Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 12 Mar '12 00:06
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/10/opinion/fonda-morgan-steinem-limbaugh/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

    Presuming the labels that several feminist radicals place on Rush Limbaugh are accurate and correct, is it proper that they dictate what on air content is to be?

    I argued in another thread, despite my disapproval of the rhetorical methods of on Thaddeus Matthews that his sacking was not proper, on any grounds but business reasons. Ideological enemies ought have no say in broadcast or print media. Ultimately, the market will rule.
  2. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    12 Mar '12 00:11
    Originally posted by normbenign
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/10/opinion/fonda-morgan-steinem-limbaugh/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

    Presuming the labels that several feminist radicals place on Rush Limbaugh are accurate and correct, is it proper that they dictate what on air content is to be?

    I argued in another thread, despite my disapproval of the rhetorical methods of on Thaddeus Matthews ...[text shortened]... ogical enemies ought have no say in broadcast or print media. Ultimately, the market will rule.
    Decisions of radio executives are part of the market.
  3. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    12 Mar '12 00:25
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Presuming the labels that several feminist radicals place on Rush Limbaugh are accurate and correct, is it proper that they dictate what on air content is to be?
    You suggest the government intervene?
  4. 12 Mar '12 00:30
    Originally posted by sh76
    Decisions of radio executives are part of the market.
    No doubt, and if as a business decision, Rush or anyone else loses their job, I have no objection.

    If the temporary loss of business is stimulated by radicals, I do by all means object. I believe that most people in marketing pay Rush's admittedly confiscatory advertising rates, because his show is effective in moving product. Most could care less about the ideological content of the show. Believe it or not, in my market, national and state Democratic candidates, and Democrat ballot initiatives buy time regularly on Rush's show proper, or on hard breaks between his segments on the local station.

    Ask yourself, who is going to sell more car insurance, hamburgers, or sleepnumber beds? Rush, or Gloria Steinem?
  5. 12 Mar '12 00:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    You suggest the government intervene?
    Not at all. I suggest that the businesses ignore radicals, and consider their bottom line. Did I say or even imply any government response?
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    12 Mar '12 00:33
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Not at all. I suggest that the businesses ignore radicals, and consider their bottom line.
    And you contend that businesses aren't currently free to do so? Surely not. What is it you are trying to say? If you 'disagree with radicals', how is that a debate topic?
  7. 12 Mar '12 01:00
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Not at all. I suggest that the businesses ignore radicals, and consider their bottom line. Did I say or even imply any government response?
    You don't see "the market will rule" and calling on businesses to "ignore radicals, and consider their bottom line" as an ideological position. You don't see pulling government out of the picture as a governmental response.
  8. 12 Mar '12 01:01
    Originally posted by FMF
    And you contend that businesses aren't currently free to do so? Surely not. What is it you are trying to say? If you 'disagree with radicals', how is that a debate topic?
    You may not see the point of debate. Pass on it then. There are those who adamantly believe that they should influence government to put the opposition off the air.

    Clearly, that is what Fonda and Steinem propose. My question is pretty clearly posed. Why can't the market sort the matter out?
  9. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    12 Mar '12 01:16
    Originally posted by normbenign
    You may not see the point of debate. Pass on it then. There are those who adamantly believe that they should influence government to put the opposition off the air.
    You don't think individuals should be allowed to "influence" or put pressure on businesses or the government or the FCC?
  10. 12 Mar '12 01:24 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by JS357
    You don't see "the market will rule" and calling on businesses to "ignore radicals, and consider their bottom line" as an ideological position. You don't see pulling government out of the picture as a governmental response.
    No. Commercial radio sells advertising. Steinem, et al are not likely to be listening to Rush or his advertisers. Why they ought to have a say in his show content is not apparent to me. As far as I know every radio, has both an off/on switch, and a tuning knob. Nobody has to tune Rush in. Yet 20 million do.
  11. 12 Mar '12 01:28
    Originally posted by FMF
    You don't think individuals should be allowed to "influence" or put pressure on businesses or the government or the FCC?
    Certainly, they have every right to try. However, I think the FCC is an extra constitutional agency, already with powers not described in the founding documents. I am critical of almost everything Jane and Gloria say, written or broadcast, but I defend their right to speak.

    Rush has 20 million listeners, and they should count more than a couple of hateful witches who just don't like him anyway.
  12. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    12 Mar '12 01:28
    Originally posted by normbenign
    No. Commercial radio sells advertising. Steinem, et al are not likely to be listening to Rush or his advertisers. Why they ought to have a say in his show content is not apparent to me. As far as I know every radio, has both an off/on switch, and a tuning knob. Nobody has to tune Rush in.
    How do you propose to restrict critics of Rush from having their say?
  13. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    12 Mar '12 01:30
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Rush has 20 million listeners, and they should count more than a couple of hateful witches who just don't like him anyway.
    In what way are they "witches"?
  14. 12 Mar '12 01:32
    Originally posted by FMF
    How do you propose to restrict critics of Rush from having their say?
    I don't. They can write articles for CNN, get whatever audience for their ideas they can. That's what Rush did? Nobody just gave him an audience of 20 million. It was earned.
  15. 12 Mar '12 01:32
    Originally posted by FMF
    In what way are they "witches"?
    Just a personal opinion. I have a right to those don't I?