FCC Diversity Czar and his plans.
 

Nearly every country in the world has some sort of government-sponsored or operated broadcasting entity, usually radio, often television. The BBC and CBC come to mind immediately.

I spotted this: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52435

The FCC Diversity Czar wants to have "...private broadcasting companies pay licensing fees equal to their total operating costs to allow public broadcasting outlets to spend the same on their operations as the private companies do."

Okay, sounds expensive to me. DAMN expensive. Especially since he wants "...to make sure they focused on “diverse views” and government activities.

“Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs,”... “These programs should include coverage of all local, state and federal government meetings, as well as daily news and public issues programming.

“In addition, educational programs for children and adults, and diverse, independent personal and cultural expression should be encouraged".

Apparently this guy forgot about Voice of America.

I mean, my God, our taxes are already being spent on this to the tune of billions of dollars yearly, yet the vast majority of Americans have no clue that VOA exists at all... because it's all aimed at OVERSEAS audiences.

Why doesn't the government just simply rebroadcast our own Voice Of America programming, both on radio and television, domestically? Either buy a low-rated radio or TV station in each market from Clear Channel, or set up a national low-power network, AND save the nation's private broadcasters from having to fund it?

Or.. is that all too common-sense?

Sounds expensive to you?! Damn, I make my living at a TV station. I sure hope this isn't accurate or it doesn't come to pass. Times are tough for over the air broadcast. With the economy in the tank, advertisers aren't spending like they used to. We're all already laying people off and cutting everywhere we can.

Broadcasters use public air waves and we do have a responsibility. I happen to think there should be a reasonable amount of regulation of content. Things that are blatantly untrue, misleading or biased commentary masquerading as news should be kept in check. I think we should hear from all sides, not just the guys with the most money. But I don't think dinging the broadcasters to make it happen is fair.

I'm not sure what CNS news is, but I can't find a lot of information on this anywhere else. I'm hoping it's right-wing propaganda. If it's accurate and there is any chance of it happening I'll be sure to hear about it as it would kill my industry. I'm sure we would fight it. I'll let you know if I hear anything.

I'd appreciate that, Ed. I thought of you as soon as I read the article, remembering that you were in broadcasting.

I mean, come on. A license fee to operate equal to a station's operation costs?? Right off the bat, that would put hundreds of stations out of business. I had to read this a couple of times to make sure I wasn't hallucinating!

Oh, I think I see:

"Lloyd presented the idea in his 2006 book, Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America, published by the University of Illinois Press."

This isn't policy. This is something he wrote several years ago. This is being portrayed as something it's not. I'm sure it's true that he wrote it and he might think that in a perfect world that's how it should be. Shoot, (I'm a liberal, so all I know how to do is malign poor Sarah Palin, sooo) Sarah Palin may think that everyone should speak in tongues and that would make it a better country. But it is stretching things to suggest that she wants to make that policy. Misleading at best.

Very true, Ed, and I agree with you that yes he wrote it and that's what he would like in a perfect world.

But now this guy is a Czar at the FCC. I'm thinking that now he may have some pull in DC, and perhaps at least a piece or two of this book may come to fruition... especially the stuff I mentioned and quoted. Never say never, right?

Yeah, I'm with ya. Not the guy I'd like in there. But not as bad as that article would make him out to be.

Take care,

Ed

I think it should be a felony if it marketed as news.

When Martin was head of the Funny Cookie Company he allowed more and more concentration of TV broadcasting into fewer and fewer hands. Some Republicam appointee was put in as head of the CPB and did his level best to screw up that organization. Some of us support PBS because we value it as an alternative to NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX and ABC.

Then of course there was the brilliant plan for HDTV, calling on every station, pulic or private, to ante up for some very expensive new transmitters, cameras, etc. I do not doubt that the NAB was lobbied pretty hard by manufacurers of the same to impose DTV on us all. Mind you Verizon and AT&T lobbied pretty hard as well because they wanted the bandwidth.

The broadcast spectrum is the property of the citizens, yet most stations take a free ride.

You know, I've wondered about that very issue.

