“Your solution to something you don’t like is to get rid of freedom of speech”

Your solution to debate is to claim someone wrote something they didn’t. Where do I say to get rid of freedom of speech?

Decentralization is not getting rid of something. In fact there was a time when folks who claimed to be conservatives supported the concept (local control or states rights).

I would also disagree that the airwaves are not part of the commons – they are, despite other alternatives.

I would also suggest that local papers and radio stations might find they can survive better through competition and innovation. They would sell more ads if they lowered their rates. They would gain more listeners if they served particular niche markets. When most local stations were locally owned and owner operated, they had programming that was geared for the area they served. Conglomerate chains and programming directors 1,000 miles away were unheard of.

Essentially what you have is a situation where radio stations should be operated as small local businesses, but are instead operated as large one-size-fits-all nationwide chains. If they find it difficult to make money with this model, it is their own fault and reveals a lack of imagination.

Along with the baseless claims and false information being spread about the so call “fairness doctrine” the same problem plagues the media ownership debate. The fact is that unless the FCC updates the media ownership rules to reflect the realities of today’s media landscape, local broadcasters cannot survive and continue providing free programming. Withe explosion of online media, blogs, as well as satellite and cable TV and radio, the local broadcasters are having a hard time competing for ad revenues. Just look what craigslist has done to the classified business of local newspapers. These local broadcasters and newspapers need the ability to combine in order to survive.

2. Your solution to something you don’t like is to get rid of freedom of speech.

3. What’s wrong with the solution you choose right now, which is alternatives that don’t offend you?

If the word “liberal” was replaced with “black”, and the word “Muslim” was replaced with “Jew”, the government would shut down these bigots in a New York minute for hate speech.

These crypto-fascist collectivists profit greatly from the use of the commons or the airwaves. It is government that has created this environment and it certainly won’t be government that solves it.

Perhaps the FCC should be abolished and the radio frequency spectrum sold by lottery. This would be a step in the right direction. Laws and regulations should be repealed that promote business cartels in media and all other markets. This decentralization would allow local markets to have greater control over the airwaves.

Also, big government apologist Alex Harrison doesn’t put forward the problem nicely, he spews standard right wing rhetoric. Regardless of how you view Hillary Clinton, the hypocritical Harrison probably has no problem when his “conservative” masters change their views based on opinion polls. I’m sure he believes “Great American” Sean Hannity does a great service promoting the ever changing RNC propaganda.

The death of free speech indeed – free speech has been dead for a long time in the public commons. Thanks to government planners, we have tax laws, FCC regulations, and the cartilization of media that insures speech is quite expensive.

Thank God for CD players and i-pods.

You would suggest that radio hosts be forced to allow callers to hijack their radio shows for any reason? You would suggest that hosts be accountable to bureaucrats in order to handle their show programming and what guests they book?

Do you really think these policies will result in good political debate on the radio, or will it result in the media returning to sports and other non-political programming altogether?