Re: What is the point?
- From: John Galt <kady101@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:33:06 -0600
Doobie Keebler wrote:
On Nov 4, 11:55 am, John Galt <kady...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Nice. In your obsession to end free speech and critical thought, be
careful what you wish for.
The only type of free speech worth having is the type that pisses
somebody else off. China and the former Soviet Union had the other kind.
I agree. Even Limbaugh is entitled to his 1st amendment rights.
My question is, why is he entitled to hog the microphone of every AM
radio station across the dial?
Hyperbole aside (it's only one per city, for the most part, and then only from 11-2), it's because he's entertaining and lots of people like to listen to him. You may as well be getting pissed off because Miley Cyrus/Hanna Montana is everywhere you look. She's there because she's popular and every girl under the age of 15 wants a milery
The 1st amendment doesn't guarantee ANYbody the right to exclusive
24x7 access to clear channel public airways.
But that's not what's going on. You have FM radio pretty devoid of right wing talkers (just the left-leaning NPR), and AM is loaded with sports talk stations, Asian programming, Hispanic programming, Top 40, All News, Gospel, === whatever sells. Every city has a hundred bands and most of them are way underutilized, despite the fact that it's still pretty cheap (relatively speaking) to obtain one for broadcast purposes, compared to other means of communication.
Hell, I'm in Houston, and out of the hundred-odd bands which are available, only about 30 are in use, and only about 4-5 of those for talk radio (and only two of them are predominantly talk).
Where's the beef?
If you want to improve the airwave usage, improve not-for-profit access to the FM band. Not for profits are all stuck under 92, and competition for those bands is intense. The goverment gives 92-106 to for-profit companies, and they don't use nearly all of them.
I don't believe shows like Hannity and Limbaugh actually draw enough
advertising revenue to pay the light bill. If they receive outside
subsidies, shouldn't that be considered a campaign contribution?
Where's teh FEC on this issue?
Just listen to their advertisers. They pay a lot more than the light bill.
- Prev by Date: Re: Anecdotal scenarios on Obama tax changes
- Next by Date: Re: Have you ever heard of Dixville Notch?
- Previous by thread: Re: What is the point?
- Next by thread: Re: What is the point?