I agree that blatant lies should definitely be kept in check. But how?

We trust(?) news agencies who tell us what's going on. They add their biases, cleverly edit content, etc, but basically it's pretty rare to have any stories checked for accuracy before they're presented to the public for their consumption. How can this be done?

I remember reading a story where a classroom full of high school students was discussing freedom of the press. When told that it was indeed the law of the land as the First Amendment of the constitution, almost two-thirds of the students did not believe it and said that these freedoms went too far, and that the government should have oversight of what gets printed or distributed.

The problem with verifying news or other info is "who would do the verifying?"

Man oh man. Most here won't believe this, but that's simply not true. Facts are checked and bias is avoided by most. I'm not going to get into a huge discussion about it, but the Republican Party and FOX News have lied to you all. There is undoubted *some* small liberal bias in many outlets. Most journalists are well educated and live in big cities. So they tend to be like most people of that description- more liberally minded. I'm sure some of that creeps into their reporting. It really is impossible to be completely objective.

Having said that, it's a much, much, much smaller issue than FOX would have you believe. They've taken anecdotal evidence and used it to paint a picture that's not true. In reality, they created the idea of intentionally going into a story with a bias. No other major news provider does that. And by yelling so loudly that they're all liberal FOX has created a "chilling effect" in the industry.

It's a lot like you guys who complain that you can't say anything bad about Obama or you'll be branded a racist. Slip up for a second and say anything that's slightly biased to the left and the phones ring off the hook. Slip the other way, nothing. Not a peep. It's become almost impossible to be "fair and ballanced" because people are looking for a liberal bias. And you'll always find what you're looking for. But swing it the other way, no one cares. The result is you get more right leaning bias on the air than left. And journalists always have the "FOX effect" in the back of their minds.

And with all this the perception that there is liberal bias is stronger than ever. Grrrr. It's like lowering taxes to historically low levels only to be met by tea parties.

Fox needs a cease and desist order from the attorney general.

Interestingly we had guests from Canada yesterday and they stayed overnight. During the evening we were discussing the health care issue. They commented that they hear all the news (coverage of U.S. events is quite strong by CBC and CTV). I gathered that things have not changed since I left because they noted that the blatant lies about Single Payer was beginning to get damned annoying. They also found that the viscious back and forth in the political scene was somewhat frightening.

Sigh, how to piss off your friends.:confused:

An example of the "liberal media" spreading the conservative message:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...o-do-lies.html

I had you pegged from day one, this just confirms everything.

While both sides mislead, which is the same as lying in my book, I'm sure that Fox checks their facts as well as anyone. Even Beck, as wild eyed as he gets, will correct himself.

Let's not forget Rather and Ms Marples "Fake but accurate" story about Shrubs NG service record.

The "Fake but accurate" defense. There you go Noon, a couple of mugs who should be turning big rocks into little ones down at the Iron Bars Hotel.

And I'm not saying that of two wrongs a right becomes. I'm saying I don't like a manipulative liar. I while consider a lie from the opposition disgusting, I consider a lie from my side of the fence as a personal insult.

Chas

How could we forget it? It's cited again and again as the "proof" of liberal bias. One story by one guy is proof that the entire industry is crooked. Right. The things Beck has done are terrible. But we're supposed to forgive and forget. But Rather- who actually lost his job- keeps coming up again and again. I'll forgive Beck once he gets fired and has his reputation torn to shreads.

No offense, but Nate Sliver comes across as just another parsing, full of shit partisan. Simply spinning a silk purse from a sow's ear.

Bring him back when he has something of interest to say.

Chas

Don't hold your breath, but it will possibly happen. Besides, Beck does not present himself as "news", unlike Rather. I'm sure you will disagree on this point.

Besides, let's not forget the CBS story on exploding gas tanks, I think they were responsible for the buffalo hunt where the government penned them up and allowed deep pocket hunters to shoot them like fish in a barrel, while portraying all hunters as being this crass, it goes on and on.

This is nothing new. How did Randolph Hearst put it, "You furnish me with a story, and I'll furnish you with a war."

