Story Comments
Posted by: tbkennedy53 1 year, 8 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
tbkennedy531 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
scott42611 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'll answer that:
President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which lifted the cap on the number of television and radio stations a company can own in a single market. Clear Channel started buying up markets of all sizes (CBS/Infinity also sharing much of the pie in major markets) with a smattering of a few other companies here and there... The result has been very little competition. Since most media owners are conservative (and since a plethora of Rush clones were available in syndication by that point) it made since to program their dying AM stations with conservative talk (People tend to forget that - even though Rush Limbaugh has had his show since 1988 - and the meager success he had in the beginning he owed to the Reagan FCC repeal of the Fairness Doctrine - Rush's rise to fame happened with the election of Bill Clinton. And after 1996 and with many more affiliates added, he bashed Clinton all the way to the bank!).
Reply-
donald51Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT....
It's also very cost effective.. Stick someone like Rush in his studio--- actually in his house in Palm Beach, and flip a switch and you have the most listened to talk show on the radio.... because it's basically the ONLY talk show on the radio.. he can claim a large fan base only because he's on so many stations... in most markets he get ratings that are less than stellar...
He also used to PAY stations to carry his show.. in return he got a couple of live commercial spots to keep for his own out of each segment...
Reply-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user14 Replies
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why won't cons simply admit that they can't compete when obliged to present both sides of an issue? Shows like Limbaugh's do relatively well because the right wing media know that cons see things in terms of black and white, aggressively seek opportunities to have their egos stroked and will flock to anything which validates their opinions and views.
You know this, DKL. Look at the way some of you wingers here bare your fangs when FUR-ners like Candida and others dare to express an opinion which doesn't square with yours. It's bad enough that you have to tolerate us American liberals who refuse to dance to your nationalistic tune but someone from another country? Well, that's just going too dang far, huh?
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Can't compete? Conservatives have been competing and winning since the end of the unFairness Doctrine. Lib radio is a financial flop and even Al Gore has grown tired of pumping money into it. Liberalism is a big loser in the court of public opinion. No one pays to support the Lib media, as evidenced by the demise of the NY Times and Air unAmerican. Face it, when it comes to competing on an even playing field, Libs can't hack it.
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Can't compete? Conservatives have been competing and winning since the end of the unFairness Doctrine"
--Of course you'd think it was "unfair." The right wing media has always known that poorly educated cons are easily befuddled by legitimate debate and only want to be spoon-fed concepts and arguments that make them feel good. You cannot deny this. The bottom line is that you needed Ronnie Reagan to more or less unilaterally step in and, to your way of thinking, level the playing field. Let's be frank...
If you cons truly believed your arguments could stand on their own merits, you wouldn't need to sit glued to your tv sets every night watching Bill O'Reilly maniacally scream in the faces of his guests in order to feel as if your voice was being heard. You don't know what a level playing field is, baby.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Unlike educated Libs like Rosie O'Dumbass, Janeane Garofalo, or basically anyone with a show on Air unAmerican. I'm still wating for you to be frank. O'Reilly isn't a Conservative, btw, and I don't watch him. You'd know that if you actually understood Conservative views instead of mindlessly repeating DNC rhetoric.
Reply-
Neutral
fourthtunz1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So who is a conservative that you support?
Rush? He's an entertainer/media mouthpiece, so he says what he's paid to say.
Rosie and Garofalo aren't really good examples because they're comediennes who say what they think, which is more than you can say for Rush or Oreilly?
How about your president or Ronald Raygun?
2 of the biggest spenders that ever came down the pike. Not very conservative.
The problem in America is that people aren't thinking about what would be best for the country, and name calling doesn't help.
What about Ron Paul? He's the only candidate that has really said what he's going to do if he wins, the rest are scary.
The liberal/conservative arguments are for talk show hosts and fools, this has no bearing on who really runs our country which by the way are the bankers. It's us against them and their ideology is money and we are their slaves.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
scott42611 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Now we have Air America, Nova M, and certain shows from Jones Radio. This is a harder sell in smaller markets where management will do nothing to promote it.
Since we progressives are yearning for real information, we have turned to streaming on-line and/or subscribing to XM or Sirius for our talk. We get our news largely from the internet.
Reply-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"we progressives" - That would be "we liberals".
Times are really tough. Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Beck. Dobbs - it's just terrible. Where's the lib talk shows? I want to listen to one (except Franken - I can't stand the lying arrogant jerk). I bet it's a right wing conspiracy that keeps the left wing radio from airing their views!!
Reply-
Neutral
tbkennedy531 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The liberals have a government sponsored channel and always have had one, NPR. The networks may be owned by "conservatives" (not sure that's true) but the reporters are almost totally liberal. The cable networks and over the air broadcasters would air the left as well but it doesn't sell. The owners are after profit and not politics for the most part.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The liberals have a government sponsored channel and always have had one, NPR. The networks may be owned by "conservatives" (not sure that's true) but the reporters are almost totally liberal. The cable networks and over the air broadcasters would air the left as well but it doesn't sell. The owners are after profit and not politics for the most part. "
Sorry. The "liberal media" scam is one of the biggest myths of this decade. If you take far-left views and far-right views and come down squarely in the center of the two you will find *always* that the media falls right-of-center. Always.
As for the networks being owned by conservatives, one has only to look at NBC as an example, owned by GE (one of the largest contractors of the military-industrial complex) in turn owned by the bin-Laden groups (which quashed news stories about Osama through their influence).
Reply-
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
Neutral
UnusualSuspect1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
whiner...
Progressives don't really need all that many liberal talk shows. We're comfortable with what we got, since many of the regular cable network programs and over the air newscasts are moderate, fair, and balanced.
Limbaugh is more of a comedian anyway...in between Howard Stern and Don Imus. Listen to them once or twice, you realize that what they say is for shock effect only, and move on. The difference between Limbaugh and the other two is that he not only thinks he's funny, he thinks he's important, and sways public opinion...which he doesn't. He just shows us how ignorant he really is.
Reply-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user13 Replies
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm a proud "lefty looney" liberal and I don't see a problem with someone distinguishing their beliefs from liberalism and labeling themselves progressive. Does it bother you that real conservatives think you neocons have poisoned the conservative movement?
Reply
-
-
-
loading ...
Ciera-Marie
MacR
Shadowolf
dadesider
tiredofwhiners
scott4261
CRYMTYPHON
cowboygrandpa
Wolfie2007
bubba2
stoutkraut
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.