Savage accused "Nazi" Rep. Hinchey of seeking a "final solution for conservatives on talk radio"
On the May 2 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage attacked the "Nazi" supporters of the Media Ownership Reform Act (MORA), calling its author, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), the "chief National Socialist, or Nazi," and claiming that philanthropist George Soros is "[t]he man behind it all." MORA would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to enforce its now-dormant "fairness doctrine," which required broadcasters covering issues of public importance to fairly present all sides of the debate. Savage asserted that MORA "would declare Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly 'Threats to National Security,' and remove us from the radio," and that this "is the exact rhetoric that Hitler used in his march to take over Germany." Savage then proclaimed that "the liberals like Maurice Hinchey want the final solution for conservatives on talk radio."
On his May 2 show, Savage read a list of MORA's co-sponsors and declared them "the Nazis of today," who are "far more dangerous than the clownish neo-Nazis that march with swastikas, because these National Socialists mean business, and these National Socialists are congressmen." Savage referred to Rep. Hinchey as "that cowardly worm from New York" who refused to appear on his show, adding: "The cowardly worm instead wants to worm his way through the back corridors of Congress." Savage then made a "commitment" that if MORA was ever passed and he were "declared a national enemy or a threat to national security, I will lead 10 million people on Washington" and shut the city down.
Savage accused Soros, whom he called "a billionaire centipede," as being "[t]he man behind it all," who "is funding these little men." Savage continued, saying that Soros "is definitely behind it as sure as I am sitting here. This is the man who is the enemy of free speech. I'm warning you."
MORA would compel the FCC to once again enforce its "fairness doctrine," which the commission stopped enforcing in 1987. As paraphrased by the Supreme Court when it upheld the doctrine in 1969, it "require[d] that discussion of public issues be presented on broadcast stations, and that each side of those issues must be given fair coverage." In 1986, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that Congress had not mandated the "fairness doctrine," and eventually, in 1987, the FCC decided it would no longer enforce it. The 2005 version of Hinchey's MORA -- H.R. 3302 (109th Congress), which Savage was referring to -- would mandate that the FCC reinstate that rule as it existed before its 1987 demise.
The bill also contains provisions to limit the number of television and radio stations a single person or company could own. The words "national security," "jail," or "prison" do not appear anywhere in the bill. An "updated version" of MORA will be introduced "in the coming weeks," according to a summary of it on Hinchey's website.
On the May 3 broadcast of his show, Savage continued to smear Soros. After attacking former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey's recent admission to an Episcopal seminary school by asserting, "Think of how much gas he must have wasted cruising the highways and byways of New Jersey ... now when he's inside the seminary, just think about it: the cruising carbon footprint is reduced to near zero," Savage insisted that he was being "funny" and said of those who didn't think so: "I'd like to give you a hand signal -- that's what I'd like to give you." He then proclaimed: "Go ahead; go report me to George Soros," calling Soros "the new Obersturmführer of the New World Order." Savage concluded by exclaiming: "Sieg Heil, Georgie." As he spoke, Savage played the Connie Francis song "Where the Boys Are"; in fact, the General Theological Seminary in New York City, which admitted McGreevey, admits both men and women.
From the May 2 broadcast of The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: Today's story, though, is about the enemy within. It's a very important story because I never thought I'd see National Socialism appear in the United States of America. Right now, the most extreme wing of the Democrat Party are aping and mimicking the exact rhetoric of the National Socialist Party of Germany in the 1930s. They call themselves liberals, but ladies and gentleman, I want to remind you they are Nazis by every definition.
On my website, I'm going to read you my headline: "Dems declare Michael Savage 'A threat to national security,' want him removed from radio; using the same rhetoric as Hitler's National Socialists; see sponsors of Nazi bill moving through Congress, H.R. 3302." Now if it was just left-wingers with their pressure groups saying these things, I would pay no attention to it. We are talking about a bill working its way through Congress that would declare Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly threats to national security and remove us from the radio.
Now, I want you to think about what that means. They're saying that people in the media who they disagree with are a threat to national security. This is the exact rhetoric that Hitler used in his march to take over Germany. If you don't understand the danger that you are in, then you are an ignoramus.
I have a list of the National Socialists who sponsored it on MichaelSavage.com. The Chief National Socialist, or Nazi, is Congressman Maurice Hinchey of New York. I've never heard of this bum, but this bum Congressman Maurice Hinchey is apparently in an area near Woodstock, New York, which is astounding to me that people in Woodstock, New York, who declare themselves such liberals would actually want to take the American media and turn it into a government-owned media.
I guess the liberals like Maurice Hinchey want the final solution for conservatives on talk radio. I've never heard of this bum, but he's up there. And his name is Hinchey. In Woodstock, New York, area. Let's go down the list of this dastardly act, H.R. 3302. Here are the names of the National Socialists of today: Representative DeFazio, Peter. [D-]Oregon. Representative Bob Filner, [D-]California. Representative Alcee Hastings, [D-]Florida. Representative Marcy Kaptur, [D-]Ohio. Representative Barbara Lee, [D-]California. Representative Jim McDermott, [D-]Washington. Representative James Moran, [D-]Virginia. Representative Major Owens, [D-]New York. Representative Bernard Sanders -- he's now a senator -- [I-]Vermont. Representative Janice Schakowsky [D-IL]. Representative Louise Slaughter [D-NY]. [Rep.] Hilda Solis [D-CA]. [Rep.] Pete Stark, [D-]California. [Rep.] Maxine Waters, [D-]California. [Rep.] Diane Watson, [D-]California. [Rep.] Lynn Woolsey, [D-]California.