Don't get mad at me, I'll forgive a man of a mistake, but not of a lie. But if he keeps making mistakes, I'll fire him once and forever.

Chas

The thing with Beck is, he doesn't care if he gets fired, or shot, or loses everything that's dear to him. He is a patriot and has made a decision to make his life's work exposing corruption in government. Did you libs like him at all when he was tearing GW up when he was in office (and corrupt). Something changes in a man when he finds himself laying on the floor in a fetal position with a gun stuck in his mouth. I've been there, and I understand exactly where Beck is coming from. I'm not surprised though, that a lot of people "don't get it".

Dunno. He's a shock jock. He's always been a shock jock. Always had a cast of characters he played. This may just be the most successful one he's come up with yet. Not sure I'm buying it.

You need a source that does not have a dog in the fight. I trust Jim Lehrer's news hour because he has no sponsors. Back in Canada the news never had sponsors because you can almost guarantee a bias when there are sponsors. I would not trust anyone working for Rupert Murdoch as far as I could throw them.

Sorry but the concept of Beck as a patriot is just too funny for words.

This thread has degraded almost to "Liar, Liar, pants on fire".

Unbiased reporting is almost an oxymoron. It seems to me you folks watch the media source that accommidates opinions you have already formed.

As for NPR, they have sponsors, private donors and "Foundations". There is money involved, so with money comes the bullshit.

I do not even watch the local news, and have not in years. I am sick of "Rape, kill, pillage and burn" reporting.

I do read 2 local papers, and even there I read very few articles, mostly op-eds and Ltrs 2 Editor stuff. I "glean" my news from other citizens such as yourselves.

I once read a study that stated networks selected female anchors for their appeal to men that would fantasize about the anchor performing oral sex, wish I would have kept that, kind of shows what the networks are really trying to sell you.

I thank you folks for the "balanced" reporting.

Just my observations.

Well...so glad hubby and I are not alone. We are radio enthusiasts probably stemming from a fifties habit. I ocassionally watch the History channel and HGTV ( primarily because of my interest and involvement in gardening and decorating). He on the other hand LOVES sports and is looking forward to this fall season's viewing... on a gifted fifty five inch television.

Local talk radio gives us the true pulse of the public opinions and much food for thought. We read several papers on line and I enjoy crossword puzzles courtesy of our local newsboy.

As a suggestion...I joined this site to add yet another dimention. Some posters were already familiar to me from another site. I also thank a few for the humor...and insight into their thinking. It makes this seasoned citizen smile. The minuses...I can deal with. :)

Well folks, I don't believe nobody or nuttin.

Even my little dog is sly enough to try to set me up. And the little prick pulls it off every now and then when I ain't payin' attention.

I'll take this one step further. I've read "Crappie Wisdom" and have come to the conclusion that I'll never be as smart as even a fish.

Don't put a lot of stock into my thoughts.

Chas

:eek:

OMG, if that's the case where does that leave me???????

I have come to embrace many of your views and always give careful consideration to your posts.

Good thing I don't have a dog. :rolleyes:

Crappie, did someone say Crappie?

You just can't trust them Linder boys, they are too damned technical to make fishing fun. Best advice I ever found was to change your approach to fit what "IS" bitin

Radio/TV is a BUSINESS. It exists SOLELY as a means for generating revenue, a return on investment, for its stations' owners. This fact is neither good nor bad, it just IS. People tune in to what they want to hear, the radio/TV station owner is then able to charge high rates for advertisements that advertisers pay to put on his station...If they DON'T tune in, the station owner can either 1) Go out of business, or 2) change his programming to something people WANT to hear. I decry the number of country and/or gospel stations around here, but that is what the majority of people around here apparently WANT to listen to, & radio station owners are acting accordly to the audiences' wishes, & hopefully make a buck in the process. I suppose I should call or write the FCC, & complain that the stations around here are NOT servicing MY needs as an myopic, 52-yr-old white male who wants to listen to Top-40 hits from the '60s & '70s...(grin)

Here we have an FM station supported by the listeners that plays classical music 24/7, the four systems in the house are all tuned to that station, don't have time for the rest.