The Big Lie

[Seawytch]

There is an almost delicious irony in these conservatives who fought to get rid of the fairness doctrine and to buy up all the radio stations across the country, suddenly wanting the Fairness Doctrine back when radio is no longer a popular medium.

 

[Dragonlady]

It is not the free market. It is liberals abusing their positions and putting politics ahead of their professional responsibilities.

In what way is that not a free market?

THus, no real market for liberal talk radio.

Again, how is it not free?

The free market would make the decisions based on what would generate profits.

Making business decisions based on politics, is not that.


What part of that, are you disagreeing with?

Was there a point to the blither you just posted?

For starters: With FOX News, Sinclair News, and Breitbart, the goal is to elect Republicans and get tax cuts for billionaires. Murdoch, Mercer, and the Sinclair Family make far more money on Republican tax cuts than they do from their media corporations. The problem is that there's nothing in their tax cuts for YOU, and no reason for anyone making less than $1 million a year to vote Republican, so they lie to YOU, to get you to vote for more money for them!!

This isn't "giving the people what they want", this is pandering to their fears and paranoia, to get what Murdoch and the other billionaire media moguls are really after - Republican tax cuts for billionaires.

Notice how Republicans are prepared to say and do anything to help them make it happen.

 

[Faun]

This is not a conspiracy. These are things that have happened. THAT MAKES THEM FACTS.

Pollak: The Real 'Big Lie' Is That the 2020 Election Was Free and Fair

The real "Big Lie" is that the 2020 election was free and fair, when it was marred by rule changes, censorship, and political violence.

www.breitbart.com

At the same time, I noted, the 2020 presidential election violated internationally accepted criteria for a free and fair election. “Voters were denied the ‘absolute’ right to a secret ballot [through flawed vote-by-mail systems]. They were denied ‘equal opportunity of access to the media, particularly the mass communications media, in order to put forward their political views.’ They were denied ‘security with respect to their lives and property.’ And they were denied “freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression.’

Someone tell me that did not happen.

Maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine.

Just to clarify, so you think the government should force left wing media to give equal time to Republicans? That's what you're saying?

The Fairness Doctrine never did that either. Broadcast networks had to give time for opposing opinions but not equal time. Possible when there were three networks, not today.

Fair enough, Republicans don't need equal time on left wing networks, just the ability to respond would do it.

So that's what you want, Sealy?

Yes. I would love Republicans to come on MSNBC at the end of a show and explain why Rachel Maddow is full of shit and I wish Randi Rhodes was allowed to go on for 4 hours right after Rush. She was just as popular as he was on the radio. In head to head markets, she beat Rush. But putting that liberal bullshit was not what the 6 corporations wanted. Instead they put a guy just like rush on after rush. Then another guy just like rush on after him. Brainwashing.

Yes, I would love one radio station that has Rush and Randi on it. Give her the shittiest hours of the day I'm sure but still I'm sure out of 24 hours she could get better ratings than whatever they have on at that shitty hour. But they'd rather not have her on and you know it.

There is no need for liberal talk radio. I find it hard to believe that her ratings were ever good.

They were. I loved Air America. Sad that it went out of business. The point is, whatever channel Rush was on, they have 24 hours to fill. It's obvious that there is a slow 4 hours during the night or day where a liberal talk show would get better ratings than whatever they have on now. Us liberals have no show to listen to. Trust me, there is a market out there.

But like Air America, whatever channel Rush was on, is a conservative radio channel. No question about it. It's not fair and balanced. Same with every show on Fox. You could say the same thing about MSNBC. It's got a liberal slant.

I would love a new channel that has liberal and conservative shows throughout the day. Whoever is number 1 gets the 8pm time slot.

Talk Radio flourished because it was a counter point to the conventional wisdom pushed by the MSM.

Liberals already get their voices "heard" in MSM, and pop culture.

THey have no need for a counter point.

Fuck that. I should have some political talk to listen to just like you do. There is a market for it but you're ok with the corporations controlling/censoring it because you're ok with censoring talk you don't like. I get it.

You're being lied to just like everyone else.

I didn't cancel her. I would be fine with you having such a show to listen to. I just don't see how it could survive as normal talk radio.


Maybe as satellite radio.

My point is that I don't see why there would be such a market and the failure of lib talk radio seems to support my view on it.

All you have to know is you always lose the popular vote so as far as the number of Democrats compared to Republicans, we win every time. There are more of us than there are of you.

But not a lot of us listen to liberal AM talk radio. Not like cons listened to Rush. And if you liked Rush that station gave you another guy just like rush right after rush, and another guy just like him right after him. If they were smart business people they would put Randi on.

Several of you have even admitted you listened to Randi Rhodes. You liked her. Not for the same reasons I liked her, but you liked her. Same way I don't like Rush the same way you guys do but I listened and liked Rush. He was the best con talker you had.

The radio station would rather lose money and keep brainwashing republicans. It's worth the loss of money they could be making by putting Thom Hartmann or Randi Rhodes on. They don't want fair and balanced. And yet you continue to believe the media is liberal.

Yea, only enough to piss you off. They pretend to be liberal to rile up the base. YOU

YOu seem to be actively ignoring my point about how the mainstream media gives you lefties all the media you need, while for the right leaning consumers, it is does not.

Look who is crying over capitalism and the free market. (It's also an empty whine.) You have plenty of media catering just to you and only you. You have ALL the radio stations, you have at least three TV broadcast channels and the internet is open to all.

It is not the free market. It is liberals abusing their positions and putting politics ahead of their professional responsibilities.


AND regardless, my point stands. It creates an environment that constantly and overwhelmingly allows people like you to wallow in easy self validation, with your preconceived notions and prejudices CONSTANTLY reinforced and magnified right back at you.


THus, no real market for liberal talk radio.

That is why liberal talk radio has not worked.


Like I said, perhaps as satellite radio.

Where, exactly, is it that you don't feel you have fair representation? You have ALL the radio stations (despite there absolutely being a demand for liberal talk radio) and you have more than a few television stations dedicated solely to spreading your propaganda. The internet is available to all equally. Where is it that your "voice" isn't being heard? No where. Empty whine.

