No. Six companies effectively control the media in the United States.

It used to be you would have six companies involved in the media in a single town. (If you include newspapers, radio, and TV.)

“Any person can easily set up an Internet radio station and reach people all over the country.”

But for how long? Without ney neutrality, that will end very fast.

Also, the Internet is crap for getting your message out. Trust me on this one, you can’t sell a movie on the Internet, I’ve seen the ugly results when people try.

But wouldn’t any of you agree that as time goes by more and more people are already turning to alternative forms of media to get their message out? I know that some people have advocated for the FCC to sell local radio licenses to people that would extend out for a few miles at most, but what’s the point? Any person can easily set up an Internet radio station and reach people all over the country.

Good god, a sensible suggestion. Kill it! Kill it before it spreads!

I agree. The real step forward would be to restore the media ownership rules of the 1980’s to restore local ownership of print and broadcast media. Local ownership has been replaced by Gannett and Clear Channel, which don’t serve their local community interest.

Buh…but…John! How could any of them ever memorize enough facile slogans to fill two whole hours?!? Your suggestion is obviously just impractical.

The only way to really get a good understanding of who these people are is to put them out of their comfort zones. If that suggestion is too wacky, then perhaps something else to get them out of character. Maybe some “non-torture” stress positions?

Who gets to decide who deserves “equal time”? If Rush Limbaugh uses his show to campaign against the immigration bill (and he has), does the Republican Party get air time to rebut him? How about the Democrats? What about Democrats who disagree with the bulk of the party? Minute Men? Libertarians? Immigrant Rights groups?

Supposing you can narrow down the argument to just two (or even three) points of view, who decides who is qualified to speak on behalf of the sides? Do I get to hear Joe Lieberman speak for the Dems in “rebuttal” to George Bush?

No, it won’t work, and the only people who are bringing it up are conservatives trying to spin up a “liberal censorship” scare story to ignite their base.

And there’s less than 500 days till election day. So get used to hearing both sides say the same thing about a hundred times.

Fun.

“Will they be asked about the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’”

What’s so bad about the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’ If you use public airwaves, you should serve some public good. If not, you should pay rent for them.

This regulation wouldn’t be an issue, if there were more competition in the marketplace. Then the free market could take over.

The only person who thinks the Fairness Doctrine is a current issue is Inhofe. Why on earth would that even come up as a question?

Ya know, maybe this isn’t such a dumb tactic – I’d like to see the Repube candidates asked about whether or not they supported the renewal of the Voting Rights Act last year, considering a number of Repube congresscritters were against it.