Considering the minority runs the upper chamber and the lower chamber is almost toothless at this point, that's exactly how it works. It's more a function of the people who are there and not the system, of course. We've seen the majority cave on much more important issues that cost less money, so why wouldn't the democrats shut things down to preserve CPB funding if it came to that? They could do it and get away with it.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Effect of Consolidation on AM Radio
- Thread starter semoochie
- Start date
Considering the minority runs the upper chamber and the lower chamber is almost toothless at this point, that's exactly how it works. It's more a function of the people who are there and not the system, of course. We've seen the majority cave on much more important issues that cost less money, so why wouldn't the democrats shut things down to preserve CPB funding if it came to that? They could do it and get away with it.
They won't have to. It's not really a partisan issue. Everyone votes for funding for their local districts regardless of party, and that's what this is.
CPB funding is a local issue? I doubt the local non comms that get the CPS money have any lobbying power. The only reason this funding is allowed to continue is one side would burn Washington DC to the ground before giving up a penny of it and one side just doesn't care because it's not that much money.
Absolutely. They fund local stations. You really should study the CPB before you make pronouncements about it.
The internet has poisoned the political atmosphere way more than the conservative talkers on AM radio ever could. Take a look at your local FB newsfeed, and see just how wonderful everyone gets along. Name calling, defriending galore.
Take a look at any comments section underneath a hot story from a newspaper's website -- or even worse, one of the politically oriented "news" websites, and see the poisonous atmosphere there.
Only 16% of listeners listen to AM, and not all of them listen to talk radio. Probably 90% of the U.S. has an internet connection of some type.
I guess you didn't read the sentence directly adjacent to the one you quoted, in which I noted that LOCAL STATIONS GET CPB FUNDING.
landtuna
Walk of Fame Participant
The "Internet" has poisoned nothing. It is merely a pipeline for information. What information and the comments that follow it are the responsibility of the viewers/readers/listeners.
The poisonous atmosphere in politics was created by the politicians of recent decades. They are the idiots who lied, who started undeclared wars, who made under the table deals with lobbyists and other influence peddlers and who sold out the country for their own personal benefit.
You said they don't have lobbying power. As a group, they do. But more importantly, the local stations reach constituents, which is more of the lifeblood than lobbying. There is more to politics than what happens in DC.
Nobody has ever threatened to "burn Washington to the ground" over public radio funding. The only threat came from some freshmen Republican Congressmen, but that threat ended after their first Appropriations hearing. After that, even the staunchest critic understood that this is money for their local district. That's why it hasn't been an issue since. Nobody is going to vote against money for their own district. If you're in Iowa, you don't vote against funding for WOI in Ames. That's self-destructive. If you're in Ohio, you don't vote against funding for WOSU. Even Paul Ryan recognizes the importance of WHA. As I said, you don't understand this at all.
Last edited:
You're so close to understanding, yet so far away.
You're technically correct, in that the internet, like AM talk radio, is just a conduit.
But it's the partisan nature of the internet information sources -- which are growing in importance while more impartial newspapers and traditional news sources decline -- that are the problem. And the anonymous nature of comments on the internet -- many of which are nothing but hatred and vitriol -- is also a huge the problem.
Such comments may be the creations of the individual readers, but they have a much greater reach than AM radio.
landtuna
Walk of Fame Participant
A couple important differences:
AM Radio is almost exclusively a one-way medium. Unless you are fortunate to have a viable discussion going on someone is barking at you and the odds are you agree with them. The Internet fosters two-way conversations the majority of the time (unless, of course, you are reading an online newspaper or blog). Discussion, polite or not, is the order of the day. And yes, for some reason people say things online they would not necessarily say to another's face (or perhaps fisticuffs would ensue).
Radio has always been intended as a local communication resource. Even the 50kw flamethrowers were regional if not entirely local. The Internet is just the opposite with the result that you can get exposure you don't anticipate (with accordingly different responses).
Radio is almost always moderated. The Internet is not. Unfortunately, this promotes undiluted vitriol and discussions frequently dissolve into epithet-flinging. You can, however, find sites that are moderated and maintain some semblance of civility.
Radio has limited access. The Internet has virtual unlimited access. Everyone can be an author on the 'net and that, unfortunately, lends itself to the semi-literate bellowing nonsensical fluff.
But the original statement that the Internet has poisoned politics is absurd. That is akin to claiming the telephone is the culprit. The Internet is just a mechanism and can be used in a variety of ways. As our politicians were slow to use the 'Net initially I doubt much of the divisiveness of the current political state can be due to the technology although the free-wheeling planting of stories and opinions certainly does contribute currently.
Where you and I seem to differ the most is that you apparently think the current divisive state comes from the politicians themselves, whereas I see it coming from the people who vote them into office.
landtuna
Walk of Fame Participant
Perhaps a more accurate definition would be that the politicians created such a radical difference that they as much as forced their constituents into similar polarizing views. There is a definite reason that mentioning George Bush's name will either provoke a slap on the back or a punch in the face.
Point well taken. After all, we did fight a Civil War, the bloodiest war in U.S. History.
The 60's weren't a birthday party, either.
landtuna
Walk of Fame Participant
What makes it seem different now is the almost instantaneous and free-form communications capability we have now. Anyone can author an opinion and have it widely distributed across the nation and the world. A large portion of the media is occupied with stirring the kettle so to speak so as to attract clients and therefore advertisers and thereby a paycheck. We are constantly reminded of our differences whereas in the old days the rare authors tended to remind us of why were one nation. And lastly, our politicians of old tended to be politically correct when speaking publicly versus confrontational now. Plus, and IMHO, we have a plethora of idiots in leadership positions now as opposed to the more moderate and compromising politicians of old.
WE. FOUGHT. A. CIVIL. WAR.
Hundreds of thousands of dead Americans is a lot worse than someone having his feelings hurt by Rush Limbaugh.
landtuna
Walk of Fame Participant
You read but you don't understand. Here are my first six words which you supposedly read and quoted: "What makes it seem different now...".
I was agreeing with you but also giving reasons why it seems (there's that word again) different. We have been essentially one single country since 1865 whereas before that we were a collection of semi-sovereign states. People back then tended to think of themselves as belonging to the state rather than as an American first. States rights were the order of the day and a primary reason why states attacked each other. It was a very different time and hopefully one that will never reoccur here.
There are some states who still adhere pretty strongly to that view, and they express that view pretty much every day in Congress. So no, it wasn't different, and in many ways, the war we fought then is still going on today.
- Status