Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the government control talk radio to make it more "balanced"?
Results so far:
| Yes | 10% | 92 votes | Total: 964 votes | |
| No | 90% | 872 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesAs much as this goes against all the rights enveloped with the first Amendment and free speech, radio could use a little tuning. Much like CNN, Barbara Walters' interviews, and everything else, radio concentrates on the entertainment world too much. Of course, it should, however lines are crossed and more and more useless information is passed through the sound waves.
Cars, alarm clocks, and banging stereos all carry the information that no one can honestly say they care about, but nonetheless hear about it all the time. Paris Hilton's release from prison and immediate food fun to Taco Bell is about as irrelevant as news comes. What type of news is that? Under what classification does it fall under?
Britney Spears' rough experiences aren't necessarily something this nation's daughters need to be watching; nor the boys just to keep the ideas out of these kids' heads. And Anna Nicole Smith's death and post-death news was not productive, educational, or positive in any way.
Talk radio should have standards and follow a curriculum much like teachers are assigned to do throughout the school year. A more balanced spread of wealthy intellect would do the human population some good. Religion and politics, world disasters and relieve foundations; these are the topics that can be slotted in as fillers instead of soggy, boring entertainment news. Local news for the area would be best. Sports talk balanced with tolerance for religion would be sound. People wouldn't have to listen to all of it.
Special guest interviews and call-ins are always a popular format to boost ratings and create audience interest. Never fails to have an audience on talk radio. The human opinion is energetic and spreads like wildfire through the masses. This would be better talk radio than useless information formatted around the idea that Michael Jackson was in court again. Talk radio should be balanced for one to keep a steady fan base and two, to at least shed light on issues some people can't find any other access to. The Presidential run is one topic of interest that is constantly updated and worth while for many people's ears.
The government shouldn't have to come down with a hammer to alter talk radio, but a general curriculum should be addressed and regulated by the head of the show. It would be worth more for the listeners; after all, that is who talk radio is for isn't it?
Learn more about this author, Tess Ramano.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
It's not the government's job to control talk radio or any other format for free speech. The Lib's may not like talk radio or the radio personalities that are on it but that should not give the left or anyone the incentive to silence them.
As for balanced speech, what are they thinking? Look at the mainstream media, look at the cable news networks (Fox excluded) and tell me that they do not lean a particular way. What I see with the 'fairness Doctrine' is the government trying to control what those who do not agree with them says.
Just because NPR has low ratings and air America crash landed, does not give our government the right to step in and say that radio station managers need to give equal amounts of time to the opposing side. If the people who listen to Rush, Hannity or Beck wanted to hear from the liberal pundits, they would listen to them and therefore increase their ratings, thus making this whole thing a moot point.
Even those on the left don't wish to hear from those at Air America, if they did that station would not have gone BK and folded. You can't blame conservative talk radio for having good ratings just because people prefer to hear them and not the other.
Imagine this: you like country music but there are some that say that there is not enough jazz or blues or hip-hop on the air. The government comes to your favorite station and tells them that they must play one song of each of those genres for every country song played. How long do you think that station would be on the air?
Answer: Not long.
This is about free speech, plain and simple. There are bunches of people who don't like to hear opposing view points and will do what ever it takes to keep them silent. You don't have to agree with them but you have to let them speak.
Those on the left will be the first to stand up and tell you all about free speech but if it is against their political belief, then they will shout you down and this is the proof that Censorship shrouds Fairness.
Most important in all of this, is who stands to gain from the governments' involvement? Marc Lloyd, Chief Diversity officer with the FCC wants to fine conservative broadcasters 250 million dollars that would then be redirected to guess who? That's right, NPR.
He calls it Localism and diversity Huh? NPR is already being funded with your tax dollars and now the government wants even more from private business, just for giving their opinion.
Where is the America of old? Why is free speech only free when one side or another agrees with it.
I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Learn more about this author, Sean Wardak.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- News Industry
- Should the media be giving Paris Hilton so much attention?
- Should the media refrain from using the term "terrorist" for the sake of objectivity and neutrality?
- Can democracy flourish if media ownership is limited?
- Can media exposes on government abuse lead to reform?
- Can journalists in countries that are engaged in conflict be truly objective?
- The media and the personal lives of politicians: Open or closed door?
