gdp's Comments

Big Hollywood : Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:04:26 +0000

I encourage Hartmann, Miller, and Schultz to keep working hard for ratings success, but they are nothing compared to Rush, Sean, Levin, Savage, Beck, or many other conservative talkers. There is only one reason to take talk off the air....and no broadcaster takes successful talk off the air - only if it does not commercially succeed. As a radio programmer, my job is to build ratings. You don't take ratings success off the air.

Big Hollywood : Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:12:31 +0000

You fail to understand that the FCC is proposing programming advisory boards for radio stations so they can try to force more diversity of opinion onto conservative stations. If that isn't big brother, then I don't know what is. We already have our advisors....listeners. If we have enough, we succeed as conservative talk radio has. If we don't the programming goes away. Air America. Rather than force the FD, this is the new FD they are forcing.....to achieve the same results. No brainer.

Big Hollywood : Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:07:39 +0000

If you were really familiar with talk radio, you would know there is no political payola. Republicans don't pay talk stations to air Rush, Sean, Levin, Savage, Beck, and others. Unreal. Advertisers pay and they pay for large audience appeal. Same in music radio. If there is no audience, it goes away. What school did you get this from? I've been in talk radio for 40 years and programmed on the national level. Political payola...wow. Stay on the music side and on the internet.

Big Hollywood : Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:03:40 +0000

CMB - you are naive. When the Fairness Doctrine was enforced, there were only 125 talk stations in America. Today, there are 2000. Applying the FD to open up other forms of speech is un-necessary - the liberal point of view is seen and heard in all other forms of media and conservative talk is only a very small piece of the overall media pie. It is the balance. And, there is only one form of valid censorship - the right of the individual to self - censor not government.

Big Hollywood : Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:00:00 +0000

Exactly. If they truly believed in no speech regulation of the airwaves, they would have voted on it. To do otherwise, sends the opposite message and is un-American. It's a no brainer if you believe in the First Amendment. As for Democrats who favor the Fairness Doctrine, try these: Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Charles Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Maurice Hinchey, Louise Slaughter, Diane Feinstein, Richard Durbin, Jeff Bingaman, Henry Waxman, Tom Harkin, Debbie Stabenow. That's just starters and it's time to label them as they are - tyrants. For a further explanation of what this is all about, here's this link: http://www.ntsmediaonline.com/?p=7934&utm_sou...

Big Hollywood : Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:32:00 +0000

If you have suspicions about the wealthy and powerful interests that dominate the AM band, know the only reason they broadcast conservative talk is because it works. Liberal talk hasn't. We are in business to make money and therefore we broadcast what works. What works is determined by the self-censorship of the individual. If he/she doesn't like it, they turn it off. We are responding to what people want to hear. If a product doesn't sell, we take it off the shelves. Otherwise we give them what they want.

Big Hollywood : Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:56:26 +0000

Fair question. This amendment along with the previous Broadcaster Freedom Act would ban any restoration of the Fairness Doctrine and any "stealth" measures (sons of the FD) that would impact free speech. To that end, there are proposals such as required "localism" and "community advisory boards" for radio stations now supported by the FCC. Radio professionals are totally against requiring advisory boards because they represent big brother looking over their shoulder and would have alot of weight when license renwals are up for review. That is censorship in a stealth manner and it accomplishes the goal of the Fairness Doctrine. While the Democrats say they don't favor the Fairness Doctrine, they have dressed it in new clothes - localism and advisory boards, and tougher license renewal definitions. I hope this helps. Thank you.

Big Hollywood : Incoming FCC Chairman: No Censorship

Thu, 18 Jun 2009 01:51:56 +0000

I believe they will try to shorten the term of a broadcast license, provide tax incentives to broadcasters to release some of their stations for minorities, and perhaps consider localism quotas - although I think the diversity of ownership issue is the key one. Bottom line: Redistributes the media...common theme, huh?

Big Hollywood : Incoming FCC Chairman: No Censorship

Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:01:30 +0000

You are right and I know better. Thank you.

Big Hollywood : The Fight for Free Speech is On!

