• 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

Camille Paglia rips Fairness Doctrine

She says liberals/Dems are wrong to push for the return of the Fairness Doctrine, saying "my
generation was all about freedom of speech" and we can't have the government monitoring
talk radio for idealogy. She says liberals have a stranglehold on the media and (conservative)
talk radio is a "counter-voice" to that

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=279483 or http://en.sevenload.com/videos/VXZTSBd-Fairness-Doctrine

(Rush and Hannity): "The audience voted them in!"
She makes fun of any thoughts of a conspiracy and says what it is is successful business, a product
people want.
 
That's nice.

Who in the world is Camille Paglia?

(Actually, I have already Googled and have what may or may not be some idea of who she is. Your post assume we of the Great Unwashed Masses know.)
 
That's funny...I thought the same thing...who IS Camille Pagilia, and why do I care?

But I guess to some it matters. I liken it to the reality TV shows, where people build their coalitions as part of their strategy. Call it the "Survivor mentality." The thinking being that we all get to vote on who gets kicked off the island. So one side brings in Bill Press and Bill Clinton, and the other side brings in Camille Pagilia. But the sad reality is that the American people aren't going to get a chance to vote on this issue. It will be decided in the marble halls of government.

One thought that came to my mind as I listened to this lady was a press conference I attended a couple years ago. It was put on by a very liberal, almost socialist group. They invited the governor, lots of other politicians, and some celebrities to speak. I got there thinking I'd be able to ask questions of these people. I mean, come on, it's a press conference. That doesn't mean we're there to speak with each other! And to my surprise, they introduced a host who proceded to ask softball questions of everyone on stage, all aimed around the talking points, and didn't take a single question from anyone in the media. I wondered why I even went. It wasn't a press conference, it was a commercial!
 
TheBigA said:
But the sad reality is that the American people aren't going to get a chance to vote on this issue. It will be decided in the marble halls of government.

The public voted November 4, and the politicians they elected, and the FCC appointed by the new administration, will make decisions reflective of the will of the people.

As Ed Schultz says, elections have consequences.
 
Sean Gilbow said:
The public voted November 4, and the politicians they elected, and the FCC appointed by the new administration, will make decisions reflective of the will of the people.

As Ed Schultz says, elections have consequences.

But reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine isn't likely to be one of those consequences. President Obama is on record as opposing reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine from an interview that he gave to "Broadcasting & Cable" magazine prior to the election, which means that he isn't exactly going to be throwing any political weight behind its revival. And without his support, I just don't see it happening.
 
Today's votes in Senate: Barring Fairness Doctrine passes 87-11, but Durbin's localism amendment also
passes, 57-41, and some (incl. Sen Demint) feel this is a backdoor way of reviving the FD. Now on to
House. Obama says he's not for the FD but will he support "localism"?
 
raccoonradio said:
Obama says he's not for the FD but will he support "localism"?

He has spoken in favor of "localism," whatever that is, as a Senator and a candidate. But no one has figured out exactly what it means and how it can be regulated. There is no legal basis for requiring localism. It's a subjective concept. So any steps they take open doors for legal challenges.
 
Sean Gilbow said:
The public voted November 4, and the politicians they elected, and the FCC appointed by the new administration, will make decisions reflective of the will of the people.

That's the most wonderfully naive thing I've read in weeks!

If you really believe that politicians of any stripe have "the will of the people" in mind, I have some lovely shorefront property in Bayonne to sell you. Cheap!

- Doc
 
DoctorWu said:
That's the most wonderfully naive thing I've read in weeks!

If you really believe that politicians of any stripe have "the will of the people" in mind, I have some lovely shorefront property in Bayonne to sell you. Cheap!

I have no trouble believing that most politicians think they are representing the will of the people. The problem is that they tend first of all to be surrounded by other politicians who filter the message containing the "will of the people" and when they go out to meet the real people it is mandatory that you concentrate on being in contact with people who have been donors, or people you can turn into donors.

Yesterday I met a candidate for state office who impressed me. I obviously impressed both the candidate and the hired aide who was also at the meeting. The candidate called me this morning to explore the possibility of recruiting me to be part of the campaign team, and then we had a frank discussion about campaign financing. He is running for an office that will be voted on in November 2010. Before that there will be a party primary.... Summer of 2010? He is facing a critical date. Because he is an announced candidate, he must file a campaign contributions report on June 30... six weeks from now. He had a very candid explanation of reality. The party leaders who have the ability to steer the rank and file to support certain candidates will be watching this report. The heavy duty industrial strength players who put big money into campaigns will be watching closely. Both of these groups will be high impressed by candidates who have proven by THIS June 30th they are capable of raising money and getting it from a lot of donors. He put the arm on me to consider making an early contribution of $50, $100, preferably $250 dollars in the next six weeks. We all know that too much of the money comes from the big donors.... the industries who need politicians in their pocket. These big donors will be influenced in who they are going to favor based on how many nobodies like me the candidate has been able to tap this early.

When will this candidate (and all his competitors) ever have time to find out what is "the will of the people"? They will be continually surrounded and reinforced by those of us who will put blood, sweat and tears in the campaign, and those of us who will sign checks of some amount, large or small.

What about the people who choose NOT to be a part of the campaign. How will any of us ever know what their will is? How will any candidate ever know what their will is?

We need for people of wisdom to come forward and change the election system and the election financing system. We have about as much chance of that happening as we have chances for the public to come to agreement on issues like abortion and we come to the point where we all stand around the campfire singing Kum-ba-yah.

But inspite of all the gloom and doom we can profess about our system of government, we have to continue to dream that it DOES work and WILL work. What is the alternative?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom