FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

[gwheyduke]

Your idea of the Fairness Doctrine is distorted. It doesn't always apply to politics. It tried to prevent the public airwaves from being used for propaganda, as they were in Germany in 1938 through 1945. Don't confuse the Fairness Doctrine with the "Equal time Rule", which by the way Reagan also did away with in 1981.

[Darkrunner1975]

A political philosophy should be able to stand on it's own merit, without need for forced coverage by radio stations.

If a political philosophy has merit, the law of supply and demand will ensure that it gets the coverage, because people will demand it.

[ockteby]

@Darkrunner1975 Excellent comment, and I agree 100%.

[HoGraz]

@Darkrunner1975 That's a bunch of bull. If they continue to make propogandazise us this much then we'll the People will do just what the corporate owners of the media want them to do. It's not about supply and demand it's about equal opportunity for the FORCE of truth to come through. If you just keep repeating stuff into people's heads and close markets like Clear Channel does it will become a corporate joke worse than it aleady has. It's who can scream the loudest. I mean when has a 3rd party

[HoGraz]

@Darkrunner1975 made it to the Oval Office? Ron Paul had to go Republican just cause the thing is set up to road block us. Hell when I was a DJ at WTTU the RIAA was trying to push the FCA to raise royalties on College Radio, Nonprofit Radio, and Internet Radio just to drive them out of the market. You think they might have something different to say than Fox Radio or ManCow? We're in a lot of trouble if we continue to believe in this idea that TV's can tell us what to think.

[HoGraz]

@Darkrunner1975 Everyone knows they just have talking point they are supposed to uphold. Even besides that you know there is a certain manner they have to uphold because of the heirarchy. Why else would they make an example out of Keith Olbermann? Dan Rather got kicked off for SAYING THE TRUTH.

[jtm89till]

I completely agree with you... the fairness doctrine is not really any sort of burden to fulfill (and was not). I think this video shows how exaggerated the claims are made by anti-fairness doctrine folks that say that it imposes on the ability to share viewpoints. no it doesn't! it just simply asks stations to do so that paints a fair picture for the public. besides, the fairness doctrine was never used to take people off the air, it was only used to encourage media companies to play fair.

[gonadcancervictim]

Maybe the left wing should start being pro worker getting to keep more of their money and their listening audience of people at work would go up.

[HoGraz]

@gonadcancervictim We did it's called John Kerry 2004, you obtuse simpleton. Not having a global recession and massive debt unforeseen in this WORLD would cover both things. Go ahead. You guys are so far gone it's not even funny.

[gonadcancervictim]

@HoGraz I'm just giving advice to disk jockeys, if you want to be successful at radio talk about things people at work like since they listen to the radio and have money, dont talk about how great it is that you dont need to get insurance until your kid gets sick, education needing more money to implement some solution the federal government came up with to make education even worse, or taxing your boss so he doesnt give anyone a raise next year cause his kid isnt quitting hockey for example

[HoGraz]

@gonadcancervictim Leftists don't think in those childish terms like you. Thanks. I have real political agenda, not Me, me, me, gimme, gimme, gimme bull.

[lonhosford]

YT for example could be forced to allow video responses to your pubic postings instead of you having control and even play them automatically. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Don't lose this freedom to government!

[Kiisharuby0083]

Freedom of Speech : "Right, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to express information, ideas, and opinions FREE of government restrictions based on content."

1791, the First Amendment was ratified, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

If we let this happen, the internet WILL be next. I can see a revolution in our near future. Either made by the government or we the people.

[stoningtonj]

Great going America...YOu did great in the last election...(sarcasm)

[buttmilk]

are you the boys who painted my cats ass!!!

[brokerwebsites]

I can't understand why the fuck liberals want to destroy this nation. They have two standards, one everyone must live up to and the one they want to live up to in secret. I think I'll quit my job today and start a conservative web site with some great pod casting. Liberals should be arrested as traitors.

[erato99]

"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."

-Thomas Jefferson

[rydaguy7]

If it passes....I will make my own show on the Internet..ALL CONSERVATIVE..they will have to kill or arrest me before I quit...FUCK THE LIBS AND DEMS

[brysonhendricks]

let the market place speak

[A86]

Let the people speak.

[hellotommy]

Total Fascism! I cannot even believe this is being considered in the USA! The Gov. telling you what you can say?!?CENSORSHIP! 38% of Americans support this censorship doctrine. You will not be able to express your opinion about any polictician on radio or the internet. The dems think that they can control the media doing this. Bye Bye free speech. Libs better have something nice to say about Bush, cause it's gonna work both ways stupid. What happened to the land of the free? Stunning...

[DarcPrynce]

Democrats are the new Nazis.

[notastoop]

We need a Hollywood Fairness Doctrine.

How about a University Fairness Doctrine?

Even the bums should have their own Fairness Doctrine. Half of their cardboard signs should read "CHANGE !!!!!!!"

[ebilgreby]

controlling what we say do and yes believe! this government of ours has become the enemy of the people of the untied states! ANYONE who is for the censorship doctrine should be jailed and made to break rocks for 5 straight years! this is one thing that is unacceptable! silencing free speech ..the fcc will remove the stations that do not spout what our opressors the government agree with!

[dneuens]

Are you telling me that the government would find a way to stretch its arm further into private enterprise? You're crazy, no way!

Love the video.

[ockteby]

I was dealing in a little bit of tongue-in-cheek when I did this video. Thanks for commeting.

Frank

[BenAliGtor]

The broadcast airways belong to everyone, not merely those corporate interests that hold licenses to act in the public trust. That right has been recognized since the inception of the FCC. To hold forth a scare tactic that viral videos may be subject to the same equal time provisions shows how ignorant this individual really is of broadcasting history, although he claims to have witnessed part of it. He'd do well to read Red Lion v. FCC, the Supreme Court case upholding the Doctrine.

[nellichka]

better than the fairness doctrine is a news rating system with on air content labeling - google "Fix News Now" to learn more

[tdm5874]

If the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated, it could come around and bite the libs in the ass..but then on the other hand, it might be cool to turn on Pacifica or NPR radio and hear Levin, Hannity, Rush or Savage for the other side.

[daveearly161]

I have a question: is it a requirement for a news reporter to have their signature at the bottom of the television screen during the airing of an opinion other than from the producers of let say, ABC World News Tonight, e.g? Your video is very informative and it show the ass-kissing that goes on in government, medicine, media, and entertainment.

[ockteby]

Most of cable news is not news but editorializing, and those that do it put a name on it. Then when I think about it What I just said is debatable. Thanks for replying to my video.

Frank

[jp3711nc1]

If you don't like it don't watch or listen to it its that simple I do it you should to don't force it to people on other view points.

[justgonnastay]

Should a hip hop station be forced to allow time for classical music, since classical music afficianados might find hip hop controversial?  They're public airwaves, after all.

[BeatBuddy]

The danger arises when a city, for example, has five music stations. Say that the one that plays the top 40 has the highest ratings. Therefore, the other four stations, in order to boost their profits, all switch to the top 40. There goes choice and in comes the poverty of culture. So what's your solution? Open up a new station and start over again?

BTW, this is the last reply. I'm being bombarded from other videos and I don't have enough time in the day to answer all of them.

[justgonnastay]

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

Until we can use the fairness doctrine to quell dissent.

[imigrant00]

The Government already quells descent, anyone who speaks up against it is ridiculed, in this pre-Fairness Doctrine, media.

The thing that will change with the Fairness Doctrine is now they have to provide an unbiased view, which should make dissent more accessible.

[imigrant00]

Wake up people!

CNN isn't Bubba across the street. Bubba may be able to say what he wants, but Bubba doesn't have the power to shape your world view, CNN does.

If you want CNN to be biased and unbalanced, that's your call, but you're willingly letting go not only of freedom of speech, but freedom all together.

Think about that...

[justgonnastay]

CNN won't be included in the fairness doctrine. Just talk radio.

[qazwas2001]

FOX news is the result of NOT having a fairness doctrine. That is much worse than any negative you just implied.

[justgonnastay]

FOX news? CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, et al. are far more biased, but you agree with their opinions. Did you read any of the coverage of the election provided by the Associated Press? Do a search for "associated press investigation obama". Not a mention of his questionable past, except what haters the Republicans are for trying to bring it up.

But none of this will be touched by the fairness doctrine. It will only affect the one medium where liberals have failed miserably - talk radio. Fair?

[qazwas2001]

Conservatives lament the "liberal media", unitl you suggest regulation that eliminates any political bias, and then they cry about inhibiting free speech.

FOX is nothing but propaganda, pure and simple. Every network reported Obama's past, just not every five minutes like Rupert Murdoch's conservative corporate interst machine.

The fact is, Obama's past relations (Wright, Ayers, Dorn etc.) make me more likely to vote for him, not less.

The fairness doctrine affects all licensed media.

[qazwas2001]

btw, liberal interests consider talk radio to be stone age, like the people that listen to it.

[ferret6677]

CNN was the only game in town for many years and they have a left view. Don't be mad just because we now get both sides.

[jp3711nc1]

In your life time did you see the fairness doctrine work at CNN abc msnbc or any liberal station?

[qazwas2001]

yes... journalism died with the fairness doctrine in 1985, when I was 7. After this network news became a business with no interest in the public good. At worst, it became a propaganda mouthpiece for corporate interests that own them. Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a right wing douche. MSNBC is owned by General Electric, who has a profit stake in any war the US becomes involved in.

[qazwas2001]

If there was a fairness doctrine there would never have been an invasion of Iraq.

Arguing against the fairness doctrine is arguing against your right as a citizen NOT to be lied to by your government and media if it turns a profit because they believe you are livestock.

[jp3711nc1]

No Journalism died during this campaign when companies like CNN and ABC MSNBC never looked at facts and tried. Fairness Doctrine did silence by forcing there station to put in 3 hours about a liberal point of view that was unpopular.

[qazwas2001]

So your brilliant position is that the FD forced networks to include an unpopular liberal point of view, but your problem with contemporary journalism is that only include a liberal point of view, that is obviously popular.

Your last comment was a complete waste of bandwith.

You obviously have no idea what the FD did back then, nor what it would do now.

Your only objective is to attack the FD because Hannity does.

Stop wasting my time.

[JCPUTT]

What the F is fair about a regulation that

infects only one medium. Something has

to counteract that commie swill from the

media giants. We're about to get national

leaders that are going to wipe their ass

with the U.S. Constitution. Right Barney?

[ockteby]

Right Andy!

[imigrant00]

Keyword, you're not a lawyer Barney! Get over it. If the media outlets don't perform a public service and are only concerned with the size of their wallets, then the term "Free Media" is reduced to "Biased Media" as those views which make the media outlets the most money, will be the ones shown.

Example, when Monsanto wants to stop a piece about the poisons they spew into our food supply, they have more difficulty doing it due to the Fairness Doctrine.

[jeabo0adhd]

free speech will never be killed.

we will disobey any law that disobey any law that disobeys the constitution.

[wewon08haha]

The "fairness" doctrine shall return; good-by Rush!

Much is going to change, and this is not the place to debate the obvious implications. Remember, the constitution is a living document, so it must change and adjust to the attitudes of the day.

It's going to be a golden age for America, and our nation will be united like never before. President Obama will connect the final dots that have been in place for 50 years.

Who really won the "cold" war?

Obama-Biden 08, 12 & BEYOND!

[justgonnastay]

Socialism is for the weak of mind and spirit. It destroys those willing to allow their government to enslave them. Those who truly cherish their freedom will always be free.

[bikersrule07]

fairness doctrin what is fair about it,what happend to America?

[Stepper11]

"Fairness"? How Orwellian can you get? Notice that no Dems are asking for examination of NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, or CNN, not to mention NY Times, LA Times, USA Today, etc. And you are right about viral videos, not to mention sites and bloggers who buck the system. Get ready for a full on assault on freedom of speech. Don't say it can't happen here. By doing so, you almost assure that it will happen here. You'll be free to say whatever you like, so long as they like what you have to say.

[swamimans]

they have the fairness doctrine in europe and in many parts asia. In europe its illegal to deny the holocaust because its so factual in history and can be easily used to stir ethnic strife. this would be clearly unconstitutional here but no one mentions it. Could it be the power of the jewish lobby groups that people are terrified of. Have people listened to scum like michael savage that talk of open extermination of muslim peoples.

