| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Free Press Group Wants Limits on Talk Radio |
| 2007-06-27 |
| The American Civil Rights Union, an organization dedicated to protecting free speech, is blasting a liberal think tank for calling on the government to impose restrictions on talk radio. The Center for American Progress was founded by former President Bill Clinton's chief of staff John Podesta. Along with a group called Free Press, it has recently published a study entitled "The structural imbalance of political talk radio." The study suggests that conservative talk radio has an unfair advantage that needs to be rectified by government intervention. It calls for more diversity in ownership, and says stations that fail to abide by government-mandated public-interest obligations should pay a fine to support public broadcasting. Horace Cooper, a senior fellow with the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU), says individuals already have a way to regulate talk radio. "There is a very simple way they can deal with it," he points out. "They turn to another channel." But the Center for American Progress, says Cooper, apparently does not like that approach. "[They say] 'We're not going to leave it up to the American people to decide. We want to bring the government in and have them make these decisions,'" he insists. Cooper says the recommendations found in the report remind him of what goes on in totalitarian regimes. "They're actually proposing that we take the ownership rights of the radio stations from the pre-existing owners and re-allocate them to other people who have approved political views," he explains. "This is a lot like what is going on in Venezuela today. This looks a lot like what used to go on in the former [Soviet] Eastern Bloc." Cooper says the suggestions made by the Center for American Progress go way beyond the "Fairness Doctrine," which some members of Congress are trying to resurrect. |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #21 Talk Radio itself is Fairness in action. Its purpose, both stated and real, is to offset the inherent liberal biases of most of the rest of the media-industrial complex. Lefty politicians and NGOs can make all the noise they want about reviving the "fairness doctrine," but the real powers on the left, the media elite and and their academic allies, will not push it. The last thing they want is a court test of the fairness of their own ideological outlets, the so-called mainstream media, particularly their news departments. Such a test is inevitable if government regulators drive popular conservatives off the air. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2007-06-27 17:09 |
| #20 NPR is government funded and liberal and it sucks the air out of other liberal attempts at talk radio. NPR should be defunded. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-06-27 13:10 |
| #19 You folks are missing one point - there are no liberals, (according to the liberals). Just regular folks and right-wing wackos. There's no liberal media bias. The regular folks need protection from the right-wingers. Haven't you noticed some of the regular folks are more worried about Bush than Dinnerjacket? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-06-27 11:03 |
| #18 Except that last time this was passed Brett, they didn't apply it to any other media. There's no way it'll be able to be used against the MSM. This kind of crap is why I laugh every time a leftist calls conservatives a Nazi or Fascist. They're the Nazi's and Fascists, they're the ones that are what they supposedly hate. And while I might have to refer to them as people, I no longer believe that the left is human, they signed it away and have become something else, but there's no humanity in what they desire. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2007-06-27 11:00 |
| #17 "Free Press Group" from the folks that brought you "Peoples Democratic Republics". George Orwell must be chuckling in the grave. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-06-27 10:58 |
| #16 I always like the call for more "Diversity" in ownership. What this means is if there were more minority ownership they would air more pro govmint programming. Playing the race card again. |
| Posted by: BrerRabbit 2007-06-27 10:56 |
| #15 I seem to remember another type of government that liked to control the media and what news the people heard. Oh that right that was the Soviet Union! Every day their mask(s) reveal a little bit more into their souls. I have a prediction that IF they do pass the fairness doctrine and somehow it is enforced we will see an explosion of underground and web-based talk radio shows. Come to think of it that might not be a bad idea? Web Radio Rantburg? “This is the Cyber Sarge hour coming to you from the WRRB studios far away from the clutches of the Federal Government. Mmmuuuuuurraaaaahhhhh!” |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2007-06-27 10:55 |
| #14 I think this would be very good. After all, I don't see how they could impose this on only talk radio. Think about how it would open up the TV networks..... |
| Posted by: Brett 2007-06-27 10:47 |
| #13 Let me suggest a reasoned alternative: break up the major media oligopoly. Only a dozen or so companies control all the significant media, print and broadcast, in the US. We used to have limits on how many newspapers, radio and TV stations a single company could own or control. By all accounts, our MSM today stinks. It is no longer either competitive or market driven. So in exchange of busting up Clear Channels control of radio, we might also get, if not a breakup, then a divestment of the major media companies of large blocks of their holdings. The limits would neither have to be draconian or unfair, say a single company could only own ONE newspaper, ONE TV station, ONE radio station, and ONE other type of publishing in a single major market. That denies nobody access to the market, insures that market driven diversity and competition continue, and gives greater variety to the consumer. Granted, a LOT of radio stations would have to pay Rush Limbaugh a LOT more for exclusive broadcast rights. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-06-27 10:27 |
| #12 (Also what Mitch said. Yeesh... it isn't even really hot yet today and my mind is starting to melt. I'm done now.) |
| Posted by: eLarson 2007-06-27 09:38 |
| #11 The ACLU? The article is talking about the ACRU. Different org... |
| Posted by: eLarson 2007-06-27 09:37 |
| #10 Conservatives have AM radio. It was the land no one wanted... until it became popular and successful. (Is there a parallel with Israel here?) |
| Posted by: eLarson 2007-06-27 09:22 |
| #9 Oh, and don't be impressed by the ACLU. They rarely defend conservatives, and when they do, it's merely for the free publicity and to conserve a fig leaf of objectivity. "Well, they defended the KKK!" B.S. ACLU is as liberal as they come, and they cherry-pick the cases that they take. |
| Posted by: gromky 2007-06-27 09:12 |
| #8 I always found it hilarious that liberals are outraged at conservative talk radio. Let's see...the liberals have TV, movies, newspapers, magazines, all of the modern media under the control of their sympathizers. Conservatives have...AM Radio! And we only have that because it was essentially abandoned. But let's get a law passed saying that those AM radio stations can't practice free speech! |
| Posted by: gromky 2007-06-27 09:10 |
| #7 Or, what Mitch said... |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2007-06-27 08:55 |
| #6 Cautious respect to ACLU for speaking out against this... |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2007-06-27 08:54 |
| #5 I was impressed that the ACLU was actually defending conservative civil liberties for a change, until I noticed that this organization was actually the AC*R*U. Whoops. They're a right-wing answer to the ACLU, whom they regularly ding for hypocrisy and selective advocacy of only those civil liberties they approve of. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2007-06-27 08:51 |
| #4 More proof the liberals are not for free market choices and the limiting of all speech that does not fit their limited view. You know libs, we had a revolution and killed people who tried this before. Ya damn wankers. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-06-27 08:21 |
| #3 F*in' tranzi bastards. Talk radio is the only outlet they don't already control. Can't have non-party line opinions out there. You know the conservative blogosphere is on their radar, too. |
| Posted by: Spot 2007-06-27 08:19 |
| #2 But the Center for American Progress, says Cooper, apparently does not like that approach. "[They say] 'We're not going to leave it up to the American people to decide [what they should watch]. We want to bring the government in and have them make these decisions,'" he insists. There - fixed it for ya. No charge. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2007-06-27 08:18 |
| #1 The study suggests that conservative talk radio has an unfair advantage... It's called popularity. If you can't beat it, regulate it! |
| Posted by: Raj 2007-06-27 08:12 |