Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Now we know WHY the din for this started growing at the beginning of last week.

Center for American Progress had a 40 page report ready to try and justify government-mandated censorship of the one media outlet that can rally the people against Hillary!

CAP is a CLINTON-RUN leftist think tank, run by Hillary Clinton and former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta. They helped launch Media Matters for America.

SOROS is a huge contributor, and other recent donors to CAP include the Rockefeller Family Fund; the Irving Harris Foundation, the Philip Murphy Foundation, the New York Community Trust, the Overbrook Foundation, the Peninsula Foundation, the Robert E. Rubin Foundation, the San Francisco Foundation, the Bauman Family Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the Open Society Institute, and the Robert and Irene Schwartz Foundation.

1 posted on 06/26/2007 8:26:25 AM PDT by tcrlaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last
To: holdonnow; sono; RasterMaster; sofaman; eeevil conservative; tiredoflaundry; cibco; ...

ping


2 posted on 06/26/2007 8:29:40 AM PDT by AliVeritas (America, love it or leave it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tcrlaf
The First Amendment Is Unfair. Keep it Anyway.
3 posted on 06/26/2007 8:30:15 AM PDT by lowbridge ("The mainstream media IS the Democratic Party." - Rush Limbaugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tcrlaf
"Our goal is not less speech, but more speech," said Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott. "We want more voices on the radio."

Yeah, right. These communist-lite b*stards don't want ANY speech. And if they truly want their "voices" on the radio, they could try to put on a program which didn't actively repel listeners like ErrAmerica did. They already have NPR, which I can't bear to listen to since everything has a homosexual slant to it.

4 posted on 06/26/2007 8:30:30 AM PDT by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tcrlaf
media reform group Free Press

What an ironic name for his group. Sorry, if there was an audience for liberal talk radio, there would be more liberal talk radio.
5 posted on 06/26/2007 8:30:41 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tcrlaf; All

Mike Harrison of TALKERS magazine (the folks who gave
Savage the Freedom of Speech award) said that the report
was inaccurate because public radio was not included.
Anyone out there name any conservative voices on public
radio?

from the Boston Herald, last Friday. By Jesse Noyes


Authors of a report, which found that the vast majority of talk radio programs cater to conservatives, called on the Federal Communications Commission yesterday to push for more local ownership to promote different voices.

Ninety-one percent of the talk on the radio dial during weekdays is given over to right-wing programming, according to a study by Free Press and the Center for American Progress, both left-leaning groups.

The two groups studied 257 news and talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners in the country earlier this year and found that over 2,570 hours of conservative talk were broadcast on those stations each weekday, while a much lower 254 hours was dedicated to progressive talk.

In a conference call, the authors of report said the Federal Communications Commission needs to step in to limit the number of stations companies can own and make way for more local ownership.

“Our goal is not less speech, it’s more speech,” said Ben Scott, policy director for Free Press. “We want more voices on the radio.”

But Michael Harrison, publisher of trade magazine Talkers, said the report is flawed and narrow. It doesn’t consider the broader spectrum of talk radio, which would include public radio stations, he said.

“There’s a lot more to talk radio than what they call talk radio,” Harrison said.

Even in blue-state Massachusetts, there’s very little liberal talk. WTTK-FM (96.9) recently expanded the time slot of Herald columnist Margery Eagan and NECN host Jim Braude’s show by two hours. By talk radio standards, Eagan and Braude are moderate to liberal.

But Clear Channel dumped its liberal talk format heard on WKOX-AM (1200) and WXKS-AM (1430) last year in favor of a Spanish-language format.

Mike Crusham, market manager for Clear Channel in New England, said the move wasn’t politically motivated but financial.

“I always found, at least in my past life, that it’s tougher to sell advertising on progressive talk,” he said.

Donna Halper, a radio consultant who’s been pushing to get progressive talk back on the air in Boston, said the format can work if given enough resources.

“It isn’t an easy sell but, then again, neither was right-wing conservative talk when it started out,” she said.


7 posted on 06/26/2007 8:33:16 AM PDT by raccoonradio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tcrlaf

I wonder why they don’t go on AirHead America and talk about this?

Notice no mention of the obvious liberal bias of the rest of the media and Hollyweird.


8 posted on 06/26/2007 8:33:19 AM PDT by Tarpon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tcrlaf

Fine, I want half of every department in every university in America to be staffed with registered conservatives, I want a competing newspaper in every city with the same funding as their leftist counterpart, I want 3 conservative, national TV channels to counter the big three, and for every socialist movie or documentary, I want funding for a conservative counterpoint. I also want a right leaning version of the ACLU, the ABA, and the AMA. Further, I want every secondary school in the US to have a proportional # of conservatives, all the grants from the big trusts must give equal $ to conservative causes, and I will also require a radical restructuring of the publishing industry, from booksellers to weekly news magazines. This would be a good start.


9 posted on 06/26/2007 8:35:52 AM PDT by giobruno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tcrlaf
Lloyd stressed that CAP and Free Press are not joining the Democrats in Congress who want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, a federal regulation that required broadcasters to present both sides of a controversial issue.

Hmmm, I just wonder if they want this to apply to TV stations. As the saying goes "Be careful waht you ask for".

10 posted on 06/26/2007 8:36:14 AM PDT by notpoliticallycorewrecked (California : home of the fruits, nuts and flakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tcrlaf
They will be stunned at how this will so blow up in their faces.
12 posted on 06/26/2007 8:38:28 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam is a religion of peace, and Muslims reserve the right to kill anyone who says otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tcrlaf

And what is the author’s take on the main stream media, does he show the imbalance there towards the liberals, with some 90% of all reporters donating to the democrats, as a recent survey reported? Of course not!


14 posted on 06/26/2007 8:40:24 AM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tcrlaf
"In each case, we found overwhelming evidence of complete conservative dominance of the political talk programming at both the station-by-station and market-by-market level," he said.

Surveys have been done of the DBM and found the exact same imbalance, but skewed toward liberal dominance. Talk radio IS the balance to the DBM.

Who gets to decide what is conservative talk programming and what is liberal? I find Larry Kudlow liberal on some issues (like immigration), but conservative on others (free markets). Does he balance himself? This is ridiculous.

17 posted on 06/26/2007 8:41:17 AM PDT by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tcrlaf

Seems the USSR’s propaganda writers are working in Poedesta’s little left wing thought crime mill.


23 posted on 06/26/2007 8:46:22 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tcrlaf

Center for American Progress had a 40 page report ready to try and justify government-mandated censorship of the one media outlet that can rally the people against Hillary!
::::::
This is EXACTLY what this is about! This sham of a socialist, anti-free speech front, is FUNDED BY THE CLINTON MOB AND SOROS, ET AL, for the SPECIFIC PURPOSE of protecting Hitlery from EXPOSURE AND COMPETITION IN THE 2008 ELECTION. What a crock of BS. These scum bag liberals are so filthy, they cannot win in a FAIR FIGHT, so they have to go to the back alleys and gutters to win.

Watch for their all-out attack on TALK RADIO and other forms of free speech that they cannot compete against and are willing to trash your Constitutional rights to get POWER AND CONTROL in the White House.

Filthy b@stards.


24 posted on 06/26/2007 8:46:54 AM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tcrlaf

As the Democrats/Libs push this forward I think they will find out that the worst thing to have happened would have been their failed putsch of Air America. Proof that the market cannot support the drivel that drips from Liberal talk radio.


28 posted on 06/26/2007 8:48:59 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Conservatives are educated. Liberals are indoctrinated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tcrlaf

We outnumber them so let the fight begin. Liberals want a confrontation on this issue. I say, let it begin. Everyone I know (both Parties) is saying that they are voting against “ALL” incumbents. Incumbents that want to limit our freedom of speech are toast. Freedom of speech, in their book, is only for the likes of Michael Moore and George Soros. Their goal is to silence us. They can think again, they’re very WRONG!


29 posted on 06/26/2007 8:49:26 AM PDT by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tcrlaf
It's simply inaccurate to argue there's little or no progressive talk in major markets with National Public Radio affiliates airing Diane Rehm's show, or 'Fresh Air with Terry Gross,' or the other national and local left-leaning talk programs."

Let's not forget "News and Notes" -- another raging liberal NPR program.

Let's not forget that several NPR correspondents are regularly used as the liberal voice on the Sunday news shows.

30 posted on 06/26/2007 8:49:29 AM PDT by Terabitten (Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets - E-Frat '94. Unity and Pride!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tcrlaf
"There's very little free speech and free choice in a market system that pushes one-sided information 90 percent of the time,"

You mean like in the print and TV media, where the so-called "fair" journalists are 90% Democrats pushing Democrat agendas?

32 posted on 06/26/2007 8:51:23 AM PDT by kevkrom ("Government is too important to leave up to the government" - Fred Dalton Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tcrlaf
Derek Turner, research director of Free Press, said "the potential one-sidedness on the radio dial in terms of political programming is strongly and directly related to ownership and market structure."

No, it's related to revenue. Profitable shows stay on the air, money losers get canceled. It's called the free market, I can understand why a Soros-funded group might not have heard of the concept.

35 posted on 06/26/2007 8:54:08 AM PDT by kevkrom ("Government is too important to leave up to the government" - Fred Dalton Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tcrlaf

Astroturfing at its finest.


37 posted on 06/26/2007 9:00:03 AM PDT by Cecily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tcrlaf
“Our goal is not less speech,” said Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott. “We want more voices on the radio.”

It is good to want. Try this. Gather some true talent, perhaps someone who says intelligent things, is engaging and well spoken, grow an audience (takes time), and build a darn following (may take a while). Like trees in the woods: the big strong ones do well b/c of favorable conditions and natural ability to thrive. There is no conspiracy to it.

45 posted on 06/26/2007 9:16:22 AM PDT by Floyd Rivers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson