| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
This is some kind of a first for America:
Liberal Radio Group Says It Is Close to Acquiring 5 Stations
A Democratic investment group planning to start a liberal radio network to counterbalance conservative radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh says it is close to buying radio stations in five major cities.
Party-controlled media. Let’s think about that for a minute. The only difference between this and the state-controlled media of a dictatorship, is that the party controlling this media isn’t always in power.
If you work for one of these radio stations, you must have the opinions they order you to have. That’s the whole stated purpose of the network: to support the political views of the party. Free press? Ha! This press is specifically designed not to be free. This is the closest thing to state-controlled media in the history of this country.
There can be no free speech on these stations. This is media where it is explicit that if you express an opinion different from that of the party, you’ll get fired.
Radio isn’t a near-monopoly like broadcast TV and local newspapers. Every city has many radio stations. If the people wanted to hear more liberal pundits on the radio, they’d already be there. And the last thing people are going to want to listen to are hosts slavishly parroting opinions they’ve been told to have. My guess is these party-controlled radio stations are doomed.
#2Hi Giacomo,
Thanks for your excellent comment. It's great to hear the opinions of someone in Bolzano, Italy. To be able to exchange opinions with you is remarkable. The Internet is changing the world.
This discussion is of such interest that I'm going to make a regular post out your observations and my responses. It will appear later today.
-Vik
#3i agree
I don`t speak English very well, so i ask you to apolgize my bad grammar and spelling.
I don`t agree with your position towards the Iraq war. It was a good thing for the iraqi people, but in context of the war on terror and the crisis in the middle east, this war was one of the most stupid things politicans did in the last few years. The argument to find wepons of massdestruction was proved wrong, there werent anyone. And if there would have been one, we could have found them with the UN inspectors.
To implent an functioning western style democracy is also a nonsense. Because all these people in the islamic world, who search for freedom, are inspired by polical religion of Islam. For the people in the middle east a democracy, a state must be based on the Islam. (of course this is not true for non-arab cultural diffrent nations= albanians, bosnians, kurds , turkish maybe also caucaisan muslims). But fighting the terror with invading Iraq is the biggest nonsens. Sadam was a saecular anti-islamistic dictator(he killed all lot of "muslim brothers") he was ideological an enemy of Al Qaida. He kept Iraq Al Qaida free(they were a danger for his reign), now terrorists are free to come to the Iraq. If you search a country, which helped al quaida, you will fing Saudia Arabia. All this terrorists are wahabbi muslims. Wahabbism is the teaching of the Saudi Arabin State (which got the most islamistic and radical rules after Taliban Afghanistan), it spread it all over the islamic world in building coran schools an mosques in which the terrorist teaching are broad to the muslims. Who do you think financed the coran schools the Taliban (=coran students) came from? Not the Iraq