[lilltube]

The fairness doctrine isn't about fairness it's about censorship. It is evil.

[swamimans]

no rush limbaugh is evil

[madehero2007]

swamimans:

That is a personal opinion. Many people actually agree with what Rush has to say. The horrible thing is that the fairness doctrine attacks conservative talk shows but not liberal talk shows. It's another attempt by the liberals to control all communications and forms of media.

[angelsgirl777]

No Rush isn't evil, he just has a different view that MSNBC, CNN, LA TIMES, HOLLYWOOD ( in general), ABC, and all the other stations that I missed. Maybe you should just consider that, and you know, last time I checked this is AMERICA, where we are FREE to SPEAK OUR VIEWS, even if they ARE different, and I pray it always stays that way.

[swamimans]

I used to be ditto head in the early 90s when he had that short lived tv show. Hes very dishonest and racist. he accomplishes nothing but plays to the crowd of the right wing racist white conservatives. When someone is that one sided it makes you wonder. The airwaves are public domain spheres and are rented to stations. If need be people like him must be stopped. Maybe a national council on fairness that does anti liberal and conservative ads to counter the disinformation. Like the Ad Council.

[justgonnastay]

Racist? Dishonest? Exactly the opposite, if you actually hear what's being said. I'm not a ditto-head, but I listen frequently. Rush's ego and Republican cheerleading is pretty annoying, but he has moments of brilliance. Why is it that when a white person offers an honest, educated opinion on race relations in America, they are denounced as racist, but if a black person calls all whites a bunch of crackers, that's to be understood?

[bikersrule07]

good brng the fairness doc,the way the genral media has mis lead the public,by giving 1 sided truth's. im gonna sue every single bloody media scorce,who wanted this,when they dont apply the fairness doc to them selfs.

im so angry that America would alow this to happen.

[EmilyGreene1984]

I agree, in this case. Its one thing to censor stuff that is morally unhealthy for society - but its another thing to silence common sense and morale in favor of the Socialist, politically correct views.

[BeatBuddy]

And what is morally unhealthy? You and I could possibly disagree on that. The same holds true for common sense. I have heard the most outrageous opinions uttered in its name.

[disciplinemisanthrop]

hahah cut yourself off in the middle of a sentence. i like you, old man.

you had explained a bit about what the doctrine was, but you didnt really say if you were in favor of it or not. or maybe you had in another video, so on your channel i go!

[ockteby]

I did this as an open ended video as most of my videos are. I just wanted to get people thinking about it more than revealing my opinions. Your comment has convinced me to tell you what I think.

I am a conservative Republican who believes the "Fairness Doctrine" should not be reinstated. I think the free market system should rule, and if someone doesn't like a program they can change channels.

Frank

[disciplinemisanthrop]

well as long as any view is shown to be sincere, i respect it. i also agree exactly with the latter part of your reply, but identify as a conservative, not a republican.

did you really buy two hats to make your point?

[ockteby]

My son gave me the hats as a gag gift a few years ago. Sorry it took me so long to reply.

Frank

[BeatBuddy]

You seem to forget that it was conservatives who pushed for a fairness doctrine when it seemed that liberals held sway. It wasn't regarded as a threat by most liberals, with whom fairness is a major tennant. But since Raegan dismantled the fairness doctrine, corporate heads vied to seize control of the day. Lots of liberal opinions are blocked from entering the arena of debate. For example, when was the last time you saw a labor leader address issues? The doctrine would ENRICH free speech.

[justgonnastay]

Labor leaders don't address issues publicly anymore. There is no need. They are the most powerful special interest in the land.

No, the doctrine would ONLY affect radio, where the conservatives have succeeded and the liberals have failed miserably. Why? The market has spoken and advertisers get little return for their dollars on liberal talk radio. No advertising = no income = no liberal talk radio. But that's not fair, is it? So we run to the liberal solution for everything-legislation.

[BeatBuddy]

Labor leaders don't appear on television because liberal and/or leftist views are slowly being squeezed out. When their views are raised, usually by conservatives, they're for the purpose of derision. What you call the free market is really the deliberate dumbing down of America. In the 70s, when the situation was reversed, it was conservatives who whined and clamored for a fairness doctrine. You have just shown me, in a specious way, that fairness is not a general quality of conservatives.