Media and pop culture and the internet.

Your claim on the internet is especially silly, considering the abuses of youtube.


If there was such a market for left wing radio, why has it always failed?

What does the word, "mainstream" mean to you? And what do you think the opposite is?

 

[dblack]

It is not the free market. It is liberals abusing their positions and putting politics ahead of their professional responsibilities.

In what way is that not a free market?

THus, no real market for liberal talk radio.

Again, how is it not free?

The free market would make the decisions based on what would generate profits.

Not necessarily. Free market participants can make decisions based on whatever they like. (that's the "free" part)

True.

IF the entity is a privately owned business and the business OWNER is the one making the call.


Beyond that, you got stockholders? Or even partners? Your ethical if not professional responsibility is to generate profits for them, not to play your partisan political games.

The stockholders and partners are the owners. And they're free to hire leaders that work toward other goals, if that's what they want.

All that's going on here is that you guys are butthurt that the nation has rejected Trump. There's no "deep state" conspiracy. Just a lot of people who are fed up with Trump's freakshow. They want nothing to do with him and they don't want to cater to what they consider deplorable behavior. And some of those people own businesses.

 

[kaz]

This is not a conspiracy. These are things that have happened. THAT MAKES THEM FACTS.

Pollak: The Real 'Big Lie' Is That the 2020 Election Was Free and Fair

The real "Big Lie" is that the 2020 election was free and fair, when it was marred by rule changes, censorship, and political violence.

www.breitbart.com

At the same time, I noted, the 2020 presidential election violated internationally accepted criteria for a free and fair election. “Voters were denied the ‘absolute’ right to a secret ballot [through flawed vote-by-mail systems]. They were denied ‘equal opportunity of access to the media, particularly the mass communications media, in order to put forward their political views.’ They were denied ‘security with respect to their lives and property.’ And they were denied “freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression.’

Someone tell me that did not happen.

Maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine.

Just to clarify, so you think the government should force left wing media to give equal time to Republicans? That's what you're saying?

The Fairness Doctrine never did that either. Broadcast networks had to give time for opposing opinions but not equal time. Possible when there were three networks, not today.

Problem is the " Fairness" Doctrine also gae the Left absolute monopoly on the media.

BlindBoob thinks it's unfair that Fox presents multiple sides. That's what he said, that's fake news to him. If you present two sides, he thinks that means you are presenting the side that's wrong, and they need to not do that

 

[Faun]

You can't have a free and fair election with the means of information corrupted ...

How do you think it's been "corrupted"?

Don't you just mean that it's biased?

Yes, it's biased not left or right but towards what most people want. That's how marketing works.

 

[GMCGeneral]

This is not a conspiracy. These are things that have happened. THAT MAKES THEM FACTS.

Pollak: The Real 'Big Lie' Is That the 2020 Election Was Free and Fair

The real "Big Lie" is that the 2020 election was free and fair, when it was marred by rule changes, censorship, and political violence.

www.breitbart.com

At the same time, I noted, the 2020 presidential election violated internationally accepted criteria for a free and fair election. “Voters were denied the ‘absolute’ right to a secret ballot [through flawed vote-by-mail systems]. They were denied ‘equal opportunity of access to the media, particularly the mass communications media, in order to put forward their political views.’ They were denied ‘security with respect to their lives and property.’ And they were denied “freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression.’

Someone tell me that did not happen.

Maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine.

Just to clarify, so you think the government should force left wing media to give equal time to Republicans? That's what you're saying?

The Fairness Doctrine never did that either. Broadcast networks had to give time for opposing opinions but not equal time. Possible when there were three networks, not today.

Problem is the " Fairness" Doctrine also gae the Left absolute monopoly on the media.

BlindBoob thinks it's unfair that Fox presents multiple sides. That's what he said, that's fake news to him. If you present two sides, he thinks that means you are presenting the side that's wrong, and they need to not do that

This is why you never saw ANY Conservative POV programming until Reagan RIGHTFULLY killed the "Fairness" Doctrine because it isn't fair. After 1987, we saw the likes of ElRushbo, G. Gordon Liddy, and other Conservative Stalwarts emerge as well as give AM radio new life.

 

[Correll]

It is not the free market. It is liberals abusing their positions and putting politics ahead of their professional responsibilities.

In what way is that not a free market?

THus, no real market for liberal talk radio.

Again, how is it not free?

The free market would make the decisions based on what would generate profits.

Making business decisions based on politics, is not that.


What part of that, are you disagreeing with?

Was there a point to the blither you just posted?

For starters: With FOX News, Sinclair News, and Breitbart, the goal is to elect Republicans and get tax cuts for billionaires. Murdoch, Mercer, and the Sinclair Family make far more money on Republican tax cuts than they do from their media corporations. The problem is that there's nothing in their tax cuts for YOU, and no reason for anyone making less than $1 million a year to vote Republican, so they lie to YOU, to get you to vote for more money for them!!

This isn't "giving the people what they want", this is pandering to their fears and paranoia, to get what Murdoch and the other billionaire media moguls are really after - Republican tax cuts for billionaires.

Notice how Republicans are prepared to say and do anything to help them make it happen.

Fox Corporation is a publicly traded corporation. The Murdochs might have control, but as such they have a ethical and financial responsibility to generate dividends for ALL the stockholders.


To that end, the politics of FOX are justified, if they are part of a business strategy to generate those dividends.

If it became obvious that Murdoch didn't care about dividends, and was just using fox news as you say, the value of the stock would fall tremendously.

 

[Seawytch]

This is not a conspiracy. These are things that have happened. THAT MAKES THEM FACTS.

Pollak: The Real 'Big Lie' Is That the 2020 Election Was Free and Fair

The real "Big Lie" is that the 2020 election was free and fair, when it was marred by rule changes, censorship, and political violence.

www.breitbart.com

At the same time, I noted, the 2020 presidential election violated internationally accepted criteria for a free and fair election. “Voters were denied the ‘absolute’ right to a secret ballot [through flawed vote-by-mail systems]. They were denied ‘equal opportunity of access to the media, particularly the mass communications media, in order to put forward their political views.’ They were denied ‘security with respect to their lives and property.’ And they were denied “freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression.’

