Senator Jay Rockefeller wants the FCC to shut down FOX and MSNBC. Sure, one is far left and one is far right, but isn't that part of our freedom of speech? Whatcha think?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ … waves.html
Tyrannical, oppressive, propaganda spinning, fascist loving, globalist.
Sort of trying to make himself the 21st century Goebbels!
From the context it looks like he's expressing a wish without expecting it to come true. Sort of like if I said "I'd like to choke mr. so and so customer service representative blah blah blah."
It's idle chatter, not a real proposal.
That said, MSNBC is not far left.
And it's Democratic not democrat.
And it would also be a great boon to our public discourse if we weren't constantly being fed information through the left/right lens.
But the answer is probably not to take the stations off the air, but to require more stringent disclosure of financial interests, advertising revenue, political donations, etc. or something along those lines...
Wow that was a good laugh. He wants slimmed down channel packages of programming "we" want to watch.
Seems to me that he has no idea who the "we" are. Those channels would not be so popular if the "we" were not watching them.
The Right has the radio market cornered. The Left has the TV market cornered. WE cannot let either of them corner the Internet because its the media that continues to defame civil discourse.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ … baugh.html
Looks like Senator Rockefeller may have gotten the idea from Rev. Al Sharpton!
I don't think the answer is to remove left-leaning and right-leaning media from the airwaves. But maybe some better labeling is in order. You know, like the Surgeon General's warnings on cigarette packages. If a show is COMMENTARY not NEWS it should be labeled as such. Then again, those inclined to believe everything they hear/see, the warnings would be moot, I guess!
I agree with Sharpton. These are PUBLIC airwaves. These companies get a charter, and are allowed to make so much money off us! But it's supposed to be in the PUBLIC interest.
Limbaugh is an offensive race-hater and liberal-hater.
He demonizes half the population, whose airwaves they are too.
Why is it he's not fined, but Howard Stern was?
How can hate-speech be in the public interest? He makes 38 mil a year to hate. Howard Stern was fined for saying doo-doo.
Different standards for conservatives, They can do or say anything, with no consequence.
First, airwaves are not public. We do not own them, nor are they part of the national public domain. Limbaugh is an entertainer, not a newscaster. He follows the FCC rules, Stern did not that's why he was fined. These shows do not 'make money off us', they are supported by advertisers who pay the station owners money based on the quantity of viewers or listeners. More viewers/listeners, more people learn about the advertisers' product. None of us are obligated to listen to or watch any of it.
By MICHAEL J. COPPS
Published: June 2, 2007
"AS a member of the Federal Communications Commission, I often hear how fed up Americans are with the news media. Too much “if it bleeds it leads” on the evening news and not enough real coverage of local issues. Too little high-quality entertainment and too many people eating bugs.
It doesn’t have to be this way. America lets radio and TV broadcasters use public airwaves worth more than half a trillion dollars for free. In return, we require that broadcasters serve the public interest: devoting at least some airtime for worthy programs that inform voters, support local arts and culture and educate our children — in other words, that aspire to something beyond just minimizing costs and maximizing revenue.
Using the public airwaves is a privilege — a lucrative one — not a right, and I fear the F.C.C. has not done enough to stand up for the public interest. Our policies should reward broadcasters that honor their pledge to serve that interest and penalize those that don’t.
The F.C.C. already has powerful leverage to hold broadcasters to their end of the bargain. Every eight years, broadcasters must prove that they have served the public interest in order to get license renewal. If they can’t, the license goes to someone else who will. It’s a tough but fair system — if the commission does its job.
The problem is that, under pressure from media conglomerates, previous commissions have eviscerated the renewal process. Now we have what big broadcasters lovingly call “postcard renewal” — the agency typically rubber-stamps an application without any substantive review. Denials on public interest grounds are extraordinarily rare.
It wasn’t always like this. Before the deregulatory mania in the 1980s — when an F.C.C. chairman described television as a “toaster with pictures” — the commission gave license renewals a hard look every three years, with specific criteria for making a public interest finding. Indeed, broadcasters’ respect for the renewal process encouraged them to pay for hard-hitting news operations. That was then."
Chalk up another garbageing of our society thanks to Uncle Ronnie.
//Does Rush Limbaugh require an FCC license for his radio work?//
"Nope...and thank FCC deregulation for that...
Back in the late 70's, when I started doing radio work, you needed a full license (even a test was issued)...during Reagan's era, they got rid of this, figuring that the idiots they needed to prop up to puke out the right wing spew aren't smart enuff to pass the test...
There you have it. He can do whatever he likes...cause the Christian Right LUV'S him. They hated Howard Stern, ergo--Stern gets investigated and leaned on HARD. Russsshhhhhh gets a pass. Michael Powell made sure of that.
Time Russsshhhh got leaned on, IMO.
by weholdthesetruths6 years ago
is a right mentioned in the 1st amendment. Quoted here: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the...
by ledefensetech7 years ago
The public interest before self interest.
by Ralph Deeds6 years ago
SENATE PASSES SWEEPING FINANCE REFORM BILL 59-39The Senate on Thursday approved a far-reaching financial regulatory bill, putting Congress on the brink of approving a broad expansion of government oversight of the...
by TMMason6 years ago
This man ought to be in jail. Right now.http://www.businessinsider.com/richard- … ice-2010-5This can't be good news for Democrats and their hopes of retaining the Senate. New York Times reporter Raymond Hernandez...
by jgrimes33115 months ago
Do you think the founding fathers of America; in consideration to AK-47's, assault weapons and handguns, would have reconsidered there position to NOT include the 2nd Amendment in the American Constitution? If we...
by preacherdon5 years ago
I am not justifying Herman Cain's behavior, but the media acts like he is the first womanizing politician. They willingly forget that Clinton had many scandals during his run for office and while he was in office. What...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.