These are the Nazis of today. They are far more dangerous than the clownish neo-Nazis that march with swastikas, because these National Socialists mean business, and these National Socialists are congressmen, and these National Socialists are working a bill for the last two years that will endanger your freedom of speech, that in essence is the final solution for conservatives on talk radio who they declare are a threat to national security.
It's called the Media Ownership Reform Act, or MORA. They say that they wanted to guarantee fairness in broadcasting. What they really mean is they've lost in the world of ideas. What they mean is the people hate their guts. What they mean is their ideas are out of step with the average American. What they mean is to make certain through power that they assert their power. What they mean is they are the National Socialists of today.
If you are a liberal in any of these districts, you have an obligation to send an immediate email to them telling them how ashamed you are of them that they would try to take us off the radio because they cannot compete with us.
Now, I invited Congressman Maurice Hinchey on this show to defend his attempt to legislate me out of business. That cowardly worm, that cowardly worm from New York refused to come on this show. The cowardly worm instead wants to worm his way through the back corridors of Congress.
Now, I want to refer to something that was -- that I quoted in The Enemy Within [WND Books/Thomas Nelson, 2004] that was written thousands of years ago about the enemy within. And I will quote it momentarily. But I want you to understand the danger you are in. Oh, today you may say, "Who needs you? Who wants you, Savage? I don't like you, I don't like Limbaugh, I don't like any of the others. I'm glad to see them trying to legislate you out of business and calling you a threat to national security." I warn you that tomorrow, it could be your favorite liberal who is declared a national -- a threat to national security, who could be thrown off the air. But worse, they could move to put us in prison simply for expressing our viewpoint.
And what's amazing, even more amazing to me, is that these worms, these National Socialists like Hinchey, like DeFazio, like Alcee Hastings -- these neo-Nazis of our time don't have the guts to take on Osama bin Laden, don't have the guts to take on the Muslim radicals in this country, don't have the guts to take on those who are actually killing people and killing our soldiers in Iraq. Instead, these worm-like congresswomen and congressmen instead spend all of their waking hours trying to take down their political opposition.
I'm going to make a commitment to you on this show: if this bill, H.R. 3302, ever gets passed, and I am declared a national enemy or a threat to national security, I will lead 10 million people on Washington. Not one million men, I'll lead 10 million people, I'll close Washington down. I'll bring every truck driver in the East Coast to Washington. I'll bring tanker trucks into Washington. I will shut that city down. You're not gonna shut me off, you're not gonna shut the people's voice off, we're gonna shut you off if you keep this up.
The man behind it all is George Soros. He's a billionaire centipede. He is funding these little men. He is definitely behind it as sure as I am sitting here. This is the man who is the enemy of the freedom of speech. I'm warning you.
Now I've said all I want to say. I'm going to ask you to simply go onto my website and download it and look at it yourself. And you'll see H.R. 3302, the list of National Socialists who are sponsoring the so-called Media Ownership Reform Act. The chief prostitute is this guy I've never heard of named Hinchey, who doesn't have the guts to stand up to me and argue with me and tell me why he declares me to be a threat to national security. He wouldn't come on the show.
From the May 3 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: Now what do you want to talk about? Any topic is fair game. I don't know what you want to talk -- oh, McGiven, McGurvey, McGreevey, Mc -- McGreedy. Governor Jim McGreedy is going to become an Episcopalian priest. How could this be going on in my country? How is this possible?
How could a governor who embarrassed the governorship, his children, and everybody around him by coming out and saying he's a gay American -- how could this man have the audacity to say he's enrolled in an Episcopal seminary in New York City? He's a lapsed Catholic, and he's entering a three-year master of divinity program at the -- at this -- could you play "Where the Boys Are" for me? I need a break. Just play "Where the Boys Are," just for him.
[song: "Where the Boys Are"]
You know, there's probably a good reason for McGreevey to enroll in the -- the seminary. And that is, it will reduce his cruising carbon footprint, when you think about it. Think of how much gas he must have spent cruising those highways and byways of New Jersey. And now when he's inside the seminary, just think about it: The cruising carbon footprint is reduced to near zero.
I think it's funny. If you don't, you know what? I'd like to give you a hand signal -- that's what I'd like to give you. I'd like to give you a hand signal if I could if you don't like it.
Go ahead; go report me to George Soros. He's the new Obersturmführer of the New World Order. Oberstürmfuhrer George Soros. Sieg Heil, Georgie.
fairness doctrine? egad, how unfair. twenty three hours a day of right wing talk is perfectly reasonable.
To which the last hour shall be spent spending 50 times more on Democratic sex scandals, praising John McCain, and ignoring the reasons why we went to war.
Listen...I have no problem with MMFA doing what it does as a private organization.
However, getting the government involved to force talk-show hosts to bring "The Other Side" on their show is over the line.
The fairness doctrine in essence would make it impossible for anyone to have a political talk-show, left or right. If someone said, "I am pro-america," the plain language of the statue seems to mean that you would have to have someone on the show who says "I hate America."
If you have someone who says I'm against teaching children to blow themselves up in a shopping mall, you'd need to bring someone on who thinks the opposite.
That's unrealistic and would end these types of shows as we know it.
I understand that you liberals tried with Air America, and failed, but the second you start getting the government to force us what to listen to your progressive bull crap, you're all going to unleash a terrible backlash.
statute*
First of all, I think you're overstating the comparison. I don't think we're going to have the "Blow Up Shopping Malls ... Or Don't With Chuck And Barry" show. They're not going to force people to take up a cause they don't believe in.
However, if you call someone, say, "An islamofascist," then a member of the Muslim Community can be given "equal time" to address this issue without being badgered or bullied as radio hosts have been known to do (such as by simply cutting their mic or dropping their call). If you call someone a "nazi," that person would get their chance to respond to said claim.
If I'm not mistaken, that's the crux of the Fairness Doctrine.
However, since many of the shows on the air (and I'm not solely pointing fingers at the Right on this, though there seems to be a preponderance there) are simply saying "hate this group. eradicate this group. things get better," I don't see where instituting a show that says "Hey, those guys look pretty bad, but let's see where they're actually coming from," is all that bad of an idea.
On the other hand, when you have 2-3 hours of a single person spewing opinion with ornaments of fact hanging from the lowest branches, and then you multiply that by, say, 5 (no need for 24 hours because of rebroadcasting), why would any person other then that person's demographic bother listening? Where is the alternate opinion? Surely there must be one ... but because it doesn't make a dime, no one defends and no one debunks. And these people continue to do their schtick.
You should have to turn a buck in order to have your opinion aired on public airwaves without getting shouted down, cut off or otherwise interfered with, especially when your good name is being trampled, either as an individual or as a group.
Plus, if the media really is "liberal," wouldn't this mean a tremendous upswing in conservative journalism?
Then get your own show, develop an audience, and present both sides on your show. Stop trying to legislate your idea.
BTW: What if you say on your radio show that we should have tolerace of people of all races, and people from the KKK are brainwashed people. Does that mean you should be forced to talk to a KKK member on your show??
actually ed shultz has been showing some ratings in certain areas and he has trouble getting on the radio. seems like broadcasters would want someone like him. especially when some of the righty talkers have fractional ratings. i know rushbo has big ratings but he's on 600 stations. i was driving through mississippi a couple years ago and all i heard on a.m. was farm reports, gospel and rush on two different stations in the same area.
Actually, I'd welcome the possiblity to debate a member of the KKK should I espouse this view. I would love to have him rationalize what he does in his own words, and then I'd have something to pick at when I speak again. I couldn't be accused of being uninformed or misinformed.
And for the record, I had a typo - you "shouldn't" have to turn a buck.
Okay, but should the Gov't force you to do that?? No!!
Didn't the liberals used to like John McCain? BTW, where's Solon?
How do you get from a fairness doctrine to declaring a broadcaster a threat to national security? HR 3302 might be very interesting. Probably not that detailed though, I would think. Ah well, Take it to them Maurice!
Don't you know? Forcing them to allow the victim to give his side of the story to their slander is suppression of free speach. They honestly believe they have a right to say whatever they want about anyone without fear of response. They can't handle the truth!
BTW, I don't think Savage will ever get 10 million followers to join him. Granted, last year they sold 10 million white sheets in the red states and only 100 mattresses, but they are sooooo hard to keep clean...
Snoop, Savage has nothing to do with the KKK. Stop defaming him. Evidently, it's okay to slander conservatives, yet you whine about slandering liberals.
Oh michaelsavage.com over 11Million people want him to run for President.
Please, stop making me laugh! I must have cast 500 Pro-Bowl votes on NFL.com for Carson Palmer.
Website vote tabulation is not a one man one vote affair.
speech, not speach
Hinchey said that they're a threat to national security. That's why.
"Nazi. Nazi. Nazi."
There. That proves it. I can do Savage's job.
I've got three dogs that spread dog poop all over my back yard. THEY can do Savage's job, too!
And, I'll bet somebody else has to come over to clean it up! Just like here, somebody else has to clean up the mess. I never see liberals doing their own job, always expecting someone else to do it for them.
Right. Liberals never clean up messes. Liberals didn't clean up the Jim Crow mess, or the women's suffrage mess, or the child labor mess and on and on. Whatever, my friend.
We're gonna clean up the media monopoly mess just like we cleaned up industry mess with anti-trust laws.
Savage actually has no problem with fixing the mess of media monopolies. However, he's rightfully against the Fairness Doctrine. Take the Fairness Doctrine out of this bill, and Savage may support it.
Ya know what? Up to now it's just been us defending why the "fairness doctrine" is good. I have yet to see anything from a reich winger proving why giving someone a platform to present an alternate viewpoint is wrong. I've seen crap like "where does it end?" or "who do we deny?" but the doctrine was, and is, dedicated to the idea that if you say something about anyone, they get a chance to defend themselves. I wanna see a valid argument why that exact definition will put your fave nazi invokers into a concentration camp.
Bring it...
There is absolutely nothing wrong with providing an alternate platform, as long as the government is uninvolved. As for the "crap" on where does it end, and who do we deny, I have yet to see a proponent of the FD offer up any workable or plausible implementation of how this doctrine is fair to all viewpoints, have you?
Snoop, a free market should decide who gets to have a radio show. That's the argument.
That would be wonderful - where is this free market of which you speak? Clear Channel headquarters?
Who is this free market of which you speak? I keep hearing his name but I have never seen a picture or read a quote of his.
He must be one swell and equinimical dude if you are willing to let him make decisions for you and me. I'll bet he is able to facilitate near perfect and equal access to his domain regardless of one's financial security or education. I bet if a guy like me, who works really hard but doesn't make much money, asked for a loan so I could go play a business match on his field he would never deny me access.
You love him so much, he must be more than fair, beyond compassionate and rigorously self disciplined. He most certainly would never slip poison in your water and tell you it's your fault for not knowing better his ways. He would never poison you and sue you for slander. He would never succomb to greed and put his financial interests ahead of the health of someone like, well, all of us.
I'm sure he submits himself to the rules of fair play and justice, he just has to. I know this because so many people place him higher than that venerable old man whom I know and love. Maybe you've heard of him? His name is democracy.
How many times can you repeat "National Socialist"in one bug eyed rant Mikey?BTW,I love this effort among the far right to somehow tie the Nazis to the Left.Of course this is utter nonsense.Hitler despised Liberals,and hated Communists.He was a "Nationalist" first and foremost,although he did pilfer ideas from across the political spectrum.
Yeah, when did liberals stop becoming communists in their eyes? We must have flip flopped and didn't even know it.
Well, you know how it is, Snoopy--Commie just doesn't have that ol' scare-the-bejeezus flair anymore, so they switched to Nazi. If they ever thought that calling us Druids would scare the great unwashed into loathing us, then Druids we'd all be. That's the nice thing about devil-terms--they're cheap and you don't have to think all that hard to come up with them!
Good point. It's freaking hysterical how, in the eyes of conservative pundits, liberals can simultaneously occupy both extremes of the political spectrum. Something tells me that most conservative pundits (Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, Coulter) would consider themselves to be right smack in the center of the political spectrum, and liberals occupy all the space outside the center axis.
Seriously, this must be the 10th time in the past month that some conservative crackpot has referred to someone or something on the left as "Nazi." It must be a systematic effort to re-write history, this time casting the Nazi's as leftists (while anyone with half a brain knows that the Nazis and other Fascist regimes were on the extreme right, a la Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, Coulter, etc.). Since Nazism is probably the most evil and most recognizeable extreme political movement in recent memory, it makes sense that the right would try to avoid this association.
You have to wonder, though, when consumers of conservative media will begin to realize the extent to which their intelligence is being insulted on a daily basis? Whether I share a person's political views or not, the minute I feel I'm being talked down to, I'm changing the channel. But not conservatives. They must be sitting there, thinking, "Wow. There are Nazis among the American left? Let's see where he's going with this."
You nailed it Nick
Only an idiot with no sense of history would lend any credence to that rant. Phoney-ass patriotism is the tactic the German nazis used along with maniacal rants about the "enemy within" - the left.
For modern day nazis in everything but name to accuse others of naziism is beyond ironic and cynical - proof that his audience is composed of ignorant idiots or they would laugh him off the air.
I have been telling people for some time that they need to listen to Savage. As his rants go, this is not at all unusual. I haven't heard him specifically advocate violence - he goes right to the edge. If you hear him though, you find that he riles up his listerers to the point that killing a random liberal or three seems the reasonable and patriotic thing to do. If you think I exaggerate - just listen. For your safety and that of your kids, listen.
Savage has nothing in common with nazis. Period.
Nothing in common, huh? I suppose when it comes to spewing anti-left propaganda, the Nazis and Savage are worlds apart.
Wow. You would think a "Period" as emphatic as the one you employed would pretty much end the line of conversation right there, yet, here I am. Of course I am not as foolish to think that I can produce an argument that is beyond rebuttal, so I think just the standard punctuation will suffice.
Savage doesn't "spew propaganda." He speaks the truth.
Unless he speaks pure fact with no hyperbole, he is not simply "speaking truth." There's no problem with that, but then you have to acknowledge that he is embellishing, which, while adding flavor, can also lead to half-truths and outright lies.
You can argue that he "speaks truth," but the facts do not bear you out when it comes to Dr. Wiener's tirades.
Weiner, not Wiener.
He is used to right wing radio where assertion is fact.
It walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...
Savage has the same worldview and rhetorical attitude as the nazis. Is he a party member? Doesn't matter - he speaks for them.
How is his view similar to the Nazis?
If you ask this question, you are too ignorant to comprehend the answer.
That's a copout, Un.
It's no copout. Sometimes one just doesn't have the patience to try to re-educate the misinformed. One could easily go through the transcripts of Savage Nation and find anti-left propaganda eerily similar to that of the Nazi's. However, most people with a moderate unerstanding of both Savage and the Nazi party do not have to put themselves through that ordeal.
I totally disagree. I see no similarity between Savage and the Nazi Party.
You're right. If the Nazis were "Socialists" because of their name, then East Germany was a thriving Democracy because they had the word "Democratic" in their name. And that wonderful Chinese "Republic" is probably a great place for Republicans, too. (Actually, it might just be. Their government wants to remove the rights of its citizens, too. They're made for each other.)
See? It's easy.
I said it before, I'll say it again ... the last thing these people should be doing is bringing up Nazi's. Especially considering similarities with their positions on many, many issues.
Savage is not similar to nazis on any issue.
No - every issue.
Such as?
Fear of homosexuals destroying his culture, fear of immigrants destroying his culture, fear of liberals destroying his culture, fear of diversity destroying his culture, fear of muslims destroying his culture fear, fear, fear, fear!
Need a little more? He inspires blindly loyal followers (like you for example) and tells them the world would be just right if things were done his way. He's a violent utopian, just like Hitler.
Savage is against illegal aliens, not immigrants in general. Secondly, I don't remember Hitler being against Islamofascists. He was against Jews. Many Muslims love Hitler. Savage is the anti-Hitler on that issue.
I'm sorry, but having a "fear of liberals" isn't enough to be considered a Nazi. I'm against liberals, and I'm not a Nazi. Being against the homosexual agenda doesn't make one a Nazi either. Many people are against homosexuality based on their religious beliefs and not a love of Hitler. Savage certainly isn't for gassing homosexuals either.
Stalin enacted universal healthcare in Russia. Does that mean that everyone who supports universal healthcare is a Stalinist, according to your logic?
Just because anti-gay Christians do not embrace Hitler doesn't mean that their ideology is any different than the Nazi view of homosexuality.
So if you support universal healthcare, your ideology is no different than Stalin's.
Savage is violent? I've never heard him tell listeners to engage in violent protests.
His language is utterly violent. He wouldn't mind killing as many non-descript Muslims as possible.
Further, he calls liberals traitors. The penalty for treason is hanging, ergo liberals should die.
Just like Hitler, he has contempt for liberals.
I think that Savage is for killing terrorists, not all Muslims. Again, Savage is nothing like Hitler, despite some agreement on issues. Hitler was for euthanasia. Does that mean that liberals who support euthanasia are Hitlerites? Hitler was also for gun control.
Savage is against putting diversity ahead of merit. Savage was screwed out of professorships because of promoting "diversity."
You're confusing diversity with something else. Diversity is about tolerance of those who are different from the majority, it has nothing to do with merit.
And yes he opposes diversity within our culture, he wants a homogeneous culture that has a common language, religion and value system.
Savage has never said that everyone in America should follow one religion. Never. In fact, Savage isn't even a Christian.
Of course, everyone in America should speak the same language. On that issue, diversity is wrong. If you come to America, you should assimilate into our culture. Savage is 100% right.
As far as tolerance goes, I think that Savage is quite tolerant. He is against organizations like the KKK and neo-Nazis. He doesn't care about what color people are. His problem is with the liberal ideology. He's no different than liberals who bash conservatives. That doesn't make him intolerant. He tolerates liberals just fine. He's never called for violence against liberals.
Liberals don't want one value system? That is, a liberal value system that rejects traditional values?
Liberals and Conservatives both have traditional values, our respective values simply stem from a different world view.
In general, conservatives hold a strict father values system. One that values discipline and authority.
Liberals on the other hand, in general, have a nurturant parent values system. One that values empathy and compassion.
See, both are traditional but diverse in their origin and evolution. ; )
Okay, but don't liberals want a society that rejects conservative values? My point is that each side only wants its own values held up by society.
Reject conservative values? No. Keep them. Reject conservative government? Yes, mostly.
Dr. Weiner heal thyself. Your paranoia an delusions of grandeur are growing exponentially. Nazis are right wingers you idiot. Is George Soros a right winger. No! Then ipso facto he cannot be a Nazi. How much simpler can it be. You, on the other hand... ehh, pretty much are a fascist.
See, they cannot see themselves as fascist... because to them, fascists are evil and they are not. Thats the tragedy of binary thought. Conservatives, neocons, rightwing nuts = good; democrats, liberals, communists = bad (so therefore, according to rightwing nutso logic, they are all the same).
Soon we'll be Soroleftcommislamonazifacisiberal moonbats. eh?
Nazi: short for National Socialist. What part of this goes over your head, genius?
Soros is a socialist.
Savage is right again.
That's funny. Hitler's idea of socialism was everybody working for - and looking like - him. Somehow, the vision of all the liberals here dreaming of some day looking the same and working for some leader can't exist outside the atmosphere of Weinerworld.
If by savageweiner being right again you mean he's as accurate as ever, I'd have to agree.
Socialists want everybody thinking like they do. That's why a minister who preaches against homosexuality can be arrested in socialist, "freedom loving" countries.
Uhuh - and we know Savage is completely tolerant of views other than his own.
Savage has never said that a person who agrees with homosexuality should be arrested.
How wonderful!
Yeah, why waste the money on keeping them alive? Especially those transgender folks, those nutjobs get what they have coming, they're sickos.
Savage never said that it was right for anyone to murder a transgendered person.
He just said that that particular transgender person and transgender people in general are sick. He didn't say the murderers were sick, he didn't defend the victim. To compassionate people that attitude of blame the victim is very nearly aligned with affirmation of murder.
Savage said that the murderer should get the death penalty.
"Socialists want everybody thinking like they do. That's why a minister who preaches against homosexuality can be arrested in socialist, "freedom loving" countries."
I normally will reply to comments that veer off-topic, or ignore the situational context, or even attempt to redefine words. Yours, however, was overwhelming in it's economy of words when combining all of those elements into one incoherent tourettes fit of delusional expectoration.
Congratulations on setting the bar a notch lower than even I can limbo.
"Nazi: short for National Socialist. What part of this goes over your head, genius?"
-----
German Democratic Republic. What part of that makes your statement pure crap, polar-opposite-of-genius? (Answer: all of it)
GDR? Red herring's may be the norm for you, but don't expect me to play along.
Do better than that and maybe I'll get back to you.
Oh, poo.
You've let checkers down, and now he won't grace us intellectual inferiors with his wisdom, ETRW.
We're hopelessly ignant.
Who elected you head idiot?
In response to CHECKER's comment on socialism, here's an awesome reply to a post similar to CHECKER's the other day. It's by VYSOTSKY, a regular on MMFA posts, and someone who always seems to have something intelligent to add to whatever is being discussed.
Come one, reichwingers?!? Liberals are the ones trying to turn America into a SOCIALIST STATE. BTW...Hitler was a socialist.
Hi Beanz,
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Equating Hitler's socialism with American liberal politics makes about as much sense as equating neoliberalism, libertarianism, and liberalism because they share an etymological root. Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party, but the term "National Socialist" referred to a oneness between the nation-state, society, and the German people. Hitler didn't even like that title; he wanted the party to be called the "Social Revolutionary Party". The Nazis hated Bolshevism, Marxism, and most other forms of socialism because they deemed them to be the product of Jewish thinkers. The Nazis were adamantly anti-communist; they were against economic and political liberalism; and they rose to power in opposition to German socialists.
Peace.
Actually, Dr. Weiner needs to be locked in a rubber room - for his protection as well as ours.
Actually Nazis banned guns. Therefore, they were left wingers. Hitler was also an animal rights activist, an environmentalist whacko, and a vegetarian. Soros is a Nazi left winger. Savage is a freedom loving right wing patriot. Savage is like Sir Winston Churchill, not Adolf Hitler.
If you knew the slightest history, you would know that "left wing nazi" is an oxymoron. The concentration camps were full of leftists. People like Savage were justifying those who put them there.
Jews are automatically leftists? Christians are leftists? Hitler executed millions of Christians too. Hitler believed that Christianity was an extension of Judaism and thus bad. Hitler wouldn't be best buddies with the modern Christian right, contrary to what liberals claim today.
Now, just what is an Obersturmführer?
"An SA-Obersturmführer was typically a junior company commander in charge of between fifty to 100 soldiers. Within the SS, the rank of Obersturmführer carried a wider range of occupations from staff aide, Gestapo officer, Concentration Camp supervisor, and Waffen-SS Platoon Commander to name but a few. Within both the SS and SA, the rank of Obersturmführer was considered the equivalent of an Oberleutnant in the German Wehrmacht."
So Soros is a leutenant in charge of 50 to 100 followers. As much as this clown fears him, shouldn't he be calling Soros Reichsführer-SS?
Concentration camp supervisor? I see a potential career change for the weinersavage. Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, SanFrancisco. Fire up the ovens, boys, we've got the homomafia right where we want them this time.
I don't think there IS a final solution for something as vile as a Weinersavage. Just when you think you've eliminated it, out of the slime and sludge it returns, spreading it's evil message and giving a woody to brain-dead conservative everywhere.
"I will lead 10 million people on Washington" and shut the city down."
Wow! Ten million is a lot of people... seems kinda high to me. But since Michael Savage Brought up the subject of Nazi Germany, he might recall that it was led by a paranoid man afflicted with delusions of grandeur. Perhaps Savage is a little too close to the subject to recognize the similarities between himself and that famous Nazi ranter of intolerance.
Weiner has delusions of adequacy.
Michael Savage is America's Friend. Good Liberals, please don't remove him from our radios. He is the secular chaplain of our airwaves. He is healing the wounded American Right (AFTER having shown a light on the left.)---those lost souls, many wracked with guilt, who can't bear to admit to themselves the damage they have inflicted on their country with blind support of a corrupt and generally unethical party. He doesn't confront them directly with charges of gross negligence in their roles as deciders. Deciders of who represents us at both legislative and executive levels. Although he takes on-air confessions he doesn't ask for them. If he were to do so, he'd lose them. He would lose their trust and eventually lose them as listeners. He has to raise the heat under the pot slowly or many will hop out. But he must not bore them either. In so doing he draws criticism from both the Lefts' and Rights' extremists--the enemies within--for the very difficult task he has taken onto himself. Michael Savage absorbs the heat so we all may have a future. He explains to them how they can understand the world in such a way that they can still feel good about themselves---but not support a party which is at odds with their own best self interests. Doctor Savage has already diagnosed the pathologies of America which are not GOP based. In so doing he established credibility with his Republican audience. If ever, it will only be in retrospect when most will see that this modern day Thomas Payne was misunderstood, that he was indeed a profile in courage. The true heroes in war very often don't make it home. In the war on ignorance, Savage probably will not even get credit for having served. Nothing less than an America that is still America is at stake. His reward will come in the form of a future America which will better understand itself and the real world, with Gods' help and the good will of his listenership.
"Good Liberals, please don't remove him from our radios."
You assume that liberals have the power to remove Michael Savage by simply picking up the phone and calling his boss. Michael Savage has the right to say the crazy things he does but I also have the right to refuse to patronize any sponsors of his show. If that somehow results in Savage's professional demise, then that's his own doing, and his own problem, not mine. Radio nut cases are like the poor... they will always be with us. If Savage ever goes there'll be another one like him to take his place.
Yes, you have the right to protest anything Savage says with your consumer dollars. Why would you want to remove that right from yourself by forcing information onto our airways that the average consumer does not want.
If you keep pushing enough, you're just going to put Savage on the web where he'll be able to make even more of an impact.
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/
He's already on the web.
He's on the web in everything but voice. If he were to pull a Howard Stern and move to the web it could make things interesting.
Howard Stern broadcasts on the web?
No wonder no one's heard of him since he took off to Sirius.
Michael Savage is America's Friend.
Errr ... OK ... because someone who relegates his enemies to "Nazi" status, advocates killing a million people as an example, and can't contain his irrational hatred of the homosexual community, going so far as to invent incredible conspiracies in their name to justify his paranoia ... is a "friend."
He is healing the wounded American Right (AFTER having shown a light on the left.)---those lost souls, many wracked with guilt, who can't bear to admit to themselves the damage they have inflicted on their country with blind support of a corrupt and generally unethical party. He doesn't confront them directly with charges of gross negligence in their roles as deciders. Deciders of who represents us at both legislative and executive levels. Although he takes on-air confessions he doesn't ask for them. If he were to do so, he'd lose them. He would lose their trust and eventually lose them as listeners.
So, essentially, he's pandering to people who can't admit they've made a mistake, is what you're saying. Pity the poor "American Right," because their mistakes have been so greivous, they can't possibly suffer the justified ill will of those branded as their enemies. They weren't supposed to be betrayed and left behind by those in whom they were blindly loyal. Hooray for Dr. Panderer who allows them to "confess" and realize their blind vitriol was actually only a tool used to control them.
He has to raise the heat under the pot slowly or many will hop out. But he must not bore them either. In so doing he draws criticism from both the Lefts' and Rights' extremists--the enemies within--for the very difficult task he has taken onto himself.
It must be a difficult task - pandering to the Right, giving their hatred a home, shaping it to propel him to fortune and glory, just as their former users did. Because, y'know, if he is dishonestly representing, then all he's doing is what those who betray these people did - he's using them to gain money and power. boo hoo, they're on the rebound, so let Mr. Savage create greivous enemies for them to fear and hate so he can get his piece of the pie.
Michael Savage absorbs the heat so we all may have a future.
... well, at least the non-gay, non-middle-eastern people who don't annoy him by having alternate thoughts about anything might have a future...
He explains to them how they can understand the world in such a way that they can still feel good about themselves---but not support a party which is at odds with their own best self interests.
Through unreasoning hatred of people only peripherally (at best) responsible for their plight, and a mild disdain for those who don't agree but still hurt those he (they?) doesn't like.
Doctor Savage has already diagnosed the pathologies of America which are not GOP based. In so doing he established credibility with his Republican audience. If ever, it will only be in retrospect when most will see that this modern day Thomas Payne was misunderstood, that he was indeed a profile in courage.
Thanks to you, Thomas Payne has spun in his grave so fast that he has managed to take flight and break the time barrier to fight nazi cavemen zombies in 8065 by forming the Founding Father's bones into a gigantic Power-Rangers-Style robot. At least ... that makes about as much sense as that comparison and your assertion about his having "diagnosed the pathologies of America ..."
The true heroes in war very often don't make it home. In the war on ignorance, Savage probably will not even get credit for having served.
Actually, I give him full credit for being a high-ranking and highly decorated officer on the "Ignorance" side. It's hard to rise so quickly for a mic jockey who panders to whomever will offer him the most money and fame (according to you) ... at least I imagine it would be.
Nothing less than an America that is still America is at stake. His reward will come in the form of a future America which will better understand itself and the real world, with Gods' help and the good will of his listenership.
Well, I agree that he will help America be better by clearly identifying the crazy paranoia that keeps us divided, squarely against the forces of unity and righteousness, standing upon the grounds of hatred and self-righteousness.
Lesse here... if declared a "national enemy or a threat to national security," Weiner will prove them wrong by shutting down an entire city by force? Isn't that considered treason? Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, I suppose.
Yeah, just lik Mussollini did to Rome...
Marching on Washington is treason? So Martin Luther King committed treason?
The Savage Weiner continues in his holy crusade to slam into rock bottom at better than 200 MPH. It really is fascinating... in a ghoulish sort of way... to watch this sad old closet case's decent into a drooling, feces-flinging sort of delusionality. His perceived enemies become ever more evil in his mind, & their conspiracies more insidious. His rants are managing to make less & less sense as he ratchets up the spittle-laced rhetoric.
He appears just about ready for his own show at Faux News.
Don't underestimate his ability to rabble-rouse
This bastard is dangerous! Listen to him a few times and you will see that it is a serious mistake to underestimate his ability to incite violence. He makes Limbaugh and the others seem like liberal lovers of democracy by comparison.