Someone tell me that did not happen.

Maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine.

Just to clarify, so you think the government should force left wing media to give equal time to Republicans? That's what you're saying?

The Fairness Doctrine never did that either. Broadcast networks had to give time for opposing opinions but not equal time. Possible when there were three networks, not today.

Fair enough, Republicans don't need equal time on left wing networks, just the ability to respond would do it.

So that's what you want, Sealy?

Yes. I would love Republicans to come on MSNBC at the end of a show and explain why Rachel Maddow is full of shit and I wish Randi Rhodes was allowed to go on for 4 hours right after Rush. She was just as popular as he was on the radio. In head to head markets, she beat Rush. But putting that liberal bullshit was not what the 6 corporations wanted. Instead they put a guy just like rush on after rush. Then another guy just like rush on after him. Brainwashing.

Yes, I would love one radio station that has Rush and Randi on it. Give her the shittiest hours of the day I'm sure but still I'm sure out of 24 hours she could get better ratings than whatever they have on at that shitty hour. But they'd rather not have her on and you know it.

There is no need for liberal talk radio. I find it hard to believe that her ratings were ever good.

They were. I loved Air America. Sad that it went out of business. The point is, whatever channel Rush was on, they have 24 hours to fill. It's obvious that there is a slow 4 hours during the night or day where a liberal talk show would get better ratings than whatever they have on now. Us liberals have no show to listen to. Trust me, there is a market out there.

But like Air America, whatever channel Rush was on, is a conservative radio channel. No question about it. It's not fair and balanced. Same with every show on Fox. You could say the same thing about MSNBC. It's got a liberal slant.

I would love a new channel that has liberal and conservative shows throughout the day. Whoever is number 1 gets the 8pm time slot.

Talk Radio flourished because it was a counter point to the conventional wisdom pushed by the MSM.

Liberals already get their voices "heard" in MSM, and pop culture.

THey have no need for a counter point.

Fuck that. I should have some political talk to listen to just like you do. There is a market for it but you're ok with the corporations controlling/censoring it because you're ok with censoring talk you don't like. I get it.

You're being lied to just like everyone else.

I didn't cancel her. I would be fine with you having such a show to listen to. I just don't see how it could survive as normal talk radio.


Maybe as satellite radio.

My point is that I don't see why there would be such a market and the failure of lib talk radio seems to support my view on it.

All you have to know is you always lose the popular vote so as far as the number of Democrats compared to Republicans, we win every time. There are more of us than there are of you.

But not a lot of us listen to liberal AM talk radio. Not like cons listened to Rush. And if you liked Rush that station gave you another guy just like rush right after rush, and another guy just like him right after him. If they were smart business people they would put Randi on.

Several of you have even admitted you listened to Randi Rhodes. You liked her. Not for the same reasons I liked her, but you liked her. Same way I don't like Rush the same way you guys do but I listened and liked Rush. He was the best con talker you had.

The radio station would rather lose money and keep brainwashing republicans. It's worth the loss of money they could be making by putting Thom Hartmann or Randi Rhodes on. They don't want fair and balanced. And yet you continue to believe the media is liberal.

Yea, only enough to piss you off. They pretend to be liberal to rile up the base. YOU

YOu seem to be actively ignoring my point about how the mainstream media gives you lefties all the media you need, while for the right leaning consumers, it is does not.

Look who is crying over capitalism and the free market. (It's also an empty whine.) You have plenty of media catering just to you and only you. You have ALL the radio stations, you have at least three TV broadcast channels and the internet is open to all.

It is not the free market. It is liberals abusing their positions and putting politics ahead of their professional responsibilities.


AND regardless, my point stands. It creates an environment that constantly and overwhelmingly allows people like you to wallow in easy self validation, with your preconceived notions and prejudices CONSTANTLY reinforced and magnified right back at you.


THus, no real market for liberal talk radio.

That is why liberal talk radio has not worked.


Like I said, perhaps as satellite radio.

Where, exactly, is it that you don't feel you have fair representation? You have ALL the radio stations (despite there absolutely being a demand for liberal talk radio) and you have more than a few television stations dedicated solely to spreading your propaganda. The internet is available to all equally. Where is it that your "voice" isn't being heard? No where. Empty whine.

Media and pop culture and the internet.

Your claim on the internet is especially silly, considering the abuses of youtube.


If there was such a market for left wing radio, why has it always failed?

It hasn't "always failed". When competing on an even playing field, head to head with conservative talk, liberal talk radio did just fine. You are aware that conservative media bought up all the radio stations and only put their voices on, right? This isn't news to you, correct?

How do you define, "just fine"?

And if it did so well, why were the owners willing to sell profitable businesses? Did the conservatives pay above market rates just to shut down a lib voice?

Just fine as in metropolitan markets, liberal talk show hosts beat out conservative ones over and over but were still replaced. And yes, radio stations made choices that lost them money, replacing top rated liberal talk shows with sports talk.

You got rid of the Fairness Doctrine, kids, now live with the consequences.

 

[Correll]

This is not a conspiracy. These are things that have happened. THAT MAKES THEM FACTS.

Pollak: The Real 'Big Lie' Is That the 2020 Election Was Free and Fair

The real "Big Lie" is that the 2020 election was free and fair, when it was marred by rule changes, censorship, and political violence.

www.breitbart.com

At the same time, I noted, the 2020 presidential election violated internationally accepted criteria for a free and fair election. “Voters were denied the ‘absolute’ right to a secret ballot [through flawed vote-by-mail systems]. They were denied ‘equal opportunity of access to the media, particularly the mass communications media, in order to put forward their political views.’ They were denied ‘security with respect to their lives and property.’ And they were denied “freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression.’

Someone tell me that did not happen.

Maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine.

Just to clarify, so you think the government should force left wing media to give equal time to Republicans? That's what you're saying?

The Fairness Doctrine never did that either. Broadcast networks had to give time for opposing opinions but not equal time. Possible when there were three networks, not today.

Fair enough, Republicans don't need equal time on left wing networks, just the ability to respond would do it.

So that's what you want, Sealy?

Yes. I would love Republicans to come on MSNBC at the end of a show and explain why Rachel Maddow is full of shit and I wish Randi Rhodes was allowed to go on for 4 hours right after Rush. She was just as popular as he was on the radio. In head to head markets, she beat Rush. But putting that liberal bullshit was not what the 6 corporations wanted. Instead they put a guy just like rush on after rush. Then another guy just like rush on after him. Brainwashing.

Yes, I would love one radio station that has Rush and Randi on it. Give her the shittiest hours of the day I'm sure but still I'm sure out of 24 hours she could get better ratings than whatever they have on at that shitty hour. But they'd rather not have her on and you know it.

There is no need for liberal talk radio. I find it hard to believe that her ratings were ever good.

They were. I loved Air America. Sad that it went out of business. The point is, whatever channel Rush was on, they have 24 hours to fill. It's obvious that there is a slow 4 hours during the night or day where a liberal talk show would get better ratings than whatever they have on now. Us liberals have no show to listen to. Trust me, there is a market out there.

But like Air America, whatever channel Rush was on, is a conservative radio channel. No question about it. It's not fair and balanced. Same with every show on Fox. You could say the same thing about MSNBC. It's got a liberal slant.

I would love a new channel that has liberal and conservative shows throughout the day. Whoever is number 1 gets the 8pm time slot.

Talk Radio flourished because it was a counter point to the conventional wisdom pushed by the MSM.

Liberals already get their voices "heard" in MSM, and pop culture.

THey have no need for a counter point.

Fuck that. I should have some political talk to listen to just like you do. There is a market for it but you're ok with the corporations controlling/censoring it because you're ok with censoring talk you don't like. I get it.

You're being lied to just like everyone else.

I didn't cancel her. I would be fine with you having such a show to listen to. I just don't see how it could survive as normal talk radio.


Maybe as satellite radio.

My point is that I don't see why there would be such a market and the failure of lib talk radio seems to support my view on it.

All you have to know is you always lose the popular vote so as far as the number of Democrats compared to Republicans, we win every time. There are more of us than there are of you.

But not a lot of us listen to liberal AM talk radio. Not like cons listened to Rush. And if you liked Rush that station gave you another guy just like rush right after rush, and another guy just like him right after him. If they were smart business people they would put Randi on.

Several of you have even admitted you listened to Randi Rhodes. You liked her. Not for the same reasons I liked her, but you liked her. Same way I don't like Rush the same way you guys do but I listened and liked Rush. He was the best con talker you had.

The radio station would rather lose money and keep brainwashing republicans. It's worth the loss of money they could be making by putting Thom Hartmann or Randi Rhodes on. They don't want fair and balanced. And yet you continue to believe the media is liberal.

Yea, only enough to piss you off. They pretend to be liberal to rile up the base. YOU

YOu seem to be actively ignoring my point about how the mainstream media gives you lefties all the media you need, while for the right leaning consumers, it is does not.

Look who is crying over capitalism and the free market. (It's also an empty whine.) You have plenty of media catering just to you and only you. You have ALL the radio stations, you have at least three TV broadcast channels and the internet is open to all.

It is not the free market. It is liberals abusing their positions and putting politics ahead of their professional responsibilities.


AND regardless, my point stands. It creates an environment that constantly and overwhelmingly allows people like you to wallow in easy self validation, with your preconceived notions and prejudices CONSTANTLY reinforced and magnified right back at you.


THus, no real market for liberal talk radio.

That is why liberal talk radio has not worked.


Like I said, perhaps as satellite radio.

Where, exactly, is it that you don't feel you have fair representation? You have ALL the radio stations (despite there absolutely being a demand for liberal talk radio) and you have more than a few television stations dedicated solely to spreading your propaganda. The internet is available to all equally. Where is it that your "voice" isn't being heard? No where. Empty whine.

Media and pop culture and the internet.

Your claim on the internet is especially silly, considering the abuses of youtube.


If there was such a market for left wing radio, why has it always failed?

What does the word, "mainstream" mean to you? And what do you think the opposite is?

Your desire to bog the discussion down in semantics in order to avoid showing that you cannot refute my point,


is noted and dismissed.

 

[Correll]

It is not the free market. It is liberals abusing their positions and putting politics ahead of their professional responsibilities.

In what way is that not a free market?

THus, no real market for liberal talk radio.

Again, how is it not free?

The free market would make the decisions based on what would generate profits.

Not necessarily. Free market participants can make decisions based on whatever they like. (that's the "free" part)

True.

IF the entity is a privately owned business and the business OWNER is the one making the call.


Beyond that, you got stockholders? Or even partners? Your ethical if not professional responsibility is to generate profits for them, not to play your partisan political games.

The stockholders and partners are the owners. And they're free to hire leaders that work toward other goals, if that's what they want.

....

Correct. IF that is what they want and that is what those people tell the shareholders that is what they are doing.


Mostly, I see people talking shit, and running companies into the ground, or at least, leaving huge sums on the table, that they could have had, while pursuing personal, partisan goals.

 

[Correll]

This is not a conspiracy. These are things that have happened. THAT MAKES THEM FACTS.

Pollak: The Real 'Big Lie' Is That the 2020 Election Was Free and Fair

The real "Big Lie" is that the 2020 election was free and fair, when it was marred by rule changes, censorship, and political violence.

www.breitbart.com

At the same time, I noted, the 2020 presidential election violated internationally accepted criteria for a free and fair election. “Voters were denied the ‘absolute’ right to a secret ballot [through flawed vote-by-mail systems]. They were denied ‘equal opportunity of access to the media, particularly the mass communications media, in order to put forward their political views.’ They were denied ‘security with respect to their lives and property.’ And they were denied “freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression.’

Someone tell me that did not happen.

Maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine.

Just to clarify, so you think the government should force left wing media to give equal time to Republicans? That's what you're saying?

The Fairness Doctrine never did that either. Broadcast networks had to give time for opposing opinions but not equal time. Possible when there were three networks, not today.

Fair enough, Republicans don't need equal time on left wing networks, just the ability to respond would do it.

So that's what you want, Sealy?

Yes. I would love Republicans to come on MSNBC at the end of a show and explain why Rachel Maddow is full of shit and I wish Randi Rhodes was allowed to go on for 4 hours right after Rush. She was just as popular as he was on the radio. In head to head markets, she beat Rush. But putting that liberal bullshit was not what the 6 corporations wanted. Instead they put a guy just like rush on after rush. Then another guy just like rush on after him. Brainwashing.

Yes, I would love one radio station that has Rush and Randi on it. Give her the shittiest hours of the day I'm sure but still I'm sure out of 24 hours she could get better ratings than whatever they have on at that shitty hour. But they'd rather not have her on and you know it.

There is no need for liberal talk radio. I find it hard to believe that her ratings were ever good.

They were. I loved Air America. Sad that it went out of business. The point is, whatever channel Rush was on, they have 24 hours to fill. It's obvious that there is a slow 4 hours during the night or day where a liberal talk show would get better ratings than whatever they have on now. Us liberals have no show to listen to. Trust me, there is a market out there.

But like Air America, whatever channel Rush was on, is a conservative radio channel. No question about it. It's not fair and balanced. Same with every show on Fox. You could say the same thing about MSNBC. It's got a liberal slant.

I would love a new channel that has liberal and conservative shows throughout the day. Whoever is number 1 gets the 8pm time slot.

Talk Radio flourished because it was a counter point to the conventional wisdom pushed by the MSM.

Liberals already get their voices "heard" in MSM, and pop culture.

THey have no need for a counter point.

Fuck that. I should have some political talk to listen to just like you do. There is a market for it but you're ok with the corporations controlling/censoring it because you're ok with censoring talk you don't like. I get it.

You're being lied to just like everyone else.

I didn't cancel her. I would be fine with you having such a show to listen to. I just don't see how it could survive as normal talk radio.


Maybe as satellite radio.

My point is that I don't see why there would be such a market and the failure of lib talk radio seems to support my view on it.

All you have to know is you always lose the popular vote so as far as the number of Democrats compared to Republicans, we win every time. There are more of us than there are of you.

But not a lot of us listen to liberal AM talk radio. Not like cons listened to Rush. And if you liked Rush that station gave you another guy just like rush right after rush, and another guy just like him right after him. If they were smart business people they would put Randi on.

Several of you have even admitted you listened to Randi Rhodes. You liked her. Not for the same reasons I liked her, but you liked her. Same way I don't like Rush the same way you guys do but I listened and liked Rush. He was the best con talker you had.

The radio station would rather lose money and keep brainwashing republicans. It's worth the loss of money they could be making by putting Thom Hartmann or Randi Rhodes on. They don't want fair and balanced. And yet you continue to believe the media is liberal.

Yea, only enough to piss you off. They pretend to be liberal to rile up the base. YOU

YOu seem to be actively ignoring my point about how the mainstream media gives you lefties all the media you need, while for the right leaning consumers, it is does not.

Look who is crying over capitalism and the free market. (It's also an empty whine.) You have plenty of media catering just to you and only you. You have ALL the radio stations, you have at least three TV broadcast channels and the internet is open to all.

It is not the free market. It is liberals abusing their positions and putting politics ahead of their professional responsibilities.


AND regardless, my point stands. It creates an environment that constantly and overwhelmingly allows people like you to wallow in easy self validation, with your preconceived notions and prejudices CONSTANTLY reinforced and magnified right back at you.


THus, no real market for liberal talk radio.

That is why liberal talk radio has not worked.


Like I said, perhaps as satellite radio.

Where, exactly, is it that you don't feel you have fair representation? You have ALL the radio stations (despite there absolutely being a demand for liberal talk radio) and you have more than a few television stations dedicated solely to spreading your propaganda. The internet is available to all equally. Where is it that your "voice" isn't being heard? No where. Empty whine.

Media and pop culture and the internet.

Your claim on the internet is especially silly, considering the abuses of youtube.


If there was such a market for left wing radio, why has it always failed?

It hasn't "always failed". When competing on an even playing field, head to head with conservative talk, liberal talk radio did just fine. You are aware that conservative media bought up all the radio stations and only put their voices on, right? This isn't news to you, correct?

How do you define, "just fine"?

And if it did so well, why were the owners willing to sell profitable businesses? Did the conservatives pay above market rates just to shut down a lib voice?

Just fine as in metropolitan markets, liberal talk show hosts beat out conservative ones over and over but were still replaced. And yes, radio stations made choices that lost them money, replacing top rated liberal talk shows with sports talk.

You got rid of the Fairness Doctrine, kids, now live with the consequences.

if what you say is true, that was wrong. And stupid. Having a lib talker on the radio, does nothing to us. Anyone who thinks it does, is dumb.

 

[sealybobo]

This is not a conspiracy. These are things that have happened. THAT MAKES THEM FACTS.

Pollak: The Real 'Big Lie' Is That the 2020 Election Was Free and Fair

The real "Big Lie" is that the 2020 election was free and fair, when it was marred by rule changes, censorship, and political violence.

www.breitbart.com

At the same time, I noted, the 2020 presidential election violated internationally accepted criteria for a free and fair election. “Voters were denied the ‘absolute’ right to a secret ballot [through flawed vote-by-mail systems]. They were denied ‘equal opportunity of access to the media, particularly the mass communications media, in order to put forward their political views.’ They were denied ‘security with respect to their lives and property.’ And they were denied “freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression.’

Someone tell me that did not happen.

Maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine.

Just to clarify, so you think the government should force left wing media to give equal time to Republicans? That's what you're saying?

The Fairness Doctrine never did that either. Broadcast networks had to give time for opposing opinions but not equal time. Possible when there were three networks, not today.

Fair enough, Republicans don't need equal time on left wing networks, just the ability to respond would do it.

So that's what you want, Sealy?

Yes. I would love Republicans to come on MSNBC at the end of a show and explain why Rachel Maddow is full of shit and I wish Randi Rhodes was allowed to go on for 4 hours right after Rush. She was just as popular as he was on the radio. In head to head markets, she beat Rush. But putting that liberal bullshit was not what the 6 corporations wanted. Instead they put a guy just like rush on after rush. Then another guy just like rush on after him. Brainwashing.

Yes, I would love one radio station that has Rush and Randi on it. Give her the shittiest hours of the day I'm sure but still I'm sure out of 24 hours she could get better ratings than whatever they have on at that shitty hour. But they'd rather not have her on and you know it.

There is no need for liberal talk radio. I find it hard to believe that her ratings were ever good.

They were. I loved Air America. Sad that it went out of business. The point is, whatever channel Rush was on, they have 24 hours to fill. It's obvious that there is a slow 4 hours during the night or day where a liberal talk show would get better ratings than whatever they have on now. Us liberals have no show to listen to. Trust me, there is a market out there.

But like Air America, whatever channel Rush was on, is a conservative radio channel. No question about it. It's not fair and balanced. Same with every show on Fox. You could say the same thing about MSNBC. It's got a liberal slant.

I would love a new channel that has liberal and conservative shows throughout the day. Whoever is number 1 gets the 8pm time slot.

Talk Radio flourished because it was a counter point to the conventional wisdom pushed by the MSM.

Liberals already get their voices "heard" in MSM, and pop culture.

THey have no need for a counter point.

Fuck that. I should have some political talk to listen to just like you do. There is a market for it but you're ok with the corporations controlling/censoring it because you're ok with censoring talk you don't like. I get it.

You're being lied to just like everyone else.

I didn't cancel her. I would be fine with you having such a show to listen to. I just don't see how it could survive as normal talk radio.


Maybe as satellite radio.

My point is that I don't see why there would be such a market and the failure of lib talk radio seems to support my view on it.

All you have to know is you always lose the popular vote so as far as the number of Democrats compared to Republicans, we win every time. There are more of us than there are of you.

But not a lot of us listen to liberal AM talk radio. Not like cons listened to Rush. And if you liked Rush that station gave you another guy just like rush right after rush, and another guy just like him right after him. If they were smart business people they would put Randi on.

Several of you have even admitted you listened to Randi Rhodes. You liked her. Not for the same reasons I liked her, but you liked her. Same way I don't like Rush the same way you guys do but I listened and liked Rush. He was the best con talker you had.

The radio station would rather lose money and keep brainwashing republicans. It's worth the loss of money they could be making by putting Thom Hartmann or Randi Rhodes on. They don't want fair and balanced. And yet you continue to believe the media is liberal.

Yea, only enough to piss you off. They pretend to be liberal to rile up the base. YOU

YOu seem to be actively ignoring my point about how the mainstream media gives you lefties all the media you need, while for the right leaning consumers, it is does not.

Look who is crying over capitalism and the free market. (It's also an empty whine.) You have plenty of media catering just to you and only you. You have ALL the radio stations, you have at least three TV broadcast channels and the internet is open to all.

It is not the free market. It is liberals abusing their positions and putting politics ahead of their professional responsibilities.


AND regardless, my point stands. It creates an environment that constantly and overwhelmingly allows people like you to wallow in easy self validation, with your preconceived notions and prejudices CONSTANTLY reinforced and magnified right back at you.


THus, no real market for liberal talk radio.

That is why liberal talk radio has not worked.


Like I said, perhaps as satellite radio.

Where, exactly, is it that you don't feel you have fair representation? You have ALL the radio stations (despite there absolutely being a demand for liberal talk radio) and you have more than a few television stations dedicated solely to spreading your propaganda. The internet is available to all equally. Where is it that your "voice" isn't being heard? No where. Empty whine.

Republicans want to control the narrative. So they've been saying for years the media is liberal even when in the 90's it got deregulated and gobbled up by 8 corporations. They believe the media is lying to them but they refuse to believe that maybe it's the rich and powerful who are lying to them. Not liberals.

We all know Republicans use racism god gays and guns to win votes right? So perhaps the corporate media is pushing a liberal social agenda to rile up it's base. Who's it's base? White racist conservative republicans.

 

[kaz]

This is not a conspiracy. These are things that have happened. THAT MAKES THEM FACTS.

Pollak: The Real 'Big Lie' Is That the 2020 Election Was Free and Fair

The real "Big Lie" is that the 2020 election was free and fair, when it was marred by rule changes, censorship, and political violence.

www.breitbart.com

At the same time, I noted, the 2020 presidential election violated internationally accepted criteria for a free and fair election. “Voters were denied the ‘absolute’ right to a secret ballot [through flawed vote-by-mail systems]. They were denied ‘equal opportunity of access to the media, particularly the mass communications media, in order to put forward their political views.’ They were denied ‘security with respect to their lives and property.’ And they were denied “freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression.’

Someone tell me that did not happen.

Maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine.

Just to clarify, so you think the government should force left wing media to give equal time to Republicans? That's what you're saying?

The Fairness Doctrine never did that either. Broadcast networks had to give time for opposing opinions but not equal time. Possible when there were three networks, not today.

Fair enough, Republicans don't need equal time on left wing networks, just the ability to respond would do it.

So that's what you want, Sealy?

Yes. I would love Republicans to come on MSNBC at the end of a show and explain why Rachel Maddow is full of shit and I wish Randi Rhodes was allowed to go on for 4 hours right after Rush. She was just as popular as he was on the radio. In head to head markets, she beat Rush. But putting that liberal bullshit was not what the 6 corporations wanted. Instead they put a guy just like rush on after rush. Then another guy just like rush on after him. Brainwashing.

Yes, I would love one radio station that has Rush and Randi on it. Give her the shittiest hours of the day I'm sure but still I'm sure out of 24 hours she could get better ratings than whatever they have on at that shitty hour. But they'd rather not have her on and you know it.

There is no need for liberal talk radio. I find it hard to believe that her ratings were ever good.

They were. I loved Air America. Sad that it went out of business. The point is, whatever channel Rush was on, they have 24 hours to fill. It's obvious that there is a slow 4 hours during the night or day where a liberal talk show would get better ratings than whatever they have on now. Us liberals have no show to listen to. Trust me, there is a market out there.

But like Air America, whatever channel Rush was on, is a conservative radio channel. No question about it. It's not fair and balanced. Same with every show on Fox. You could say the same thing about MSNBC. It's got a liberal slant.

I would love a new channel that has liberal and conservative shows throughout the day. Whoever is number 1 gets the 8pm time slot.

Air America was funny as shit. I listened to it regularly. Especially Randy Rhodes. That was one mental chick

Rush was funny too.

Yes, Rush had a great sense of humor. And no one could goad leftists like him, it was classic

He’s dead - Thanks God!

Is it a bird! Is is a plane? It's Captain Hyperbole!

Yes, saying someone is funny means I think they are God. Stupid, useless fuck

 

[Correll]

This is not a conspiracy. These are things that have happened. THAT MAKES THEM FACTS.

Pollak: The Real 'Big Lie' Is That the 2020 Election Was Free and Fair

The real "Big Lie" is that the 2020 election was free and fair, when it was marred by rule changes, censorship, and political violence.

www.breitbart.com

At the same time, I noted, the 2020 presidential election violated internationally accepted criteria for a free and fair election. “Voters were denied the ‘absolute’ right to a secret ballot [through flawed vote-by-mail systems]. They were denied ‘equal opportunity of access to the media, particularly the mass communications media, in order to put forward their political views.’ They were denied ‘security with respect to their lives and property.’ And they were denied “freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression.’

Someone tell me that did not happen.

Maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine.

Just to clarify, so you think the government should force left wing media to give equal time to Republicans? That's what you're saying?

The Fairness Doctrine never did that either. Broadcast networks had to give time for opposing opinions but not equal time. Possible when there were three networks, not today.

Fair enough, Republicans don't need equal time on left wing networks, just the ability to respond would do it.

So that's what you want, Sealy?

Yes. I would love Republicans to come on MSNBC at the end of a show and explain why Rachel Maddow is full of shit and I wish Randi Rhodes was allowed to go on for 4 hours right after Rush. She was just as popular as he was on the radio. In head to head markets, she beat Rush. But putting that liberal bullshit was not what the 6 corporations wanted. Instead they put a guy just like rush on after rush. Then another guy just like rush on after him. Brainwashing.

Yes, I would love one radio station that has Rush and Randi on it. Give her the shittiest hours of the day I'm sure but still I'm sure out of 24 hours she could get better ratings than whatever they have on at that shitty hour. But they'd rather not have her on and you know it.

There is no need for liberal talk radio. I find it hard to believe that her ratings were ever good.

They were. I loved Air America. Sad that it went out of business. The point is, whatever channel Rush was on, they have 24 hours to fill. It's obvious that there is a slow 4 hours during the night or day where a liberal talk show would get better ratings than whatever they have on now. Us liberals have no show to listen to. Trust me, there is a market out there.

But like Air America, whatever channel Rush was on, is a conservative radio channel. No question about it. It's not fair and balanced. Same with every show on Fox. You could say the same thing about MSNBC. It's got a liberal slant.

I would love a new channel that has liberal and conservative shows throughout the day. Whoever is number 1 gets the 8pm time slot.

Talk Radio flourished because it was a counter point to the conventional wisdom pushed by the MSM.

Liberals already get their voices "heard" in MSM, and pop culture.

THey have no need for a counter point.

Fuck that. I should have some political talk to listen to just like you do. There is a market for it but you're ok with the corporations controlling/censoring it because you're ok with censoring talk you don't like. I get it.

You're being lied to just like everyone else.

I didn't cancel her. I would be fine with you having such a show to listen to. I just don't see how it could survive as normal talk radio.


Maybe as satellite radio.

My point is that I don't see why there would be such a market and the failure of lib talk radio seems to support my view on it.

All you have to know is you always lose the popular vote so as far as the number of Democrats compared to Republicans, we win every time. There are more of us than there are of you.

But not a lot of us listen to liberal AM talk radio. Not like cons listened to Rush. And if you liked Rush that station gave you another guy just like rush right after rush, and another guy just like him right after him. If they were smart business people they would put Randi on.

Several of you have even admitted you listened to Randi Rhodes. You liked her. Not for the same reasons I liked her, but you liked her. Same way I don't like Rush the same way you guys do but I listened and liked Rush. He was the best con talker you had.

The radio station would rather lose money and keep brainwashing republicans. It's worth the loss of money they could be making by putting Thom Hartmann or Randi Rhodes on. They don't want fair and balanced. And yet you continue to believe the media is liberal.

Yea, only enough to piss you off. They pretend to be liberal to rile up the base. YOU

YOu seem to be actively ignoring my point about how the mainstream media gives you lefties all the media you need, while for the right leaning consumers, it is does not.

Look who is crying over capitalism and the free market. (It's also an empty whine.) You have plenty of media catering just to you and only you. You have ALL the radio stations, you have at least three TV broadcast channels and the internet is open to all.

It is not the free market. It is liberals abusing their positions and putting politics ahead of their professional responsibilities.


AND regardless, my point stands. It creates an environment that constantly and overwhelmingly allows people like you to wallow in easy self validation, with your preconceived notions and prejudices CONSTANTLY reinforced and magnified right back at you.


THus, no real market for liberal talk radio.

That is why liberal talk radio has not worked.


Like I said, perhaps as satellite radio.

Where, exactly, is it that you don't feel you have fair representation? You have ALL the radio stations (despite there absolutely being a demand for liberal talk radio) and you have more than a few television stations dedicated solely to spreading your propaganda. The internet is available to all equally. Where is it that your "voice" isn't being heard? No where. Empty whine.

Republicans want to control the narrative. So they've been saying for years the media is liberal even when in the 90's it got deregulated and gobbled up by 8 corporations. They believe the media is lying to them but they refuse to believe that maybe it's the rich and powerful who are lying to them. Not liberals.

We all know Republicans use racism god gays and guns to win votes right? So perhaps the corporate media is pushing a liberal social agenda to rile up it's base. Who's it's base? White racist conservative republicans.

Wacism. Like a retarded child.

 

[sealybobo]

It is not the free market. It is liberals abusing their positions and putting politics ahead of their professional responsibilities.

In what way is that not a free market?

THus, no real market for liberal talk radio.

Again, how is it not free?

The free market would make the decisions based on what would generate profits.

Making business decisions based on politics, is not that.


What part of that, are you disagreeing with?

But that's exactly what the radio station that Rush talked on is doing. Rather than hire Randi Rhodes and Thom Hartmann and put them in slow time slots, the radio station would rather have slow time slots and ONLY push the right wing agenda. It's so obvious.

The only thing we have today is NPR.

 

[dblack]

It is not the free market. It is liberals abusing their positions and putting politics ahead of their professional responsibilities.

In what way is that not a free market?

THus, no real market for liberal talk radio.

Again, how is it not free?

The free market would make the decisions based on what would generate profits.

Not necessarily. Free market participants can make decisions based on whatever they like. (that's the "free" part)

True.

IF the entity is a privately owned business and the business OWNER is the one making the call.


Beyond that, you got stockholders? Or even partners? Your ethical if not professional responsibility is to generate profits for them, not to play your partisan political games.

The stockholders and partners are the owners. And they're free to hire leaders that work toward other goals, if that's what they want.

....

Correct. IF that is what they want and that is what those people tell the shareholders that is what they are doing.

Or, even if the shareholders just don't give a shit. Point is, it's their money. If they want to invest in a company that promotes its political values, that's their right.

Mostly, I see people talking shit, and running companies into the ground, or at least, leaving huge sums on the table, that they could have had, while pursuing personal, partisan goals.

Again, businesses can have other goals besides profit. Are you saying that shouldn't be allowed?

 

[DrLove]

This is not a conspiracy. These are things that have happened. THAT MAKES THEM FACTS.

Pollak: The Real 'Big Lie' Is That the 2020 Election Was Free and Fair

The real "Big Lie" is that the 2020 election was free and fair, when it was marred by rule changes, censorship, and political violence.

www.breitbart.com

At the same time, I noted, the 2020 presidential election violated internationally accepted criteria for a free and fair election. “Voters were denied the ‘absolute’ right to a secret ballot [through flawed vote-by-mail systems]. They were denied ‘equal opportunity of access to the media, particularly the mass communications media, in order to put forward their political views.’ They were denied ‘security with respect to their lives and property.’ And they were denied “freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression.’

Someone tell me that did not happen.

Maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine.

Just to clarify, so you think the government should force left wing media to give equal time to Republicans? That's what you're saying?

The Fairness Doctrine never did that either. Broadcast networks had to give time for opposing opinions but not equal time. Possible when there were three networks, not today.

Fair enough, Republicans don't need equal time on left wing networks, just the ability to respond would do it.

So that's what you want, Sealy?

Yes. I would love Republicans to come on MSNBC at the end of a show and explain why Rachel Maddow is full of shit and I wish Randi Rhodes was allowed to go on for 4 hours right after Rush. She was just as popular as he was on the radio. In head to head markets, she beat Rush. But putting that liberal bullshit was not what the 6 corporations wanted. Instead they put a guy just like rush on after rush. Then another guy just like rush on after him. Brainwashing.

Yes, I would love one radio station that has Rush and Randi on it. Give her the shittiest hours of the day I'm sure but still I'm sure out of 24 hours she could get better ratings than whatever they have on at that shitty hour. But they'd rather not have her on and you know it.

There is no need for liberal talk radio. I find it hard to believe that her ratings were ever good.

They were. I loved Air America. Sad that it went out of business. The point is, whatever channel Rush was on, they have 24 hours to fill. It's obvious that there is a slow 4 hours during the night or day where a liberal talk show would get better ratings than whatever they have on now. Us liberals have no show to listen to. Trust me, there is a market out there.

But like Air America, whatever channel Rush was on, is a conservative radio channel. No question about it. It's not fair and balanced. Same with every show on Fox. You could say the same thing about MSNBC. It's got a liberal slant.

I would love a new channel that has liberal and conservative shows throughout the day. Whoever is number 1 gets the 8pm time slot.

Air America was funny as shit. I listened to it regularly. Especially Randy Rhodes. That was one mental chick

Rush was funny too.

Yes, Rush had a great sense of humor. And no one could goad leftists like him, it was classic

He’s dead - Thanks God!

Is it a bird! Is is a plane? It's Captain Hyperbole!

Yes, saying someone is funny means I think they are God. Stupid, useless fuck

Fatsbo wasn’t your God? Sorry - I’m not fooled. Donald is your God too!

 

[Correll]

It is not the free market. It is liberals abusing their positions and putting politics ahead of their professional responsibilities.

In what way is that not a free market?

THus, no real market for liberal talk radio.

Again, how is it not free?

The free market would make the decisions based on what would generate profits.

Making business decisions based on politics, is not that.


What part of that, are you disagreeing with?

But that's exactly what the radio station that Rush talked on is doing. Rather than hire Randi Rhodes and Thom Hartmann and put them in slow time slots, the radio station would rather have slow time slots and ONLY push the right wing agenda. It's so obvious.

The only thing we have today is NPR.

You got conservative listeners on the station, you want them to leave teh dial alone. You switch streams and suddenly there is some lefty on the radio, they will change the station.

Better to do reruns.

 

[Correll]

It is not the free market. It is liberals abusing their positions and putting politics ahead of their professional responsibilities.

In what way is that not a free market?

THus, no real market for liberal talk radio.

Again, how is it not free?

The free market would make the decisions based on what would generate profits.

Not necessarily. Free market participants can make decisions based on whatever they like. (that's the "free" part)

True.

IF the entity is a privately owned business and the business OWNER is the one making the call.


Beyond that, you got stockholders? Or even partners? Your ethical if not professional responsibility is to generate profits for them, not to play your partisan political games.

The stockholders and partners are the owners. And they're free to hire leaders that work toward other goals, if that's what they want.

....

Correct. IF that is what they want and that is what those people tell the shareholders that is what they are doing.

Or, even if the shareholders just don't give a shit. Point is, it's their money. If they want to invest in a company that promotes its political values, that's their right.

Mostly, I see people talking shit, and running companies into the ground, or at least, leaving huge sums on the table, that they could have had, while pursuing personal, partisan goals.

Again, businesses can have other goals besides profit. Are you saying that shouldn't be allowed?

i clearly said, "correct" in response to your last post. If they people doing that are clear with the shareholders, then yes, it is fine with me.


BUT, that is not what I am mostly seeing.