You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #21: OK, let's see here [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. OK, let's see here
The '96 Telecom act essentially lifted the limits of how many local radio or TV stations a corporation can own, thus limiting diversity. An example is my own home town. Clear Channel owned two radio stations here up until this bill went through, but with the limits lifted, they now own six, in a town of 100,000. And if you remeber, after this bill there was a lot of media merging. The reason why is because there was now no legal constraint to owning many stations in one locality. While the general trend had been towards a more centralized media before '96, the '96 Telecom Act really opened the flood gates. Whereas in '95, twenty five corporations controlled the vast majority of the media here in this country, after the Telecom Act that number shrank rapidly to six, and now down to five. Media monopoly is just not healthy for a democracy, especially when that monopoly is held by corporations with direct interests in the war.

The Fairness Doctrine had been in place until the mid-eighies, until Reagan repealed it. The Fairness Doctrine essentially stated that a media entity couldn't present just one side of an issue, they had to give equal room and equal time to both. Thus, while you may have had stations running RW talk shows, they would have to balance their programming with the progressive POV. Reagan's elimination of this opened up the flood gates for modern hate radio. It simply wasn't possible for a radio station to run Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly etc, because they wouldn't have had the programming time to run the balancing programs fromt the left. But with the Fairness Doctrine eliminated, it was wide open for the RW media machine to go to work, and boy did they. Rush broke the ground, and was soon followed by Hannity, et al. In fact if it wasn't for the Fairness Doctrine being lifted, we probably wouldn't have Fox Television, at least not in the rabid RW "fair and balanced" version we have now.

Hope this helps. If you want more information, it is out there on the 'net. Just google the terms and a wealth of material will be forthcoming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC