wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] Ken Shomo from Chesapeake, VA July 02, 2007 - 11:08AM

  Obviously if any imbalance is to be addressed it is the overwhelming Democratic bias on almost every major media outlet, from the NY Times to NPR and CNN. This is ridiculous.

  
  
• [2] John Lobell from Manhattan July 02, 2007 - 11:11AM

  Wow!!!!! Does this mean that PBS will have to broadcast an opposing view everytime they air NOW ??????

  Of couse not, this is not about "balance," it is a naked power grab by congress.

  
  
• [3] Richard July 02, 2007 - 11:20AM

  What should occur:

  NEWS programs should be forced to be NEWS programs and not opinion

  factories. If they wish to have opinions expressed, there should be

  CLEAR visual/audio statements that the following is an OPINION and NOT

  news, like when the news programs once upon a time had a segment

  clearly labeled opinion or editorial.

  OPINION programs (like Rush and others), as long as they are CLEARLY

  marketed and explained as OPINION and not NEWS programs, are fine.

  TheOpEdPage.com

  
  
• [4] Laura Miner from NYC July 02, 2007 - 11:21AM

  Why is there no discussion of how American broadcasting is financed? America never had a discussion about it.....somehow, by default, it came to be financed by commercial sponsors. Surely, this is as much of a censorship factor as government-financed media is, if not more, since there is no democratic input.

  What about diversity in ownership of broadcast licenses? There's an excellent coalition at http://www.stopbigmedia.com

  
  
• [5] Russell July 02, 2007 - 11:22AM

  The restriction on 1st Amendment argument is weak because the doctrine is NOT about censorship, it's simply about allocating equal time to different viewpoints. It's more of a time management issue.

  
  
• [6] R B from Brooklyn July 02, 2007 - 11:25AM

  The point is not to have the government *decide* the alternatives but to require that they have time to do so. The stations would still have the 1st amendment right to decide who gets to represent what kinds of opinions would be aired. If these alternatives were considered inadequate by any side, they'd have the opportunity to challenge the lack of range.

  It would give a forum for people to challenge--that's the point.

  
  
• [7] Laura Miner from NYC July 02, 2007 - 11:27AM

  Steve Rendell mentions the rise of conservative talk radio that railed against Civil Rights, women's rights, etc.

  I don't have the citation, but it seems that audiences of such shows are more susceptible to advertising messages-- When Rush Limbaugh says, "buy this product" his listeners are more easily influenced to comply.

  How can any Fairness Doctrine compete big corporate money?

  
  
• [8] hjs from NYC July 02, 2007 - 11:28AM

  the corporations, who run TV and radio stations, will never broadcast opinion contrary to their financial goals. the only hope for the people is to turn to the internet while it's still free from corporate control. it is the last real place for free speech.

  
  
• [9] hjs from NYC July 02, 2007 - 11:30AM

  why does the right wing guy have to yell to be heard?

  
  
• [10] Russell July 02, 2007 - 11:30AM

  Hentoff does not understand the concept of equal debate! Why is he so angry about the possibility of those he named related to the Sudanese govt being interviewed? Brian just mentioned that he'd take them!

  
  
• [11] R B from Brooklyn July 02, 2007 - 11:35AM

  Brian started to say "we'd take" an hourlong interview with the Sudanese government, which Hentoff didn't hear to respond to.

  Hentoff is being pretty arrogant in saying that he's the only one who can possibly come up with radio programs that people will listen to. Having the money to get wide distribution and jam advertising of salacious, vitriolic, and sound-bite teasers down everyone's throat gives a powerful, unbalancing result.

  
  
• [12] brett July 02, 2007 - 11:40AM

  Does the BLS need to recreate commercial talk radio in order to cover it? this is making my head hurt.

  
  
• [13] Jonas Gerson from Kingston, Ontario, Canada July 02, 2007 - 11:42AM

  If Nat is worried about the Gov't contorlling the news, then I pose this question: He is debating this fact on NPR (National PUBLIC Radio); would he be entertained on the privatre FOX news channel? I think those only need to look as far as PBS Frontline to see the difference. Thank you.

  
  
• [14] John Lobell from Manhattan July 02, 2007 - 11:56AM

  hjs writes:

  "why does the right wing guy have to yell to be heard?"

  NAT HENTOFF????? RIGHT WING???? I can tell I am getting old!!!!!

  
  
• [15] clay July 02, 2007 - 12:01PM

  Was Hentoff always that shrill and crotchety? I used to read his Voice column all the time.

  What's terrible is that I agree with Hentoff, to a degree. Given the nonsense that this administration put NPR and PBS through in the last few ears, I don't think I would want that imposed on everyone else.

  Further, I question the whole concept of 'balanced' as requisite. Why should any argument be considered equal to any other regardless of validity?

  If I think pigs can fly and everyone else knows better, why should my argument hold as much weight?

  
  
• [16] Bob Rowen from Brooklyn July 02, 2007 - 04:32PM

  Seems to me the real problem with the lack of fairness and the rise of what can only be termed Hate Radio, was embodied in Nat Hentoff's strident, righteous, "let's-punch-somebody" tone.

  Like Mark Levine, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly and the others, the appeal to emotion over reason, and outrage over discourse, all while wrapped in a super-patriotic costume, is poisonous to American standards.

  
  
• [17] jawbone from Parsippany, NJ July 02, 2007 - 04:59PM

  IIRC, the Fairness Doctrine applied to opinion pieces, not the news. I don't recall any attempt to demand counterprogramming time to the Watergate hearings to allow Nixon and the plumbers, or whoever, to rebut the findings of testimony before the televised committee hearings.

  Actually, a new Fairness Doctrine might helf the MCM* to actually reports knowable, verifiable facts--like, you know, the news? And not get all sorts of opinion intertwined with reporting the news.

  Cable is exempt, but were it under a Fairness Doctrine then FOX cable news night be very interesting!!! Can you imagine O'Reilly followed by, say, an hour of Noam Chomsky? (I am not equating them at equal distances from some imagined center.)

  
  
• [18] hjs from nyc July 02, 2007 - 07:13PM

  dear John Lobell

  i had no idea who he is but he sound right wing to me! AND crazy too boot

  i looked him up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Hentoff and in fact he's right wing enough for me to call him right wing.

  thanks for the heads up JL

  i enjoy hearing from all sides

  
  
• [19] deniz from Switzerland July 04, 2007 - 07:16PM

  I wouldn't call Nat Hentoff right-wing, he's a libertarian. Read his column in the Village Voice, he doesn't have many kind words for the Bush administration and their policy towards detainees. He has followed those types of stories when no one else was paying much attention.

  I like his crankiness. He's got passion. :) I enjoyed the segment.

  
  
• [20] Harry Yabbats from NYC October 22, 2007 - 01:21PM

  I can't wait to hear Rush on WNYC. If you think the government should have a say in opinion programming, then you should talk to Europeans about their terrible radio programming.Furthermore, who is the antidote to Limbaugh and "insert your favorite lefty" when you disagree with both of them. Poor Thomas Paine, etal, no room for them when your choice is a corporate message or government approved messages. The real problem is all of these network shows which incessantly focus on Washington DC to the detriment of local issues. I think the time alloted for network shows carried by a station should be limited to a certain number of hours per day, that would force stations to address local and regional issues more directly whether as news shows or opinion shows. Keep up the good entertaining work Brian Lehrer and Bob Grant.