ivans once won a blue ribbon in the
hay eating category at the Texas Fair.
To: GeneD
She's absolutely right.
3 posted on
02/03/2003 11:56:07 AM PST by
mg39
To: GeneD; dighton; Poohbah; aculeus; general_re
"The U.S. now ranks 17th, below Costa Rica and Slovenia, on the worldwide index of press freedom established by the Reporters Without Borders."Now, there's an unbiased group to make the judgment.
(sarcasm ... off)
In other words, unless your reporting is done in such a manner that no one can tell within which border you're writing your articles or expounding on your radio program, it's slanted and unfair.
Piffle. Molly would only look good with an apple in her mouth, surrounded by potatoes, on top of coals in a hole in the ground. Her inate intelligence is about on par with that level of organism as well.
4 posted on
02/03/2003 12:02:20 PM PST by
BlueLancer
(Der Elite Møøsenspåånkængruppen ØberKømmååndø (EMØØK))
To: GeneD
I am sure the Molly Ivans would fix that by prohibiting non-politically correct speech from being uttered.
5 posted on
02/03/2003 12:03:33 PM PST by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave)
To: GeneD; dighton; general_re; Poohbah
"The spectrum of opinion on national political commercial talk radio shows ranges from extreme right wing to very extreme right wing -- there is virtually nothing else."I wonder where my favorite stations belonging to the "Attila the Hun Broadcasting Network" fall into that range.
6 posted on
02/03/2003 12:04:25 PM PST by
BlueLancer
(Der Elite Møøsenspåånkængruppen ØberKømmååndø (EMØØK))
To: GeneD
"less local news and local programming"
Not true!! But then since when did Molly ever tell the truth about anything.
I sent her an e-mail once complaining about something she said. Instead of explaining her point - she personally attacked me with the most viscious and mean-spirited statements. I was stunned when I read it.
Since then, I don't even pay attention to her.
9 posted on
02/03/2003 12:08:07 PM PST by
CyberAnt
( Yo! Syracuse)
To: GeneD
Simplistic left wing drivel. Liberals no longer have a monopoly on content, so now it's time cry "foul". Plus, many of us use the internet to find things out. Again, the left cries "foul".
No left wing radio??? It's been tried by Jim Hightower and, as I was reminded by a smart FReeper, Mario Cuomoalso tried his voice at the microphone. Both shows stunk. Both shows were cancelled. If listeners want hours of whining and comnplaining they can go to a nursery school.
To: GeneD
In 1987, FCC commissioners appointed by Ronald Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine, and that has already had a stunning effect on political debate in this country. In other words, Molly is upset that the conservative point of view is getting out and causing the liberals to lose elections.
To: GeneD
You gotta remember one thing Molly Ivans and commies like her consider ABCCNNCBSNBC conservative and the NY Slimes/Washington Postal "Middle of the road".
To: GeneD
"less local news and local programming" A large portion of the AM radio chanells that carry Rush are almost totally dedicated to "local" news and issues. In the 3 cities i have lived in the past 15 years, Rush was carried on the LOCAL news station. And outside of Rush and a couple other syndicated shows the rest of the programming was local.
To: GeneD
"less local news and local programming" Further on this issue, wasn't one of the biggest obstacles facing Rush when he started his journey to national greatness that he had to overcome program managers objections to his "national" focus? They all said he would fail because AM radio listeners wanted "local" programming and information.
To: GeneD
Molly Ivins = Verbal Stench
To: GeneD
"the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the people."And this can only happen, as has been proven time and time again, with the free market. What Ms Ivins is advocating of course, is more government control of both content and entry into the market. No single entity could control the "dissemination of information" in a free market because it would be consumer driven. Even if you owned them all, you'd still have to give people what they want.
I would prefer a single, powerful corporate entity any day to a single, powerful government one.
To: GeneD
To point out the obvious, broadcasters and their national advertisers have a clear stake in promoting the views of those who advocate lower taxes on the rich and on big corporations.That's a great example of what the left fears, but wouldn't come to pass because the retailing of information would be consumer driven. If you don't give the people what they want, they will turn it off. Once again, the left OVERESTIMATES the power of business in a competitive arena.
To: GeneD
Its has been put to the free market, and the free market has decided that no one wants to listen to liberal talk show hosts.
I think that this is because if youre liberal you will eventually have to come out against the U.S. and people just dont want to listen to that kind of crap.
22 posted on
02/03/2003 12:39:42 PM PST by
Sabretooth
(My handle is SabREtooth not SabERtooth.)
To: GeneD
Now why do you think NPR (tax-payer funded) was not mentioned in that article, or for that matter whenever the "Fairness" Docterine is brought up?
To: GeneD
Molly Ivins seems to grieve the fact that talk radio is predominantly conservative, but neglects to mention that the TV networks (except Fox) and the print media are lopsidely liberal. Of course, if she approvingly cites a source that would describe talk shows like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity as "far extreme right," (what would she think of Michael Savage or Gordon Liddy, much less libertarians or conspiracy theory advocates!) she would probably view NPR as middle of the road and Jennings, Rather, Brokaw, et. al., as moderately conservative. Her use of "conservative" and "liberal" labels seems to derive from a different planet from the usage of reasonable people.
That said, Ms. Ivins may have a point with respect to business concentrations potentially squeezing out other viewpoints. The rationale for government regulation was to facilitate a diversity of opinions. However, in real life, regulation becomes a tool of those in power. Remember that the "Fairness Doctrine" was used by the Johnson Administration as a club against its conservative opposition, such as H. L. Hunt's subsidized radio shows and the ministry of Rev. Carl McIntyre, a 1960s precursor of the "Christian Right." The "Fairness Doctrine" was not used on the "Big Three" netowrks, as they did not run commentaries, but routinely reported the news from a slanted liberal perspective. From the mid-1960s to the late 1980s, there was essentially a state-sanctioned news cartel with ABC, CBS, and NBC (and, later CNN) disseminating radio and TV news and opinion from a relentlessly liberal standpoint. Opinion shows, such as "Meet the Press," were usually stacked against conservative politicians and commentators. Of course, there was also PBS, to the left of the cartel politically, but state-subsidized. Conservatives were stuck with small circulation magazines and the talents of the Great Communicator, Ronald Reagan, during this 20-plus year period.
Talk radio helped get conservative ideas discussed in places other than small circulation magazines, dinner tables, and (sometimes) the pulpits of evangelical Christian churches. Rest assured the left would like to shut it down, and clamp down on the Internet as well.
To: GeneD
actually, I'd personally be happy to trade them CBS for a radio station :) Sounds fair...
What I don't understand is why folks haven't realized that the GROWTH of conservative radio was BECAUSE of the liberal stranglehold on mainstream media. Like the Kurds, we were simply fleeing the poison gas...
29 posted on
02/03/2003 12:58:15 PM PST by
Tamzee
To: GeneD
It's funny.....when dereg was proposed and the fairness doctrine was diminished and eliminated, it was conservatives and religious folks who were up in arms over over loosing it. Funny how things change.
To: GeneD
Is the free market not supposed to encourage competition rather than lead to its disappearance The free market is meant to reward those that provide a needed service to the public. Part of its function is to eliminate those suppliers whose products or services are not required by the public e.g. the radio shows of Mario Cuomo and Jim Hightower. It is not the function of the free market to subsidise a section of the market which is not viable.
The government has taken upon itself the (unconstitutional)duty to subsidise those views which would not otherwise be commercially viable viz PBS,NPR etc.
Get a Lone Star Molly and go back in your kennel.
31 posted on
02/03/2003 1:15:32 PM PST by
Timocrat
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson