Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
That is the error. They are 1 of the actual sources of
the climate of censorship. Censorship is done by the government. When a company in the private sector makes decisions on what or what not to play, it's called first amendment rights. When the government controls a company and tells is what to do in order to get rewarded with more station licenses or get punished with not getting those licenses renewed, then it is censorship. Don't be fooled into thinking that a company that was making a lot of money with Stern would decide on their own to drop him and lose money. The fact that Clear Channel is crying and complaining to the government now that they are doubly screwed now that Infinity is putting Stern back in those markets and hurting the profits of Clear Channel stations all the more, should wake you up to what is really going on here. Censorship would be the government telling a cable news channel that they cannot use a particular slogan. Or telling Clear Channel they can not have any on air talent saying anything negative about Bush. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"David Eduardo" wrote in
: "Deceitful Deceivers" wrote in Except that they have the lowest P/E ratio of the group. A P/E ratio is an indicator of optimism about future prospects for a company. The higher the ratio, the more investors expect them to do well. A low PE ratio is the best. Not this again. Look, this is not an investment how-to course. If you are thinking about investing, everything else equal, a low PE ratio is best. Correct. It means that the stock is priced relatively low compared to its earnings. So why would Clear Channel have the lowest relative value? Your definition is wrong. P/E is a measure of past performance, not of attitude. Of both, because stocks are bought and sold both on past performance and perceptions their future success. If the stock prices contains attitude, then the P/E contains attitude. In comparison, republitards are all attitude, no performance. But you can always buy one. simply that dumping Howard had a negative impact on profitability. None whatsoever.The billings on 6 stations in morning drive are not even a grain of sand on a beach to CCU. That is probably true, unless morning drive shows drive ratings for the station at other times and the stations are in large markets. They sure seem to be crying a lot about Stern coming back in those markets for a company that should not care. If not for the billings, why the tears at his return? Add to that a boycott of Clear Channel stations, products, and advertisers, and you have a more wide spread impact than just the 6 markets. There is no such boycott. I think the word you used was "wrong": http://www.savehoward.org http://www.petitiononline.com/lovepigs/petition.html http://www.petitiononline.com/fs030904/ http://calacanis.weblogsinc.com/entry/1400731296339485/ -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- pMY2Oslh51qk4kDtP/bqkMAXhbTDwx6FJ7A8CaKK5q3brOKNziTeo8KKXWBpIC37 FmrnTlZ6dvhZP28BhpLNHye6lt1y8AUGJ/yNSteZphh0jYa+0z1uF169CjBmGmdO 0qdhPDLIaeGMZTcrnB7WJbOxoe1X4mOSxED1GhtiOCZs0868ZM d+47zx7SG6tiGS z/Gk/tQb9+begxXwQUcUNUp17jwBEwqGKEgBR+eqwgRFB8wjS12q0ie 2935ul20E 7KVChzE8yzA= =pcXm -----END PGP MESSAGE----- |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Jensen" wrote in message ... "Deceitful Deceivers" wrote in message ... Censorship is done by the government. When a company in the private sector makes decisions on what or what not to play, it's called first amendment rights. Censorship would be the government telling a cable news channel that they cannot use a particular slogan. Well, no....the issue here is whether any entity can use a deceptive slogan in order to appear to be what they are not. Just as a timeshare company can't use the slogan "where the real estate is free" (unless it IS, of course, but what would be the point of that?) the FTC is being called on to refute Fox's claim that they are "Fair and Balanced", when they are, by the consensus of professionals qualified to make such judgements, not. Regulation is not censorship, as there are, despite what your take on the Constitution might be, limits to "free speech". There are numerous Supreme court cases which bear this out...of course, this one, if it gets that far, will probably have to go that far to be determined one way or the other. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- There must always be the appearance of lawfulness....especially when the law's being broken. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!- |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
RW NewsBytes Weekly Digest | Broadcasting | |||
Channel Master choices | Antenna | |||
Poor quality low + High TV channels? How much dB in Preamp? | Antenna | |||
Can Digital AM ever sound this good? | Broadcasting | |||
"Deal with the Devil"? (KUSC, Clear Channel deal) | Broadcasting |