Morgan: "I've been the target ... of an effort by liberal bloggers to get me fired"
In her January 12 WorldNetDaily column, conservative radio host Melanie Morgan described herself as "the target ... of an effort by liberal bloggers to get me fired for engaging in what these far-left activists are calling 'hate speech.' " Morgan stated that this "move by liberal activists to silence conservative radio hosts comes after the failure of the left-wing Air America radio network." The column follows a brewing controversy involving a cease-and-desist letter apparently sent by ABC Inc. in response to Spocko, a San Francisco-based blogger who last year attempted to spotlight the extremist rhetoric common to Morgan and other hosts on KSFO, the ABC-owned Bay Area radio station that broadcasts her show. Spocko posted audio clips of some of their most inflammatory remarks on his weblog and highlighted these examples in letters to various KSFO advertisers. Media Matters for America has also posted several examples of Morgan's rhetoric, and included Morgan in a petition against "hate merchants" on the airwaves that has garnered more than 33,000 signatures to date.
In her January 12 column, Morgan suggested that these audio clips had been doctored to make her look bad. Referring to an example in which she said of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "We've got a bull's-eye painted on her big, wide laughing eyes," Morgan claimed that an "anonymous blogger" had "edited" the clip "to make it look like I was calling for the murder of Nancy Pelosi." Media Matters documented Morgan's November 14, 2006, attack on Pelosi, providing both a full audio clip and transcript of the remarks.
Morgan did not address the numerous other examples highlighted by Spocko, including her statement that she "would have no problem" with New York Times executive editor Bill Keller "being sent to the gas chamber" if he "were tried and convicted of treason" and her suggestion that someone "dig ... up" late environmentalist Rachel Carson "and kill her all over again."
Also absent from Morgan's column was any mention of the basis for the current controversy surrounding KSFO and Spocko. Specifically, Morgan ignored the allegations that -- after several major sponsors reportedly pulled their advertisements from the station -- ABC issued a cease-and-desist letter to Spocko that ultimately led his Internet service provider to shut down his blog, as Media Matters documented.
During a special "no-holds-barred" January 12 program at noon PST, Morgan and her fellow KSFO hosts -- Lee Rodgers, Brian Sussman, and Officer Vic -- will supposedly "hit back against those people who are trying to silence us and take away our free speech rights, get us fired, thrown off the air, because they don't like what we have to say." During the January 11 broadcast of the KSFO Morning Show, Morgan announced the special program and invited "the public as well as the media as well as bloggers to participate in this," which she said would last "three hours or however long it takes to answer all the questions." As the blog Halfway There noted, however, Morgan sent an email to her supporters on January 11 imploring them to call in during the program and voice their support:
To respond to growing pressure from these ruthless liberal bloggers and political activists to silence us, we are going to do something unprecedented. We are opening up our airwaves, cancelling our normal programming and having an open forum where the public, news media, bloggers, critics and friends alike can call in and address any issues surrounding this matter.
I am asking you to call in and voice your support!
[...]
The media will be covering this event live, and I want to make sure you are invited to weigh in on this matter.
From Morgan's January 12 column:
I've been the target, as have a number of other conservative talk-radio hosts, of an effort by liberal bloggers to get me fired for engaging in what these far-left activists are calling "hate speech."
The move by liberal activists to silence conservative radio hosts comes after the failure of the left-wing Air America radio network. Given that liberalism couldn't compete and win in the marketplace of ideas, liberals now want to silence conservative radio hosts.
One anonymous online blogger compiled audio clips edited to make it look like I was calling for the murder of Nancy Pelosi, when I did no such thing. (You can listen for yourself and understand how they are now trying to impugn my credibility by misrepresenting my words).
[...]
Despite the efforts by liberal censors to silence me, I will never back away from what I believe in: a strong national defense, respect for the men and women of the United States military, a secure border and enforcement of our nation's immigration laws, lower taxes, less government regulation in our lives and in business, respect for the values of decency, honesty and morality.
Any efforts to silence me are just further proof of how desperate and pathetic liberals have become.
Following are several examples of Morgan's eliminationist rhetoric originally highlighted by Spocko, including her remark about Pelosi (see full transcripts below):
- Morgan on Keller and other Times editors: "Hang 'em." (6/27/06)
- More Morgan on Keller: "I would have no problem with him being sent to the gas chamber" if he was convicted of treason. (San Francisco Chronicle, 6/29/06)
- Morgan on the proper punishment for those who "publish[] classified information": "Fry 'em." (7/10/06)
- Morgan on her co-host's suggestion that an arsonist responsible for a forest fire be burned to death: "Hog tie 'em first. That would be good." (10/27/06)
- Morgan on Pelosi: "We've got a bull's-eye painted on her big, wide laughing eyes." (11/14/06)
- Morgan on environmentalist Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring: "[D]ig [her] up and kill her all over again." (12/1/06)
Beyond Morgan, Spocko documented numerous additional comments by her fellow KSFO hosts. In these clips, the hosts suggest torturing and killing a Nebraskan criminal, ask a caller to prove that he is not Muslim by calling Allah a "whore," and advocated the murder of millions of Muslims in Indonesia.
From the June 26, 2006, broadcast of KSFO's The Lee Rodgers & Melanie Morgan Program:
RODGERS: President Bush is very annoyed at the news media and the disclosure of the Treasury Department's ability to secretly monitor financial transactions of suspected terrorists.
[begin audio clip]
BUSH: For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it, does great harm to the United States of America.
STEVE TAYLOR (ABC News): President Bush, defending the financial surveillance as legal and useful.
BUSH: What we were doing was the right thing. Congress was aware of it, and we were within the law to do so.
TAYLOR: The idea was to follow the money, Mr. Bush said. And now that's harder.
BUSH: The disclosure of this program is disgraceful.
TAYLOR: Steve Taylor, ABC News, Washington.
[end audio clip]
MORGAN: Get 'em.
RODGERS: Yeah, yeah. As [conservative lawyer and writer] Peter Mulhern said earlier, "Prosecute."
MORGAN: Yes. Hang 'em.
RODGERS: Don't make grumpy noises. Do it.
MORGAN: Yeah.
From the July 10, 2006, broadcast of KSFO's Sussman, Morgan & Vic:
MORGAN: You know I really do believe that anybody who publishes classified information that results in -- you know, treason, a charge of treason --
OFFICER VIC: Yes.
MORGAN: -- should be just fried. Fry 'em. I don't care. I don't care.
SUSSMAN: Trial. Conviction. Fried.
MORGAN: Trial. Conviction. Death penalty.
OFFICER VIC: And originally, I think you said they should be put in the gas chamber -- rattled around in the gas chamber.
MORGAN: Yeah, my original -- the original question posed to me.
SUSSMAN: Well, we like -- we like the old sparky better.
OFFICER VIC: Well, yeah.
SUSSMAN: I'm kinda wondering, what do you think that would -- what do you think that would sound like, OV? I don't know.
OFFICER VIC: Well, this is a -- you know -- great old sparky with the faulty wiring, and they'd set people down and, you know, take care of them on old sparky and their hair would go up and everything.
MORGAN: Yeah. Smoke.
[laughter]
OFFICER VIC: Smoke -- [imitates buzzing sound].
[laughter]
OFFICER VIC: And jets -- electrical jets coming out of their eyeballs. And so we'd just -- we'd take Bill Keller and we'd put him in the electric chair -- after the trial -- and fire it up. [imitates person being electrocuted.] And then [imitates electric chair rattling and someone being electrocuted] he'd start shouting stuff out like, "Bush lied, I fried!" [imitates someone speaking while being electrocuted]
From the October 27, 2006, broadcast of KSFO's The Lee Rodgers & Melanie Morgan Program:
MORGAN: All right, here's what's going on. You've all been hearing about it. It's the big Southern California fire -- a wildfire that has killed four firefighters and burned 24,000 acres. It has been deliberately set and 700 people have been evacuated. So, I'm just going to give you a headline on that, because so many others are talking about it this morning.
RODGERS: What is the appropriate retribution? I say they catch the person, tie 'em to a post and burn 'em. Set 'em on fire.