Fri, 1 May 2009 23:00:49 +0000

Wouldn't it be simple of the Supreme Court stated that any content regulation is unconstitutional. Then, they FCC's mission would be simply defined and where it should be. Great explanation and analysis on your part. Thank you.

Big Hollywood : The Fight for Free Speech is On!

Fri, 1 May 2009 18:12:22 +0000

Thank you, kindly. Very nice of you...my sister! BJ

Big Hollywood : The Fight for Free Speech is On!

Fri, 1 May 2009 15:36:09 +0000

I've been called a lot worse. Since Roger Hedgecock was quoted by WND, I asked Roger about the comments and he verified them as accurate. Thanks for your opinion, though and I support your right to expression and speech. Respectfully submitted.

Big Hollywood : The Fight for Free Speech is On!

Fri, 1 May 2009 03:14:41 +0000

Right on, brother!

Big Hollywood : The Fight for Free Speech is On!

Fri, 1 May 2009 03:06:30 +0000

The Thomas More Law Center in Detroit is watching this closely. The Media Research Center in Washington DC is another. I think the Supreme Court would rule anything "unconstitutional", but tonight one member of the court is now ready to retire - meaning Obama can now sway the court, too. We are in trouble.

Big Hollywood : The Fight for Free Speech is On!

Fri, 1 May 2009 01:30:09 +0000

I wish it were manufactured. A 97-page report from the FCC mentions "programming or community advisory boards" eight times. Language in the 2000, 20004, and 2008 Democratic platform point to regulating media. Elected officials including former President Bill Clinton, Debbie Stabenow, John Kerry, Tom Harkin, Charles Schumer, Jeff Bingaman, Louise Slaughter, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Richard Durbin, Maurice Hinchey, Anna Eshoo, Dianne Feinstein, and others have advocated the Fairness Doctrine. The President advocates "diversity" in media ownership and "localism" which includes these advisory boards. Manufactured? I wish it were. If this is paranoia, why won't Nancy Pelosi allow a vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act which would ban a Fairness Doctrine forever? Because she wants to regulate radio. Respectfully submitted.

Big Hollywood : Redistributing the Media

Sat, 25 Apr 2009 02:17:07 +0000

Except for talk radio, I hope. I am all for localism and any amount of diversity of ownership as long as it is done through the forces of the free marketplace. I just hate government regulation in the speech arena. Good thoughts, Andrew. Thank you.

Big Hollywood : Redistributing the Media

Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:44:51 +0000

It works both ways - you are right. Diversity in ownership = more diversity of programming and the Democrats hope that will mean less conservative talk. HOWEVER.....they still will need ratings and revenue to succeed and that means they air what works. But, I have worked for both liberals and conservatives and liberals will program what they like even if it means failure. Air America is an example. Small guy radio can and often is conservative - this is just the Democrats hope and strategy. Good thoughts on your post and thank you.

Big Hollywood : The Free Speech Attack Machine

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:49:48 +0000

Republicans have been all over this issue. Both Congressmen Pence and Walden authored the Broadcaster Freedom Act which would ban any Fairness Doctrine forever, but Pelosi won't allow it to come to a vote because she favors a Fairness Doctrine. Also, Senator Jim DeMint from South Carolina has been very vocal about this recently. Here's a link to an article he wrote for U.S. Neews and World Report. The other reason you are not hearing much about this is - it doesn't make the mainstream media. http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/04/08...

Big Hollywood : The Free Speech Attack Machine

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 01:24:09 +0000

I think the FCC is so caught up with the digital conversion that as soon as they have that squared away, they'll start working on radio regs. It's still a gray area....but I'm sure KKOB would love your participation!!!!

Big Hollywood : The Free Speech Attack Machine

Sun, 12 Apr 2009 22:05:45 +0000

Thank you for pointing that out. I think there is a case to be made to not have stations trample each other in the bandwidth spectrum, but they cannot and should not make a case for regulating content. But, they consider it "pubic domain". What they don't consider is a person's right to hear what they want. Judge Scalia pointed that out in an unrelated court case the other day.