[justgonnastay]

Liberal and/or leftist views are being squeezed out? Didn't the country just elect the most liberal senator to the office of president? Hmmm.

Liberal views are raised every day in news outlets that are supposed to be objective. It's subtle and underhanded. (Look at almost anything put out by the Associated Press and tell me it's unbiased.) That was the reason they wanted the fairness doctrine. At least talk radio, which is NOT NEWS, but ENTERTAINMENT, is honest about their bias.

[BeatBuddy]

If you want to call Obama a liberal, go ahead, but to me he's a "moderate." Phil Donahue says it all. He was doing very well in the ratings, opposite O'Reilly. Then he was told by corporate heads that for every liberal he has on the show, there must be at least four conservatives. Phil left the show in disgust. There are behind the door machinations that are manipulating you and you're not even aware of it.

Talk radio IS NOT honest. The bias is deliberate.

[justgonnastay]

What I said was they are honest about their bias. The most important thing is that it is ENTERTAINMENT, NOT NEWS.

Obama is moderate? Perhaps in his campaign rhetoric. His senate voting record is consistently liberal, the most liberal of all the senators.

You're so deeply committed to your views that any opinion that is not as radical as yours must be conservative. I can only guess that you believe in the superiority of the collective over the individual because you don't believe in yourself.

[justgonnastay]

Conservatives are far more fair than liberals. To allow everyone the same opportunity, to succeed or fail on their own merits, to allow the pursuit of dreams and ambitions - That's the American Dream. That's what conservatives are supposed to be about. What's more fair than that?

Liberals want to give handouts, which demean and enslave the recipient, just to build a captive voter base. They don't care about the people or the country except as a means to gain power.

[BeatBuddy]

Bullshit. Liberals provide programs to get the less fortunate on their own two feet. Contrary to what conservatives want to believe, they work. Conservatives profess to be commited to civil rights, but when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, they are curiously selective. Just take a look at conservative civil rights organizations, The Liberty Council, American Center For Law and Justice, the Catholic League. For them rights are not for everybody.

[justgonnastay]

The appeal to sentiment in "the less fortunate" is tricky. We are encouraged to envision unfortunate souls who, through no fault of their own, hit a snag and are suffering. The problem is that there aren't as many people like that out there as we are led to believe. Government programs are inclusive and benefit those who have squandered opportunity and simply made poor decisions as well (like quitting school, having babies very early, doing drugs, etc.)

[justgonnastay]

Would it surprise you to find that although I am a conservative, I am also an atheist? The difference is that my personal journey has never shown me enough evidence for faith. I respect other people's right to believe in the deity of their choice, but I've never been shown 'the sign' which would convince me. I'm not anti-religion. I operate on trying to understand the physical world and discard that which is impossible and look skeptically upon the implausible.

[BeatBuddy]

To call it tricky is to imply that there are no less fortunate people. I believe in self-reliance, but there are those in sticky stituations who need guidance in achieving it. I'm sure you have all the logical fallacies listed by your side.

[justgonnastay]

You're so deeply committed to your views that any opinion that is not as radical as yours must be close-minded and conservative. Anything less than your high-minded, eclectic version of intellictualism is foolish and moronic. I can only guess that you believe in the superiority of the collective over the individual because you don't truly believe in yourself.

[BeatBuddy]

The superiority of the collective? Good one! Now check my profile and ask yourself if I sound like a collectivist!

It amsues me when those in your camp accuse liberals of lockstep thinking. FDR said something to that effect when he was asked why liberals are always in disarray while conservatives always seem to be well organized. "That's because there are many ways of moving forward; there is only one way to stand still."

[RightCitizen]

If there is anything good about the fairness doctrine, maybe it will force NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, to be not extremely Democrat bias, as they are.

I don't know. I have no confidence in it.

[kalacaw]

I've read the other comments. I have a difficult time envisioning the Fairness Doctrine being applied to the individual vlogger! I'm thinking of the email smear campaign stuff I keep receiving, though, and wondering if I can apply my own version of the Fairness Doctrine in return. No. That would be wrong. It would be fun, but it would be wrong.

[jkilts]

Hmmm... I have to say that I don't know if it would affect viral videos since you don't need a license to broadcast, however, you never know. People are getting too pushy with fairness and being politically correct.