OFFICER VIC: Yeah.
RODGERS: Let 'em know what it feels like.
MORGAN: Hog tie 'em first. That would be good.
RODGERS: Yeah. Yeah.
MORGAN: Campaign finance reports --
RODGERS: I'm a compassionate conservative.
MORGAN: So am I. So am I. I agree with you.
From the November 14 broadcast of KSFO's The Lee Rodgers & Melanie Morgan Program:
RODGERS: Ms. Melanie, I hear, I hear tell, you were naughty on the Hannity & Colmes TV show last night. What is the word?
MORGAN: Yes, I [inaudible]
RODGERS: What did you do, girl? What did you do?
MORGAN: I was naughty. Well, I just decided I've had it up to my eyeballs with the crap that we are hearing from all the liberal Democrats, "We won, you know. Oh, you people lost, and nyah nyah." So, I decided, 700 days, that's my theme. I got -- we got 700 days to start pushing conservative values and to start hitting back at the Democrats and slap the crap out of 'em. They need it. So --
RODGERS: And where are we starting with this?
MORGAN: We decided to focus on Madame Speaker, Nancy McNasty, our dear, dear friend from San Francisco, who is the presumptive --
RODGERS: Speaker of the House, yeah.
MORGAN: -- speaker of the house. And so I -- I have been doing a little bit of research. In fact, I held up on TV, which you won't be able to see when you hear this clip, but I had a three-ring binder of my first pass at my research into the lovely and talented wide-eyed Nancy with the laughing eyes.
RODGERS: Yes. Yes.
MORGAN: So --
RODGERS: Laughing face.
MORGAN: Well, yes.
RODGERS: Nancy with the laughing face.
MORGAN: If you could call it that, I mean.
RODGERS: With my eyes wide open.
MORGAN: Yeah.
[...]
RODGERS: Oh, let's hear it for Nancy.
[song: "With My Eyes Wide Open, I'm Dreaming"]
RODGERS: Yeah, she's dreaming, all right. She's dreaming of personally strangling Melanie Morgan.
MORGAN: Oh. We've got a bull's-eye painted on her big, wide laughing eyes.
RODGERS: Easy, easy, easy.
MORGAN: Eyes, I said eyes.
RODGERS: Yeah, well, that's the only thing about her that's big and wide.
From the December 1 broadcast of KSFO's The Lee Rodgers & Melanie Morgan Program:
RODGERS: Well, I think the moral of this story is beware of do-gooders -- they'll kill ya.
MORGAN: Yeah, or dig up Rachel Green [sic] and kill her all over again. I mean, that would be an appropriate --
RODGERS: Rachel Carson.
MORGAN: I'm sorry, Rachel Carson of Silent Green [sic].
condensed version of Morgan's article:
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
if she 'didn't care' so much, then why is she going on like this? If she cared any less, she'd do a television show about it, I guess. If she does gets fired, she has only herself to blame.
Her husband is the program director of KSFO. But she got her job based on merit, skill, talent and ability. At least they stopped giving away the posters of her posing with guns.
Despite Ms. Morgan's bombthrowing and mean spirited rhetoric, she is correct - in her whining. I am sure the bloggers she is referring to, would love nothing more than to see her fired. That is no misinformation and on that point alone, she is most likely saying what she believes, which is probably the truth.
But hasn't she been claiming that she is being taken out of context? How is she being taken out of context?
How is what Spocko attacking her? Wouldn't it be fair to say that all Spocko is doing making their advertisers aware of what is being said on the show. If they haven't done anything wrong this whole thing should be a non issue to them.
What has MM called her on, that has not been accurate?
I am not arguing what she said about that is true or not, I am simply saying that she is probably correct in saying these people want her fired. And that is the headline of this topic thread.
"I am simply saying that she is probably correct in saying these people want her fired." --Tommy
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't have access to Spocko's website as I have said before, but I would imagine if Spocko's intent is to get Melanie Morgan or anyone else "fired" it would be explicitly stated on his page. If you are assigning that motive baselessly or speculatively, you are just mind-reading here again.
If Spocko is even a fraction of the fanatic the Morgan describes him to be, it shouldn't be difficult at all to see where he explicitly mentions his motives.
"I've been the target ... of an effort by liberal bloggers to get me fired"
What spocko is doing has nothing to do with getting her fired. Getting your advertising pulled is one thing, it's up to her Superior to fire her.
I'm sure there are bloggers who want her fired. I want her fired. However, it's her defence of herself that is the issue here. There is no tape splicing and dicing going on. Her words are crystal clear, and either she's an idiot for thinking liberals wouldn't take it the way she said it, or she really is a hate monger and just can't bring herself to see that the act of being rude to, and even refusing to so much as consider another's point of view is the base definition of hate monger.
I am not defending this woman and the stuff she spews out. I am simply stating that this particular topic thread, in my opinion, is misplaced. As I believe her assertion of the blogger's intention is most likely accurate.
That is all I am saying.
my only argument is that while her assertion may be true (I admit it freely, I want her fired!), the misinformation is her defence of herself. I'm all for reporting her statements as phony baloney ad nauseum in the same tradition of Bill Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman" statement.
And yes, I am getting a huge amount of satisfaction from the mental meltdown she's having. If we can't have the fairness doctrine to get both sides represented fairly, at least we are now getting a level playing field when it comes to tactics used vs. success of removal.
I agree with you. Her whining sounds like she has been backed into a corner, and maybe she will rethink her verbage next time and speak more responsibly, instead of just trying to be provocative and hurtful.
You're constantly claiming that this or that thread is a red-herring. You usually do so by defending the target of the MM topic, and then turn around and claim that you're not defending them, as if that makes you impartial.
In this case above, you clearly just claimed that she's probably right. What about the word "defend" don't you understand?
Is clear-thinking something that's only within the domain of the left? It sure seems so. The problem with the Right nowadays is that they won't even consistently establish their own terms. It's always shifting-sands time for them.
Tommeeeeee has no point except to distract and whore the thread. You're useless, just like the GOP.
Distract to you means someone disagrees with you. Nice try but stop complaining you whiner.
Get with it-- Tommy's a troll, who apparently always has the time to wait around and be the first to post!!
If he isn't getting paid to do this, he's a chump!!
We're the chumps if we waste too much time responding to him.
>>"Wouldn't it be fair to say that all Spocko is doing making their advertisers aware of what is being said on the show"
It would, and you are absolutely correct. Spocko specifically targeted advertisers----not Morgan's employer. It was not an attempt to get her fired, it was an attempt to make sponsors aware that they could be construed as endorsing Morgan's over-the-line rhetoric.
It would be nice to nail that down. Is Spocko in fact trying to get Melanie Morgan fired or is he just going after the advertisers?
If Melanie Morgan is eventually fired because she can't sell advertising space, that is after all a simple "business decision" by her producers and has nothing to do with Spocko at all. Not even one little eentsy-weentsy tiny bit.
Of course, I cannot read Spocko's web-page and that may be his intended goal. I don't know for sure. If it is, then I would agree with you and Morgan on that point. MelMorg shouldn't be fired, but her advertisers have a right to be informed of what kind of programming they are sponsoring and take appropriate steps.
It's back online: [link to www.spockosbrain.com]
I should have been more explicit. I have many networks that I can access where I am. The main network is heavily firewalled and spocko is blocked.
I will check out his site later when I join another network that is not so well blocked.
Thanks for the link.
You may be correct as well. And I would imagine only Spocko could answer that for sure.........it just seems logical that if you spend time going after a media person's advertisers your ultimate goal would be for them to drop their sponsorship, thereby causing Ms. Morgan's bosses to drop her, or in essence, fire her.
Her potty mouth may be to blame, I don't deny that......but her opponent's goal in getting her terminated is still there.
What does putting pressure on the advertisers have to do with Morgan being fired by her producers?
It looks like a simple "business decision" to me. If she can't sell ad space, then why keep her there? Looks like "business decisions" abound here.
I am being an a$$, I know, but I hope you see that I am poking some fun at your previous position regarding Spocko's shutdown by Morgan's parent company, which was a much more blatant and direct attack at spocko's ISP. I regard the "business decision" argument as a red herring as I hope you will see in my post.
