Talk:National Association of Broadcasters

message: I looked at the FutureOfTV website but didn't see anything to back up the claim that they're lobbying for anything as extreme as the private ownership of spectrum.  Do we actually have a source for that statement?  Otherwise it's probably a violation of NPOV. 70.225.175.43 (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Future of TV and Private Ownership of Spectrum? 

message: Most of this article seems POV. Should probably be cleaned up. Ry Jones 14:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're talking about the censorship part, I don't think so. I added that, and cited properly. LilDice 14:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess by "most" I should have been a lot more specific. The third paragraph uses a lot of superlatives which I think are POV. Ry Jones 19:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening comment 

message: This source notes that any sort of link between the C3SR and the NAB is tenuous and/or unlikely.  The claim that the NAB actually founded the C3SR appears to be unsupported by the evidence.  --DachannienTalkContrib 18:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  C3SR link? 

message: lol, more like it promotes its own interests. FCC can offer approval with conditions, and it is then up to Sirius/XM to decide if they will accept the terms. The world record delays, and the demand for absolutely free channel capacity, has all been engineered by the National Association of Broadcasters. They did not invest a penny in the several billion it took to build and launch satellites, now they want to grab channels by perverting the approval process. Crappy programming full of commercials will end up on these channels if they come to exist, guaranteed. Sirius should tell them to take a flying leap. Karnarazdan (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  promotes and protects the interests of free, local radio and television broadcasters throughout the United States? 

message: I just wikified and copyedited this article a good deal, and finally decided to tag it with  after realizing that almost every section contains at least one criticism or "correction" to a position or assertion of the NAB. I appreciate the need to cite valid criticisms, but the article seems to take an overall anti-NAB tone. (Note that I personally have no opinion about the organization, pro or con.) - dcljr (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The NAB has very long history which is well documented in the press, including many internal spats that threatened to disband it.  With the exception of one (somewhat biased) paragraph about the first decade of radio, you'd think the NAB came into existence in the 1990s.  Among other things, the NAB in the early years organized radio's revolt against ASCAP in 1940, culminating in the founding of Broadcast Music, Inc., as a competitive counterweight.  The NAB was, however, seen by many small and independent station owners as very much the creature of the big networks, and the largest station-owners of Mutual withdrew from it for a time.  (Nowadays, the NAB is seen by many small and independent station owners as very much the creature of the big group owners ("the C companies"), but I can't suggest sources for that.)  121a0012 (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recentism 

message: Is this the same as NABB (which redirects here)? I am looking at a journal article that says NABB was founded in 1949... Dartslilly (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  NABB