that's exactly what I'm saying... Perhaps you need to:
a. read the bill of rights, and realize that the press has a constitutional
responsibility to serve the public.
b. once again the constitution provides the right and the responsibility of
the people to peacefully (ands arguable not so peacefully) assemble to get
what they need and want.
c. Finally and most importantly, the FCC's original charter (or whatever it
was called) stated that for a broadcast outlet to exist and be licensed,
that it MUST serve in good interest of the people.
> So you're telling me that a group of people own a channel and can't do
> precisely what they want with it? Why can't they do whatever the market
> will bear with it? If they market will support it being the "Beannie Baby
> Channel" and they want to do that, why can't they? They have no
obligation
> beyond making the shareholders money.
> Does anyone know what the ratings are on non-NASCAR racing?
> Thanks.
> > Has everyone forgotten that the press and the media has an obligation to
> > serve the people?
> > Since when did we all think it's OK for the owners of the media to do
what
> > they want with it... and if people try to say something about it, we're
> > being anti-capitalist ore something.
> > Secondly, since when is some guys right to do what hell he wants with
the
> > media without getting hassled more important than the right of the
people
> to
> > assemble? It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the people to protest and boycott
if
> > they aren't getting what they want from the media.
> > Frankly Eddie, if your favorite form of racing were F1 and sports cars,
> you
> > wouldn't feel quite the same, so what the hell are you talking about?
> > FWIW, NASCAR has been my favorite form of racing for at least a decade,
> but
> > I get enough of that on all the other channels, is there really 24 hours
> > worth of info about nascar, without a bunch of repeats?
> > > You correct that I knew nothing about you.
> > > I agree with you in basic principle, you have a right to cancel your
> > > subscription to Speedvision. It's the threat of boycott against FOX,
> > NASCAR
> > > and god only knows who else that I'm against.
> > > FWIW: I really only have time to watch NASCAR these days, so I'm not
> > > certain how I feel about this. However, I will add that if the market
> > > desires such a channel it's certain to be back.
> > > Thanks.
> > > > > Looks like you might be buying your own cable station soon to give
> you
> > > the
> > > > > viewing you desire. ;-)
> > > > > I love it when a guy/company wants to take something they own and
> > change
> > > it
> > > > > to their liking people fly off the handle like they don't have the
> > right
> > > to
> > > > > do so. I just can't understand that thinking. You probably don't
> > even
> > > > > watch NASCAR so you aren't one of the 41M households to which they
> are
> > > > > catering.
> > > > Eddie, obviously speaking from the point of knowing nothing about
me,
> > > > I've been a NASCAR fan since 1970. I have watched almost every
NASCAR
> > > race
> > > > for the past 8 years. I like watching NASCAR Racing. So, point one
> on
> > > your end...gone.
> > > > Speedvision is NOT NASCAR-vision. Now I'll make an assumption about
> > > you...do YOU
> > > > watch any other form of racing? If not, all I'll say is...figures.
> > > > If you do, you would realize that whether or not they own the
station
> > has
> > > nothing to do with
> > > > what viewers want to see. I bought and paid good money for the
extra
> > > package that has
> > > > Speedvision, I'll be darned if I sit quietly by and let them change
it
> > > into NASCAR-vision.
> > > > --
> > > > ?? Jan Kohl ??
> > > > SECURITY CONSULTANT
> > > > The Pits - http://www.theuspits.com
> > > > Castle Graphics - http://www.castlegraphics.com