Read my reply to ChristianDemocrat below........the way to ultimately silence a media person or remove something from the airwaves is to go after their bread and butter, the ones who pay her bills, the advertisers. And I have no problem with Spocko doing this if it is all within context and above board, which I have no evidence that it is not.
This goes right to her lifeblood and is the most effective way.........you don't deny that, do you?
"you don't deny that, do you?" --Tommy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I do not deny that. I think we agree on this issue pretty tightly as far as the MelMorg side of things. I think it would be wrong of Spocko to target her employer directly.
As long as Spocko is accurately describing Morgan and others at KSFO to advertisers, they can make up their own minds. Ultimately the market will decide her fate. Spocko is merely a catalyst to the market at best here.
Well put. We agree completely.
her fate.
Maybe a right-wing gazillion-aire owns the station, and doesn't give a crap about ratings. He just wants his right-wingers to have a vehicle to rant and spew.
If the station makes a little money, or breaks even, or even loses a little; maybe he could care less.
Maybe he makes his real money in the sex trade.
Morgan is claiming that "hate speach" is just a fabricated reason - backed by fabricated evidence - to get her fired. According to Morgan, the real reason is "given that liberalism couldn't compete and win in the marketplace of ideas, liberals now want to silence conservative radio hosts."
No misinformation? Ummm...riiiiight.
The headline of these topic thread is in essence, the best shot - the meat of the article. It basically summarizes what the topic is covering and that was what I was referring to. Morgan's contention is that the blogger's goal is to get her fired. Do you think that's the case, or do you honestly think Spocko would settle for a hand slap and be on her way back to the microphone?
Besides, if Spocko's goal is for her to be terminated, that is not something you advocate directly - "She NEEDS TO BE FIRED" would be highly inappropriate and smack of censorship charges against him. The best tactic is to go after the advertisers and let the system work within to get her off the air.
"The best tactic is to go after the advertisers and let the system work within to get her off the air."
Which is exactly what Spocko has been doing. What exactly is your issue with this item, or are you just having a knee-jerk contrarian reaction? You seem to be desperately trying to distract with another of your "no misinformation here" threads, but in order to do that you've focused only on the headline of the article.
Once again your knee jerk reaction to anything I write is to be argumentative. I have stated my position.
You're pointlessly arguing the headline with nearly everyone in this thread and you're going to try to pin me as argumentative?
I have had good discussions on this topic from reasonable posters who evaluate substance and opinions based on their content - I see no reason in continuing with far less than reasonable posters whose only point is to argue incessantly for their pleasure. Which is rather sad.
Have a nice day.
You never have a reasonable viewpoint or discussion. You are the epitome of an unhinged troll. You attempt to distract and whore attention. You are quite a small person. It's obvious.
You sir have no class. I read these boards everyday and all you do is argue with tommy. He is right, you argue with him only to argue with him. No matter what he says you find something so stupid to argue with. Why don't sit alone and find out why you are so obsessed with him and his words. I even remember at christmas he wished you happy holidays after another argument and you ignored it. I am glad to say I agree with him but you Sir, are one unhappy person, or you must be. Try and address his point about the headline here, but no, you can't. Only argue.
Thanks for the comments. I hope you had a nice Christmas.
His posting ratio compared to everyone else's is about 100 to 1, so it's a little difficult not to argue with him. If you'll notice, almost everyone else in this thread it arguing with him too (and making the same argument as I am, btw), so maybe you're the one who should sit back and contemplate why you're focusing on personalities instead of issues.
Look at the other guys earlier here, they basically agree with him. You seem to be pretty much alone here. You are wrong again Sir.
Nobody has agreed with Tommy's complaints about the headline of this article.
now you are arguing about arguing....
Time to let it go.
"now you are arguing about arguing....
Time to let it go." --AA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Just kidding. :)
Nice to see you back here, AA. It's been a while. But then I don't read all of the articles here. Maybe I just missed yours.
I even remember at christmas he wished you happy holidays after another argument and you ignored it.
Maybe Clams thought Tommy was waging war on Christmas.
And I thought it was just because he didn't like me.
Now I can sleep nights.
So, instead of throwing out the baby with the bath water, suggest a more representative title. Perhaps you could start with the second sentence of the article.
In my opinion, there is nothing inaccurate or misinforming in the title of this thread. And since that is the headline, that is the main point. As any headline is.
...and focus only on the headline? Even if you wish to argue just the headline, nowhere does MMFA say that Spocko's ultimate goal isn't to get Morgan fired. So what if it is? He's going about it in a legal and ethical way. So what if Morgan's statement is true? You're intentionally missing the point of this article for the sole purpose of reciting your mantra: "No misinformation here...no misinformation here...no misinformation here..."
I have stated my position, you disagree as you always do. There is nothing new here.
...and everyone from Christiandemocrat to Snoopy to Open_Mind to Monknj80 to myself have pointed out to you that arguing that the headline is accurate is missing the whole point of this article. And you keep repeating your same line about the headline being accurate, and yet still refuse to answer the question, "So what if it is?" Seriously, that's not a rhetorical question, even though you keep dodging it. So what if Morgan's claim that Spocko would like to see her fired is true? You picked this debate, not me and not anyone else in thread. You chose this point to argue, so at least have the honesty to address the question.
"So what if Morgan's claim that Spocko would like to see her fired is true"
***********************
Then why is the headline here?
And you keep repeating your same line about the headline being accurate, and yet still refuse to answer the question, "So what if it is?"
**************************
Do you also brush these headlines off as being accurate and say "So what if it is?"
1) On PBS, Brooks described Bush's whitewashing of Iraq war history as "accurate"
2) Hannity: Ted Kennedy won't be "happy until" we have "mass slaughter" in Iraq
And on and on. If you are consistent and intellectually honest, then these headlines should prompt the same "So, what?" from you.
You're looking at every headline as if it's supposed to serve the same purpose. If you'll notice there are plenty of headlines at MMFA that contain quotes, and not all of them are meant to be taken as a representation of a factual innaccuracy. A few examples:
"On Scarborough, body language analyst found that O'Reilly exhibited "typical primate behavior" This article has video."
"More Scarborough Country on "Bill O'Reilly's strange obsession with NBC" This article has video."
"Alter: O'Reilly is "so inflated, it's coming out of his ears." This article has video."
And then on the other hand, there are plenty of headlines where the quote is presented with an adjective that describes that quote as "misleading," "false," "innaccurate," or some other variation on that theme. Sometimes an outrageous quote is just given at face value without any commentary provided in the headline. In this case, MMFA chose to represent the article with a headline that played on Morgan's persecution complex, which she has displayed in the quotes presented in the last few articles on this topic.
I hope she gets fired.
Sometimes an outrageous quote is just given at face value without any commentary provided in the headline.
*********************
How can this be an "outrageous quote" ( "I've been the target ... of an effort by liberal bloggers to get me fired") when you said it was probably true?
You made that up. All I said was, So what if it were true. You don't know, I don't know, Melanie Morgan doesn't know, and it's a non-issue that you've created in order to scold Media Matters for not adhering to their mission statement closely enough for your tastes.
Let me spell it out for you as simply as I can. The quote shows Melanie Morgan playing the victim, which she has been doing throughout this saga. The idea that she is being unjustly attacked for her own hateful rhetoric is outrageous. And while it may or may not be true that Spocko himself would like to see her get fired (again, we don't know), that doesn't detract from the outrageousness of her comments.
frame the debate?
Are we just allowing Tommy to waste our time?
Tommy said in initial post: "Despite Ms. Morgan's bombthrowing and mean spirited rhetoric, she is correct - in her whining. I am sure the bloggers she is referring to, would love nothing more than to see her fired. That is no misinformation and on that point alone, she is most likely saying what she believes, which is probably the truth."
There is no reference of "headline" here. "No misinformation"?
I guess someone could point out that his later posts don't matter, i.e., that his headli...errr...initial post is the meat of his point. Therefore, he doesn't have a valid point.
But that seems a bit extreme to me.
I think that's a valid argument. Headline matters, content does not. Tommy's initial post matters, any clarification later does not.
"I made my point" :)
Can't you see how stupid your argument is? It is about the headline as tommy pointed out over and over and over. You make no sense.
you don't clarify your views clearly but usually your posts don't make sense. Perhaps that's why so many disagree with you. We can't figure out what you mean.
Next time I open up a package of ground meat, I'm just going to eat the label.
But if the label says the meat is expired, you probably throw it out.
TOMMY: The label says the ground meat expired January 18, 1907, so it must be bad.
OTHER: Except the package clearly contains meat that was ground more recently.
TOMMY: That's not important. The label says 1907.
OTHER: How about we re-label the package to reflect the contents?
TOMMY: I repeat, I'm not talking about the contents. I'm talking about the label.
OTHER: It sure seems rediculous to discard the contents because of the label.
TOMMY: Now you're being argumentative.
LOVE IT!
Good analogy, CD
CSL
Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. _____________________________
Reading the above statement from MMFA, please explain to me what the conservative misinformation is in this headline > "Morgan: "I've been the target ... of an effort by liberal bloggers to get me fired".
The fact is there is none. Even Clams, who has had personal contact with Spocko apparently in writings with him said the headline is most likely accurate. The reason it is here is obvious.......it's the third thread on this topic and this is just more of the same.
And finally we get you to admit that you're just beating the old "no misinformation here" horse. Only this time you had to focus on just the headline in order for it to stick. So, now you want to isolate headlines and rigorously apply MMFA's own mission statement in order to bind them to it as closely as you can. Seriously, don't you get sick of dragging out that mission statement in order to manufacture some non-argument about the content of this website? What a complete waste of time. I'm done.
Veterans here will recall the old "right-hand side column" baloney that the right-wingers used to fuss over.
Lacking a real, ideological argument, they resort to obsessing over crossed-Ts and dotted-Is.
As I've said before: Media Matters can start displaying cookie recipes here if they choose to.
If somebody wants to nitpick and parse a mission statement or the wording of a headline, they can always cancel their subscription and ask for a refund from the administrators of this free, no-advertising website.
Keep in mind that in initial post Tommy never mentioned the word "headline". When he said "That is no misinformation and on that point alone, she is most likely saying what she believes, which is probably the truth.", should we assume that he is talking about only headline? Or content?
The basic argument from Tommy is that Melanie Morgan is telling the truth this time (not just headline part but as a whole). But the content of this article exposed that she is not telling the truth. Tommy took the shelter of "headline" only after when he did not have any argument left. Arguing about "headline" is pointless, because Melanie Morgan did not put that headline. MMFA put this article only after Melanie Morgan talked. Hence, there is no way Mogan or Tommy can argue "ok, that headline part is truth and rest of things whatever I said is not truth".
The reason I didn't mention is because anybody with a brain knew exactly what I meant - I said that point alone. What part of that confused you?
Let's put your intial post a whole:
"Despite Ms. Morgan's bombthrowing and mean spirited rhetoric, she is correct - in her whining. I am sure the bloggers she is referring to, would love nothing more than to see her fired. That is no misinformation and on that point alone, she is most likely saying what she believes, which is probably the truth."
You started your sentence with "she is correct" without any reference to any specific point.
You raised the point of getting fired and "that point alone" only in next line.
The basic argument from Tommy is that Melanie Morgan is telling the truth this time (not just headline part but as a whole).
*********************
Are you serious? Please don't misrepresent what I said in order to make a point. I specifically referenced the headline and have in every post here. Read it again and offer up your own opinions instead of summarizing, incorrectly, mine.
In your initial post your first line was:
"Despite Ms. Morgan's bombthrowing and mean spirited rhetoric, she is correct - in her whining."
"Headline" was not mentioned. No specific point. It was a generic comment without any specific point.
Stop cherry picking "she is correct" without context. I was referencing her whining as indicated, which obviously referring to her statement of "whine" - which is the headline.
If you don't get it, too bad. If you don't believe me, too bad.
I should really point out that you're wrong in your assumption that I somehow have any firsthand insight into Spocko's intentions or goals. I haven't had a chance to contact him directly, so in no way should you infer that I have any inside knowledge about his goals in this campaign. I will say that I've looked closely at what he's done and it's my personal opinion that he has taken pains to wage his campaign ethically and legally.
Coming from you and the petty way you argue here I wouldn't put much faith in your advice if I were spocko. you have failed miserably here and it shows.
My advice to Spocko? As I clearly stated, I have no personal contact with Spocko, nor have I ever given him any "advice." And I'm not really understanding why you would try to attack me on those grounds.
There IS misinformation. MMorgan is shouting from the rooftops that her "free speech" rights are being violated.
Actually, her free speech rights are NOT being violated. Nobody has said that she can't say the things she says, some just don't want to hear it on the radio...and the advertisers should know what they are supporting. It's as easy as that. If the advertisers don't believe there is an issue, then they continue to advertise. If they don't like it, they can pull their ads. The misinformation in this article is that MMorgan believes she has the right to broadcast her nonsense on national radio.
Michael Wiener Savage was fired (from MSNBC?) for telling someone to "get AIDS and die". While he has the right to feel that way and to say that, he does not have the right to a national platform to spew that hateful speech. There's a difference here, Tommy, that you're unwilling to acknowledge.
CSL
You are making an argument towards me that I have not addressed, nor take issue with. You want to concentrate on Morgan's speech and it's vileness and her complaining about treated unfairly - that was not my point.......despite the many posters here who want to dismiss the headline and steer the debate back to that. Well, that's fine - find somebody who took issue with that.
My point was this headline specifically is not misinformation or anything of the sort - because it is the truth as she sees it, and as many here have as well.
We don't come to Media Matters to read the headlines, Tommy. We come to Media Matters to read (and discuss) the articles BELOW the headlines. Again, you're missing the point and continuously arguing the headline as the issue. It's not a winner and means nothing. The message is in the article, not in the headlines.
You also argued that what MMorgan has stated is the truth. Unless she is like you and claims to have some ultra-mind reading powers, she has NO CLUE what Spocko is truly up to; neither do I and neither do any of the other posters here at MMfA.
Again, we're not here to address a headline. We're here for the meat of the article. Argue the headline all you want. It makes you look like you cannot argue any other point. Arguing the headline is another deflection from the real issue - something you've become quite good at.
CSL
Dismiss the headline as irrelevant if you want to. It just makes you look sloppy and dismissive of information that you don't want to address.
I have no issue with the article, as I said repeatedly. The issue was the headline. If you don't want to address it, fine. I stand by my statements.
You come across an ice-covered pond with a sign posted that reads "Thin Ice", are you gonna believe it or test it out?
The temp is way below 32 , the ice SHOULD be fine, but I'm NOT gonna chance it.
The meat MIGHT look OK, but I'm not gonna eat it.
The headline here: *Morgan: "I've been the target ... of an effort by liberal bloggers to get me fired"* is NOT disproved by the contents of the article.
A better headline MIGHT have been *Morgan denies she indulged in Hate speech*
The article CLEARY would refute her claims.
MMFA's mission statement doesn't say that it's headlines will accurately relate the nature of the conservative misinformation/bias that is contained in the item.
While MMFA's "mission statement" does not [specifically] contain anything about the headline reflecting the bias or mis-information contained within the article, one would EXPECT that it would. The other threads here certainly do.
I read the article TWICE wondering where MMFA had refuted her claim ["I've been the target ... of an effort by liberal bloggers to get me fired"], It finally occurred to me that the Title & the article were a mismatch.
You are correct. In my opinion, MMFA was looking for another thread on this topic and sloppily used this headline to include it. It is not misinformation at all.
Yet many here want to dismiss it as no big deal. This website prides itself on accuracy and verification - I would expect that from content within and most importantly the headline.
The headline & the articles here SHOULD match[and normally do], this one didn't. MMFA didn't address the Headline & her claim, they chose instead to point out [accurately] that she had indeed made remarks that could be termed Hate Speech.
I'm not sure why pointing this out became such a bone of contention.
That was my only beef from post #1.........and I have no clue why all the sidebar arguments either.
Your clarity and thoughtful reasoning is appreciated. Have a nice weekend!!
Tommy writes, MMFA "prides itself on accuracy and verification - I would expect that from content within and most importantly the headline."
Just so we can finally put this all to rest, please tell us one thing that is innaccurate or unverifiable about the headline. Since you can't do that, then please point out one thing that is innaccurate or unverifiable about the content of the article. Hm...can't do that either, huh? Once again, you are talking sh*t.
...Tommy was meaning to say that, since this site stated purpose is to expose misinformation, then he felt that MMFA was implying that the statement quoted in the headline was also misinformation. If so, I don't know why it was so difficult for him to make that point. It's a reasonable point that someone might initially reach after just reading the title, as Jeter explained.
Of course, the article doesn't specifically discuss the quote further, but discusses other points. So, I took the title to be an attempt - albeit a poor one - to bring together the various points under one topic. But that's hardly reason to dismiss the entire article.
Tommy has since clarified that he had no problem with the rest of the article, only the title. I could take that to imply he didn't mean to be dismissive of the entire article. However, if that's the case, then I don't understand why he was ignored my suggestion to change the title. It's also not consistent with his argument that the title is "the meat of the article."
Oh what a tangled web we weave.
The point is that the meat of an article is not the title. Yes, the title should be reflective of the content and the content should address the title. However, reality is that some title's accomplish that and some don't.
As for the "thin ice" scenario, I'd check the depth of the ice.
It is MelMorg's affirmative contention that liberal bloggers are out to get her fired. It is her job to defend that point. MMFA's argument would be the negative argument. It is not easy to prove a negaitive nor even really necessary. The burden is always on the affirmative argument.
MelMorg did not provide any evidence of her contention. I would think if it exists, it should be easy to find. Perhaps Spocko has contacted MelMorg's producer or wrote his intentions on his website. We don't know. MelMorg has not presented her case at all.
Secondly, the title does include misinformation IMO. If MelMorg cannot produce direct evidence that liberal bloggers want her fired, then it is plainly misinformation. As far as anyone knows that I have seen, the liberal bloggers are accurately describing MelMorg (and other KSFO personalities) to advertisers. No intimidation, no coercion. Maybe that is not the case, but MelMorg isn't producing any evidence to that point.
These bloggers may think one thing or another, but mind-reading is not a fair path to take here. We cannot just assign thoughts to people as Morgan has done without any evidence whatsoever to back it up.
"It is MelMorg's affirmative contention that liberal bloggers are out to get her fired. It is her job to defend that point. MMFA's argument would be the negative argument. It is not easy to prove a negaitive nor even really necessary. The burden is always on the affirmative argument."...by open_mind
=====
open_mind, because the contents of the article deals primarily about Morgan's claim that her Free Speech is being termed Hate Speech I simply would have Titled the article differently, especially because MMFA goes to great lengths to give examples of her hateful speech.
Neither Morgan nor MMFA addressed her claim of Liberal bloggers out to get her fired. So, IMO, it shouldn't have been titled as IF that was the MAIN issue.
That's just how I see it, if you see it differently no problem. :-)
Now after all that, I would agree she was indulging in Hate Speech, no matter the *headline*
as usual damn it! I was in the mood for an argument and you just get all rational on me! Jerk!
I see your point. Considering the article focused almost entirely on the examples of "hate speech", it would have been more accurate to match the title that way. Sorry if I misunderstood your point previously. I agree with your argument.
When's the last time you & I argued about anything? Damn I think we're both too reasonable... too fair & balanced... too rational...did I mention too brilliant? ;-)
Thanks for taking the time to re-consider what I was trying to get across...sometimes I re-read what I've written and I don't even understand it :-x
"When's the last time you & I argued about anything? Damn I think we're both too reasonable... " --Jeter2
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nah. That can't be it. I think you are employing voodoo or Jedi mind tricks on me.
:)
Hate speech, and the constant celebration of the death and/or torture of her political enemies is NOT appropriate for OUR public airwaves.
I will repeat that for you, because Rightwingers think everything should be for sale -- they are OUR airwaves, and the station holds its license as long as it complies with standards of decency by the FCC. Now, I realize rightwingers also think the FCC should butt out and not regulate anything (except, of course, Howard Stern), but we citizens have the RIGHT to keep hate mongers calling for torture and death of their partisan foes OFF THE AIR.
She has "free speech", and can draw an audience on any street corner she wants to be "heard". But once she takes to OUR airwaves, she should be held accountable for what she says, and the violence she incites.
And she is in BIG trouble, or she wouldn't be going to these extraordinary lengths to downplay her comments, which are recorded for all to hear. Should she be OFF the air? Of course. She was given a golden opportunity, one most citizens are not offered, to broadcast her "speech", but with that opportunity comes a responsibility which she has sorely abused.
EVERYONE in America has a right to "free speech". NOBODY has the "right" to be on the radio on the public airwaves and say whatever slander or hate speech they desire.
DO NOT take away her "free speech" ... but take away her public forum. That's all.
turn about is fair play. Reich wingers have done this time and again to liberals, threatening companies to get them to pull advertising dollars and thus making liberal shows dollar drains instead of dollar adds. Now it's happening to you and y'all are screaming? Great. By YOUR definition, the fact that companies are paying attention to the liberal demands means that the liberal voice outnumbers the hitler youth voice ergo, the market has spoken. So long!
This woman has serious delusions of grandeur. Like most right wingers.
Morgan has delusions of adequacy.
Most of us couldn't give a rat's patootie what they say, but if making such comments about Bush/Cheney can get you arrested investigated etc., but not in the case of conservative pundits making threats, it makes the Patriot Act look more like some kind of partisan trick to increase personal power at the expense of everyone else.
Sorry, I couldn't make the sentence any longer.
Can you cite an example of someone being investigated/arrested etc, for making comments about Bush or Cheney?
Thanks,
...if making such comments about Bush/Cheney can get you arrested investigated...
Ysbadden didn't say that it has happened. However, I believe that anyone who publicly advocated having Bush or Cheney hanged or stomped to death or "tied to a post and set on fire" would probably get a visit from the FBI or Secret Service.
But I do believe it is against the law to threaten the President or Vice President with physical harm.
I do not believe it has anything to do with who is in office.
I think you, I, and Ysbaddadden (sp?) all agree here - making threats against the president or vice-president gets you investigated.
My point, which I didn't state clearly, was that whether or not Ysbadd could cite actual examples of such investigations would not mean that he was wrong about the fact that making such statements would get you investigated.
... if they said those things outside of specially designated "Free Speech Zones."
I hate Free Speech Zones.
losing his job for calling Bush a coward for hiding out in bunkers immediately after 9/11. People like Morgan wanted him tarred and feathered, but they did manage to bring enough pressure against the paper he worked for to get him fired.
the police for trying to hold up anti-Bush signs along routes of his motorcades.
As a proper conservative pundit she should realize this is not a free speech issue, but a commercial speech issue.
Resorting to the truth on WorldNetDaily.
So, in a way, liberal bloggers, by exposing her lies and hate speech, are paving the way for her pink slip in the truth-free hate mongering world of WorldNetDaily.
Yeah, right. Air America failed, not because conservative extremism is so popular, but because liberals just don't need the kind of validation from the radio that conservatives apparently do. We've got better things to do than tune in for 3 hours a day to hear to a middle aged dropout say "algore" to us over and over again.Yes,that's what passes for "wit" in conservative circles.
You may be on to something. It may be that liberals don't listen to radio.
Do liberals watch the Networks like ABC, NBC, and CBS? If I remember correctly, all are suffering large drop offs of viewers.
If liberals are not tuning in, are they watching the cable news? I hear MSNBC and CNN are also dwindling.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I heard the weekly news mags, Time and Newsweek are also dropping readers.
Just where do liberals go for their news and or commentary?
ps. If those are the best examples of "hate speech" by Morgan listed by MMFA, they are pretty pathetic. To Some of them make me laugh. If it is still the way I remembered it, (I've not logged in for a while,) some people here have said much, much worse.