[ockteby]

I believe you are correct, Tom, but in this politically correct climate anything could happen. I was surprised when the Russians invaded Georgia.

Frank

[kenrg]

I don't think it could/would apply to sites like YT. The doctrine stems from the radio waves as a limited resource, that is rationed out by the FCC. As we know, anybody can create a video web site very quickly and for next to no investment.

Just as the fairness doctrine never applied to magazines, it wouldn't apply to video sites or individual blogs now, regardless of what a handful of proponents for such a law might be arguing for.

[ockteby]

You are correct, Ken but in this political climate it makes you think.

Frank

[CoquiDave]

A few days ago I read a news report on what the proponents of the "Fairness Doctrine" want to include, and it went all the way down to bloggers on the net. They didn't mention video bloggers, (vloggers,) but I'm sure if they get their way, that would be covered under blogging, (being video blogs.)

IMO, such a law WOULD have a stifling effect, since few private bloggers would want to deal with having to ensure that equal time was represented on their site/channel. The end effect is censorship.

[ockteby]

I was rereading the comments to this video this morning, and as I read yours I was thinking. "I wonder if you have seen renetto's political videos"? Under the fairness doctrine Paul wouldn't be able to do his stick. Then we would all miss out on some fantastic theatre.

Frank

[sillysillytom]

Great Information and well done! as always I may add. I truly enjoy being subscribed to your channel.

Tom

[thatbamma]

frank I talked about this issue in my video called "the media ownership reform act"...it's a bunch of BS. radio, these days anyway, is a privately oned business that the gov't has no place in regulating. any move by the FCC to alter or add to or take away from any show is unconstitutional as it violates free speech laws

[ockteby]

I remember that video, and I went back to your page to rediscover it. This is an excellent video, and I just placed it into my favorites for anyone who reads this comment and wants to find it quick. Thank you for your service Sir.

Frank

[PragueVlogg]

Okay, okay, it's all about money. But is the fairness doctrine fair?  From my simple-minded view, it looks like a good idea to show different sides.

[ockteby]

If tea parties were in vogue as they currently are in a place we know and frequent, then conservative talk radio wouldn't be fairly represented at the table.

:) :) :)

Frank

[PragueVlogg]

I try to stay as far away from Rush Limbaugh as he tries to stay away from my tea parties.  Now that's a fair distance. :)

[usenetposts]

I think that as far as coverage of Russia's intervention on behalf of its citizens in Abkhazia and South Ossetia is concerned, the doctrine of fairness, as well as the Munro doctrine for that matter, simply flies out the window. You've raised an important question in an interesting way as ever.

[dasilva94]

Do you mean the Monroe doctrine, and manifest destiny?

Whereby the the USA reserves the right to interfere in Central America, as it's local sphere of influence.

An example of this is where Teddy Roosevelt, created Panama out of a northern section of Colombia, in order to have a small client state that bordered the 'Panama' canal.

[CountryComesToTown]

Frank I'm glad you brought this topic up because I'm not so sure what I think about it. Do you think there should be a fairness doctrine on the radio or not. My instinct is to say that I don't think we need it and that it's ridiculous. On the other hand, if a couple of politically motivated conglomerates gobble up all the stations in order to promote their agenda then maybe it's absolutely necessary. So, I'm not sure. Help me out and shed some of your thoughts. -Jim

[ockteby]

It's all about money. None of these large radio media holders gives a tinkers D@&n about ideology. If Don Imus brings home the bacon that's the bottom line. Rush Limbaugh just signed a $4,000000 contract. Thay must think thay will get a return on that investment.

I don't think this applies to newspapers that's why most of those are getting into financial problems.

[CountryComesToTown]

Thanks Frank. That makes lots of sense and yes it's about bringing home the bacon isn't it. LOL Enjoy your weekend. -Jim

[usenetposts]

Rush's contract will work for the employing party as long as they can syndicate his shows to a worldwide audience and to local radio stations and maximise the power of the internet. I see the astounding figure as an important clue about the future of internet radio.

[thatbamma]

i hate the slippery slope argument but in this case it certainly applies. how long will it be before vloggers have federal requirements on their videos they have to meet or face punishment for?