The "Hate Speech" from the posters here offends you, I'd suggest you take the matter up with their advertisers.
Pretty funny.
However if you'll carefully read what I wrote you'll see I never implied that it bothered me. :-)
"If those are the best examples of "hate speech" by Morgan listed by MMFA, they are pretty pathetic. To Some of them make me laugh. If it is still the way I remembered it, (I've not logged in for a while,) some people here have said much, much worse."
Please be specific.
I haven't seen anyone on MM say anything close to: (Maybe a few people who have since been banned.)
Morgan on Keller and other Times editors: "Hang 'em." (6/27/06) More Morgan on Keller: "I would have no problem with him being sent to the gas chamber" if he was convicted of treason. (San Francisco Chronicle, 6/29/06) Morgan on the proper punishment for those who "publish[] classified information": "Fry 'em." (7/10/06) Morgan on her co-host's suggestion that an arsonist responsible for a forest fire be burned to death: "Hog tie 'em first. That would be good." (10/27/06) Morgan on Pelosi: "We've got a bull's-eye painted on her big, wide laughing eyes." (11/14/06) Morgan on environmentalist Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring: "[D]ig [her] up and kill her all over again." (12/1/06)
Please be more specific about what you want me to be more specific.
;-)
>>"If those are the best examples of "hate speech" by Morgan listed by MMFA, they are pretty pathetic. To Some of them make me laugh. "<<
Which one of Morgan's "pathetic" comments "make right-wingers like you laugh"?
Her call for hangings? Electrocutions? Deaths by fire?
The one about Pelosi. It is a real stretch to say that is hate speech. The idea that one thinks it is, makes me laugh.
The other one about Carson. That is about as a silly a comment as I've ever heard. I'd label it stupid, not hate.
Hope that helps.
If you don't think the quotes are terrible examples of hate speech or whatever, do you care if they are shown to advertisers on the program?
Do you take issue with anything the liberal bloggers are known to have done on this issue?
I could care less if liberals put economic pressure on the advertisers and she's booted off the air.
It's hilarious that the right-wing gets all bent out of shape about seeing Janet Jackson's t*tty on national television, but they don't get upset about talking about killing people, in some of the most violent manners possible, on national radio.
Nice double standard, righties.
CSL
She is in favor of putting to death traitors and arsonists and dead people. Is that hate speech?
MMFA is laughable for following this. it is nothing. Right wing What's-her-name is a nobody and the thread hardly raises to the level of a controversy.
Now that I think about it, this is one of the main reasons I stopped coming to this website. Coming back and getting involved with this discussion this reminded me of that again. To get lathered up about this is, in my estimation, to be out there on the fringe.
The liberal/progressive perspective and outrage expressed here, as in so many cases, simply laughable.
To try to argue moral equivilence with that with JJ's flashing her breast on TV is also laughable.
And I'm again realizing it is waste of time to point out the silliness. (But it was fun.)
have a great weekend.
"MMFA is laughable for following this. it is nothing. Right wing What's-her-name is a nobody and the thread hardly raises to the level of a controversy."
So you why does it feel like you are trying to defend her in some way? Were her comments taken out of context? Is Spocko wrong to do what he has done? Is Ms. Morgan in fact lying? Was it valid to send Spocko a cease and decist letter?
I haven't heard your opinion on any of this.
Apparently the discussion you've taken part in for the better part of an hour is beneath.
Have a nice weekeend!
Frankly I could care less either way.
I think Morgan can say what she wants, I do not see it as rising to the level ofhate speech. (That is the point of my notes.)
I think spoko can do what he wants to put her off the air. However the examples of hate speech by MMFA are, in my opinion, silly. If that is what is bugging spoko, I think he should get a life.
Morgan is milking this for all its worth. MMFA is playing into her hand.
Liberals are silly. (oops... silly speak here.)
Have a good day!
Conservatives are all about 'decency' (according to them). Janet's tata was indecent, but talking about hog-tying a man and burning him isn't?
Gimme a break. Whether it's regarding a convicted criminal or not, MMorgan's bloodlust is showing. Of course, she is a right-wing authoritarian, so nothing is new there. Blood and power, greed and selfishness- that's what MMorgan represents. She could/would never agree with anything on the Left and she knows that she is out of touch with Bay Area people. She needs something to draw attention to herself. It's too bad it has to be this nastiness. Does she not have anything better to talk about? Do any of these right-wing nutjobs have anything better to talk about?
When is the last time you listened to Lefty radio? How often do you hear statements such as MMorgan has spouted on Lefty radio? See, you don't. Lefty radio talks about the issues. Righty radio just seeks to smear and use distasteful rhetoric to gain support. Go ahead, tell me that's decent. Tell me that's not worse than Janet's tatas.
CSL
hateful speech. One person's hate speech is another person's truthiness. We think it's hate speech you do not. Get a grip. You seem unable to accept that someone can find her hateful. Perhaps it's her political bent that convinces you, I don't know. But joking, or stating with all seriousness the death of anyone, repeatedly is hateful. Life is significant. To wish or suggest that the death of someone is desirable is negative whether you feel the target is worthy or not. Hate is hate.
My guess is that more liberal viewers have become so disgusted with the MSM that they're no longer tuning into ANY live media, and are instead relying on the internet and faux news shows like The Daily Show for their daily blurbs.
Now that explains everything!
;-)
"I hear MSNBC and CNN are also dwindling."
-----
CNN, perhaps. MSNBC's audience is growing. Especially for Countdown and Scarborough Country.
Fox News' audience is way down.
MSNBC's (Olberman up by 51%) and CNN's viewership is growing, Fox is losing viewers, that's probably related to Bush's poll dive but of course that's only speculation on my part.
Clearly here, Spocko targeted Morgan's show's advertisers. He did not target Morgan's employer. He did not call for her to be "fired". By targeting her sponsors, he is making them aware that the person they are sponsoring is using extremely hateful rhetoric against specific individuals.
Spocko targets advertisers-in a perfectly legitimate, time-tested manner. Morgan calls for executions of --death for--specific people.
Morgan is a typical example of the right's playing of the "Victim Card".
Looks to me like Morgan is playing it up in order to improve ratings... (I never knew she existed till I read this thread.)
I find the same thing when I hear about Rosie and Trump. Obviously Trump and Rosie know thier feud is good for ratings.
In both case, I could care less. But by claiming to be attacked is an old ploy that still works.
Ho hum...
>>"in order to improve ratings... "<<
It will improve ratings amongst listeners who dig it when she names names of liberals and calls for their deaths.
It's a ratings booster for listeners who tune in to hear liberals bashed, name-called, and humiliated.
It's a ratings bonanza for the "victimized, persecuted" right-wing element, who blame all their woes on the left, and can't take responsibility.
one liberal she called by name to be put to death?
I can see only one person called by name by her in this thread and that person is already in Heaven.
Nowhere do I see her calling for liberals to be put to death because they are liberals.
Only "one" example of somebody Morgan wants dead? Keller.
Before you say Morgan didn't say Keller is a liberal, I suggest you ponder what other possible ideology the NY Times' Keller subscribes to in Morgan's mind BUT liberalism.
Only a right-winger could come to the defense, as you do, of anyone who calls for the murder or execution of innocent people.
What's her name thinks Keller is guilty of treason for divulging national security secrets in his paper that aid the enemey in a time of war.
Nobody is calling for the death penalty toward liberals because they are liberal, it is because she thinks they are traitors.
I would think you'd see that.
You asked for one liberal she had called for to be put to death. Dave gave you one.
He did. I acknowleged it.
If I were a liberal, I'd say show me another... but I won't. :-)
Free speech. If Keller wants to publish national security secrets, he should be willing to pay the price... (which apparently is nothing.)
you didn't acknowledge it, but that's cool. You had goalpost-moving to do. If I was a conservative, I'd move them again and again and ultimately declare I'd won the argument and leave. :)
I didn't see his name or remember reading it when I wrote asking for 'names'.
Point well taken.
I don't think it is a moving goal... just trying to get back to the original point I was trying to make, that I didn't think this was hate speech.
Good discussion.
>>"trying to get back to the original point I was trying to make, that I didn't think this was hate speech. "
To sum up:
Right-wingers, like Another American, are proud to say that calling on the public airwaves for the execution *without a trial in a court of law* --by fire, or hanging, or electrocution--of innocent Americans (like Bill Keller) is, quote "not hate speech".
>>>Nobody is calling for the death penalty toward liberals because they are liberal, it is because she thinks they are traitors. <<<
I didn't say she was calling for their deaths BECAUSE they are liberals. I said she is calling for the death of certain liberals.
You are the one that "doesn't get it".
Not to mention how irresponsible it is of Morgan or anyone else to call for the death of ANY innocent person.
I think you are a bit premature.
Is Keller guilty of leaking national secrets in a time of war?
Could that be considered treason?
Is calling for the putting to death people who conduct treasonous activity hate speech?
Different outlooks will decide whether it is hate speech or not.
>>>"innocent - I think you are a bit premature....Different outlooks will decide whether it is hate speech or not"
No, I'm not"premature" in my assessment of Keller as "innocent". As many of you Bush fans seem to have forgotten in the last six years under King George, in our country, people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Right-wing talk radio is not a court of law, as much as Melanie Morgan and her listeners and apologists would love to have it so.
You want to organize an effort to have Keller imprisoned and put to death? Feel you have a case? Then go for it.
In a sane world--which excludes that of the right-wing Bush apologist--calling for an innocent person's death by hanging/fire/electrocution is thought of us hate speech. It is impossible to imagine how much more hateful speech can get than that.
Is Keller guilty of leaking national secrets in a time of war?
If he were he would have been tried and convicted. Since he wasn't even indicted, you got nothin'.
"Only a right-winger could come to the defense, as you do, of anyone who calls for the murder or execution of innocent people."
Dave_Chicago ------------------------------------------------------------------------
As correct as you are, Dave_Chicago, let's take this one step further: "Only a right-winger would come to the defense, as you do, of anyone who calls for the murder or execution of innocent or already dead people". Because, as you may know, Dave_Chicago (and as far as I know), the "arsonist" in question hasn't yet been convicted, hence he is innocent until proven guilty (which I assume is what you meant by "innocent people"). MMorgan has already convicted and sentenced him.
CSL
This stuff just feeds ratings.
Oddly enough, MelMorg may be able to charge more for advertisement while this is going on.
Sad, but true.
the violent, sadistic way she speaks of her "enemies" certainly mirrors that of radical Islam... it's pure homocidal hatred... so, what does SHE have against those people?
I find it interesting that these comments are called 'hate speech'.
I do believe it is a historical fact that traitors have been put to death. Whether or not one agrees with this radio commentator, the release of classified information during a time of war can be argued as treason and those responsible for releasing the information to the enemy, if guilty of such a high crime, are subject to the death penalty. Hanging and electrocution are both legitimate methods.
The part about Rachel Carson is just silly. Carson died of cancer. Nobody killed her, let alone kill her again.
Painting a bull's eye on Pelosi does not even remotely imply killing her.
Adding that putting to death an arsonist by having them hog tied before being burned, is also silly. I would imagine anyone burned would be tied to begin. So to suggest that they be 'hog tied' is nothing new. It says she was responding to another who brought up the idea of burning the arsonist. I would venture the idea of burning one who commits arson goes back to the old "eye for an eye" rule. Distastful yes, wishing similar pain for someone guilty of inflicting pain, yes. Hateful? I don't know. If it is, it is hateful toward a particular criminal. To me that doesn't rise to the point where someone tries to get her taken off the air.
But then I am of the opinion that free speech trumps hate speech for the express reason that the crime of hate speech lies only with how one perceives it.
I don't think it should be against the law to be offended.
When you're talking about a woman calling for the death or dismemberment of someone she doesn't like, how can you present any conflict with the term 'hate speech' with anything akin to a straight face?
The person she wants killed or dismembered because she dislikes them.
Thanks,
You make a valid point, she can say whatever she wants. I agree with you.
I'm of the opinion that her speech is "hateful", but maybe not hate speech. That being said, I still support Spocko's efforts and think Ms. Morgan is a twit and her views are by far more extreme than anyone she actually criticizes.
In the end everyone gets what they deserve.
But it seems to me she is only saying she is in favor of the death penalty for traitors and arsonists.
She also sees Pelosi as a target.
I guess if you wanted you could also say she's for bringing back the dead.
She sounds to me to rude and crude and bit of nitwit, but I am of the opinion that the word 'hate' is bandied around too much. I would argue that the word 'hate' has been watered down to 'dislike'.
I would say she's guilty of 'dislike' speech which to me is much more accurate of a term.
Feel free to 'dislike' my comments any way you wish.
:-)
I don't take any issue with your comments. Like you said, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
The difference between dislike and hate is very subjective. In the spectrum between the two I would guess she lies somewhere closer to hate.
I could be wrong.
I find it interesting that these comments are called 'hate speech'.
How about Sussman's (I think it was Sussman) demand that a caller call Allah a "whore" to prove that the caller was not an "Islamist"?
So she's trying to find out something.
Again crude and rude.
Hate?
hate. That is a hateful comment that is also crude and rude. Hate, to direct animosity or negativity needlessly towards something or someone.
I think you might be a Christian Dominionist. I demand you prove to me you're not. Say "Jesus Christ is a filthy pederast."
"Jesus Christ is a filthy pederast."
Say it.
---------
Now, if I were serious, would you feel like maybe, just maybe, I was being hateful?
even if it's tounge in cheek. I go by the Jesus standard. Even a negative thought is detrimental. It's not a positive force ego it's a negative force. When it's repeated over and over the negative compounds. I am guilty of hating everyday and even whne I crack a joke about it I am expressing that hate and perpetuating it. I'm not x-tian but I dig where Jesus was coming from on this. Think about it. Hate starts innocently enough but snowballs sometimes becoming a destructive force. I believe in free speech too. A fool is entitled to let everyone else know she is a fool. A hater is entitled to the same. I believe it is prudent and innocent enough to point out, to exercise their right to free speech to make their case that she uses hate speech.
"To me that doesn't rise to the point where someone tries to get her taken off the air." --AA
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From what I see the liberal bloggers are only contacting advertisers and telling them factual information about MelMorg. They are not directly contacting MelMorg's employer/producer and asking/demanding she be "fired" to my knowledge.
If MelMorg loses advertisers because they are more aware of the content of her program and disagree with what she says or how she says it, she is to blame for her own demise. The bloggers are simply a catalyst to the free market here. No coercion or intimidation has been alleged here either against the advertisers to my knowledge.
Your contention and Morgan's appear baseless.
That's a pretty brave lady. What a kook. It's funny though. First she gets Carson's name wrong then the title of Ms. Carson's book.
And I don't remember anyone saying she should be fired. I thought it was rather civil to let her station's advertisers know what sort of crap they are paying for. But fired. No.
that's really the point of the item- Spocko tried to bring to light what Morgan said, and like BilldO and the rest, she reacted to her own words being repeated as a smear.
On the other hand, her cease and desist order resulted in Spocko's truth being silenced.
And she's claiming an effort to silence her.Wow.
To begin, I support Spocko's efforts. He is using market forces to bring an end to MMorgan's hateful radio tenure. You'd think Conservatives would be behind him, seeing that 'market forces' are all they care about anyway...
Or, are Conservatives irritated that Spocko is using market forces against them? So, market forces are good, only in as much as they help conservatives, right?
I'll admit that I don't listen to MMorgan. I live in SF and REFUSE to pay her any attention. Taking Tommy's advice, you'd think she would have dropped off the face of the earth by now (you know, ignore the hateful right-wingers, they will go away). But, she's still here, despite my ignoring her and Spocko's efforts to get her advertising pulled. Hhhhmmmm...methinks Tommy's theory is full of holes.
CSL
So what was their la boeuf concerning the "crazy" blogs and their nasty comments?
Is she angling for a spanking?
This is one of my favorite Morgan quotes. In the same sentence she advocates "pushing conservative values" while at the same time "slap(ping) the crap" out of Democrats. Don't you just love these mean-as-snakes right wing hypocrites who espouse "values"? What values would those be, Ms. Morgan? All you have is a mouth and a microphone, Ms. Morgan... both of which could be put to much better use.
So they have free speech to spew vitriol and hatred, and incite violence against people they disagree with, but Media Matters does not have the freedom to point out how terrible these people are to their advertisers?
What nonsense.
I suspect that they will all be looking for work shortly. Who wants to have their company represented by haters like this?
But you'd do yourself a favor and read up on our history. This is a country founded by radical liberals. Conservatives were called loyalists (to the King) and liberals were called patriots. Free markets and pandering to the lowest common denominator has allowed conservatism to bring us to one of our lowest points in history. But hey welcome aboard. Can I see your papers please?
Actually the United States was founded by economic conservatives. Read Charles Beard's book. I think it is titled Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Barnes and Noble has this synposis posted. One of the classic revisionist histories of the 20th century, Beard's 1913 history of the economic interests that lay behind the formation of the United States Constitution is here reproduced in unabridged format. Beard first surveys the economic structure of the newly independent country and then describes the ways in which property safeguards helped select the delegates to the constitutional convention. He then reviews the individual economic interests of the delegates and explains how these interests often lay behind the positions taken at the constitution. He also discusses the role of economics in the process of ratification and the popular vote on the Constitution. His conclusion that the Constitution represented a victory of personality (or personal property) interests over farming and debtor interests, were controversial at the time of publication and remain so today. This work is cited in Books for College Libraries, 3d ed. Annotation ©2004 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR Perhaps this will counter the perceived idealsim of the founding fathers.
You moved here from Iran.
I am not Iranian. I thought the Iranians were your buddies.
to have swallowed the kool-aid so you must be a plant. It is a popular myth that liberals like our enemies just because we think there are better ways of dealing with them. It is incorrect to assume so. Personally I dislike all religous nuts and I can still recognize really dangerous ones and mildly dangerous ones.
Do you understand "ad hominem"? It seems to be your main method of argument.
>>"I am a new citizen and a PROUD NEW REPUBLICAN. "<<
Yes, and we all have seen evidence of the Republicans' views and attitudes towards, um "new citizens", too.
How do I know you are true American and a patriot one? Which country are you from? Could you say "I will nuke my native country XXXX"?
loss.
defend Melanie Morgan? How could anyone question whether or not her speech is hateful? Idiots are easily led. She can't be hateful because she's justified in some people's minds. Tommy and AA dance around the bare bones of the matter. The women repeatedly says things which are uncivil and yes hateful. Why hateful? I doubt she is ambivalent or exuding love when she claims she is fine with other Americans being gassed. Whether they are guilty of treason or not is irrelevant. Whether she is being "funny" is irrelevant. The statement is hateful and no amount of circular logic that the regular con-contribiturs to this site can change that. Joking or pondering the death of anyone is in itself a hateful act. It is not difficult to understand. But it is much more fun for some to continue the pattern of misrepresentaiotn and false stero types about liberals. Melanie Morgan and her ilk make a living because simple minded twits get a kick out of the way they tar and feather anyone that disagrees with them. Where has civility gone? Where has civics gone? The way of the dodo thanks to conservatives. Thanks for nothing. Melanie Morgan doesn't deserve any defence. You make a living by trashing people and stirring up animosity you deserve to lose everything. Con talkers are destroying our country by continually misrepresenting, lying, slandering and joking about killing anyone who has the gaul to have an informed opinion that counters there own. I look forward to the day when Melanie Morgan et. al. are marginalized as the fringe nuts they are. They make a living out of attacking other Americans! For Pete's sake. Why do cons hate America so much they attack us? Hate.
What about "Officer Vic." His "radio name" is Tom Benner. His real names is...?
try to listen to their "Special" show this afternoon at noon?
What a sad, sad performance. Explaining their "jokes," one by one. Plus it took them about half an hour to get started - have these folks ever been on the radio before? Lots of dead air, Dr. Laura coming and going, station announcements, a traffic report that sounded like it was being broadcast from the bottom of a tin coffee can, more station announcements and dead air, Lee Rogers sounding like he was about to have his wisdom teeth extracted - amateur hour.
Well, amateur half hour. I gave up listening. Sad.
Plus, of course, their "jokes" are as pathetic as they are.
Listening to the three hour show and sipping on a tasty glass of wine I found one side of the coin the argument was over the Talk Show Hosts delivery points, but were firm on the point of freedom of speech and copyrights.
On the other side of the coin I found passive regressive person(s) back stabbing the station by going after advertising dollar support to the station instead of facing the station in a debate at the begin of this whole mess I think it back fired on the passive regressive person.
The radio station laid down the facts point by point and the poor mouth piece for Mr. Spocko was debating the Talk Show Hosts delivery points, it showed me the way you make our bed is the way you sleep in it and in Mr. Spocko case he should get a backbone and face the people he is trying to break instead of using another person to argue such a important and passionate issue to him.
On a side note: I notice that the support on the phone was a little thin for Mr. Spocko. It's time to beam down and out or understand the law better.
"On the other side of the coin I found passive regressive person(s) back stabbing the station by going after advertising dollar support"
Spoko did not backstab. Spoko is not an decision maker for pulling advertising dollars. Spoko just informed those advertiser companies about the content of KSFO. Unltimate decision makers are advertising companies like Bank of America or MasterCard. If Spoko's opinion was hollow, companies like BOA or MasterCard would have ignored his letter.
The allegation of backstabbing comes to picture only if Spoko had authority to backstab. As he is not a decisionmaker to pull out advertisements, it was not backstabbing.
"but were firm on the point of freedom of speech and copyrights."
If pulling advertisement dollar hurts freedom of speech, then why Melanie Morgan is not going after Bank Of America or MasterCard for their decision? Why isn't she questioning these companie's decision? If Spoko's allegation was hollow, why didn't these companies ignore Spoko's letter?
This is the main trick Melanie Morgan is playing. She is not questioning BOA or MasterCard. Instead she is making up conspiracy theories, blaming liberals and playing victim-card.
"On a side note: I notice that the support on the phone was a little thin for Mr. Spocko. It's time to beam down and out or understand the law better."
Call me a scenic, but I highly doubt most of the calls supporting Spocko would make it to air.
I recently acquired XM satellite radio and the night before last I tuned in, for the first time, to the ABC 'News' channel on that system.
As a result I listened for the first time to talkmeister Mark Levin.
I am neither naive nor uninitiated to the right-wing demoguogery of a.m. radio, still I was SHOCKED at the non-stop stream of hatred from Mr. Levin.
If it wasn't so hateful, ( ...'liberal slime', 'Democrat scum', 'The Washington Compost', 'liberals are "Public Enemas" etc. etc. ...) it would be ludicrous.
I subsequently looked up Mr Levin's website and saw that he was trumpeting his #1 rating in the New York City radio market in the 6-8pm time slot, allegedly besting another hate-merchant, Michael Savage (who now seems almost quaint by comparison!)
IMO Hate-filled propagandists like Mr Levin are doing more than simply coarsening the public discourse. They are recruiting, endoctrinating, and inflaming a cadre of intolerant haters whose ultimate inpact on our democracy is unknown.
I do know this:
Human beings are capable of unspeakable atrocities against their perceived enemies once they have convinced themselves that those 'enemies' are less than human -ie. 'Filth', 'slime', 'vermin', 'scum' etc'.
I am glad that Media Matters is beginning to hold ABC responsible for the sowing of hatred.
courtesy of Tom Tom. Thanks guys.
I don't have time to wade through all of the posts, so let me just say that Morgan, like many other right wing talkers keeps talking about the demise of Air America. It just ain't so. I listen to it everyday. If someopne else pointed that out previously, sorry. Also it was with the help of Air America that some Democrats got elected this last November. AAR IS having an impact and despite the death knell tolling from right wingers, AAR will be okay. They are having growing pains but they have amazing talent and will continue despite all the righty talkers assertion of being dead.