I am soooo glad to see that psycho SOB getting the attention he deserves from whom it is deserved.
Take it easy. Mikey just tells it like it is. So he goes over the top sometimes to make his point: BIG DEAL.
What are you so afraid of?
Mikey tells it like it is in his own head.
Those thoughts have no meaning in the real physical world.
Oh, I see - just a little hyperbole. Hitler and and his minions didn't get far with that kind of rhetoric - did they? Allowing, rather mandating, that the public airwaves which I own also represent my point of view is somehow evil.
Savage is right in this - if balance returns to the public airwaves, pschopaths like him won't last long. It's no accident that the first thing revolutionary movements or repressive governments do is take control of the airwaves. Putin has done it in Russia, the nazis did it in Germany. The pretense that allowing the opinion of about half the country to be represented on my airwaves is somehow an attack on freedom of speech is an example of issue framing breathtaking in it's Orwellian simplicity.
Hitler relied on persecution (as defined by himself) to build sympathy and anger as does Savage. There are plenty of valid comparisons to the nazis here - listen to Savage and you can see exactly how they worked.
<>How the hell did you jump to HITLER? Leave it alone already. If you can't post a decent response without using terroble examples, give it up .
That would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
Just for the historically challenged like yourself:
Hitler shared Savage's hatred of leftests, intellectuals, homosexuals and opposing views in the media.
And you're implying that he would gas them if he had the chance? Don't be an idiot. (sorry, too late)
I'm sorry, didn't Savage invite the Nazi comparisons in with his tirade? Why are you asking how one jumps to Hitler when someone who has a monolithic view of their own infailibility uses fear and paranoia against groups of people to gain power?
It's very simple everybody. When a liberal or progressive is allowed to appear on TV commentary at all, conservatives think that is already unfair at that point.
That is the reason that whenever progressives appear on TV they feel that they must not be allowed to say more than ten words before they get interrupted. The audience must not be allowed to fully hear what these people have to say.
Both sides say the same thing. Boo Hoo. Right wing talk radio works because it's good. Hinchey and his ilk are desperate to see it disappear, so they deserve every thing Mike can dish out to them.
Take it easy on them Mikey: they're scared of you.
"Hinchey and his ilk are desperate to see it disappear"
-----
Have you ever taken your mind-reading act on the road? No? There's a reason. You're not good at it.
Smart people in Germany were scared of Hitler too. I'll admit it - demagogues like Savage scare hell out of me - especially on the public airwaves. The fact that he has an audience for that muck scares me even more. I repeat, any of you here who haven't heard his inflammatory rhetoric might assume that MMA is dealing with the worst of it here. Listen for yourself!
Skip, not true. No conservative protested Air America. We let the libs have their chance, and they failed.
What are you talking about?
I'm listening to Air America on iTunes right now. They have not failed, they had poor management at the start but now they have honchos who care about the progressive message and AA is making inroads.
Yeah - "The truth has a well known liberal bias."
Savage speaks the truth. No liberal bias there.
Oh, THANK YOU MMFA!
Also for correcting my spelling of the Representative's name: despite posting the correct link dozens of times, and even getting the details correct in other regards, I have (in the past) persistently inserted an extraneous "L" into Hinchey.
(Again, the disclaimer: I am not an advocate of the Fairness Doctrine, due to inflexibilty and subjective enforcement; I do support, and wish for others to support instead, reductions of maximum reach by a single entity, and maximum concentration in any single market, far beyond those applied in MORA. Enough forced divestiture will so diversify the marketplace, to obviate most of the Fairness Doctrine; and if we discover that diversity is not yet sufficient to ensure a true marketplace of ideas, reduce those maximums further!)
Below the pile of rhetoric that Dr. Savage has piled on there actually is a point. Currently free markets decide what type of entertainment and information that we consume. If there wasn't a market for Savage then he wouldn't be on the air.
Why is the opposing opinion to Dr. Savage unable to create their own radio show to counter his views on an opposing station? The short answer is that he consumer does not want to consume enough of the opposing information to support a rival viewpoint. Air America failed because the average consumer did not want to partake in their brand of information.
Forcing me, the consumer, to listen to information that I do not want to hear intermingled with what I do want to hear is wrong. That's like forcing a hamburger into my salad, or fruit into my hot fudge sundae. If the average consumer wanted a show that contained opposing opinions to Dr. Savage, then it would be on the air.
I think Media Matters is actually perpetuating Savage by giving him issues to rally the common man against. His assessments of the bill were base, but in actuality I see the bill as an affront to my rights as a consumer.
I want the power of my dollar to control what I hear on the radio. I want it to matter whether I listen or not to the shows aired there. If Media Matters and others take this right away from me, how can I have real choice in what I consume? Perhaps Savage was correct in describing this movement against my rights as socialistic. I want a capitialistic choice. I want to consume the best information and opinions available. I don't want to wait in the bread line for the information the government has deamed I should hear.
This bill really is scary when you think about it.
That was one hell of a post!! And a change for the better around these parts.
<>Thanks. There are probably many people here who support the free markets of information who just choose to remain silent. Savage may be extreme, but his base point seems to be valid.
Do you mean the "valid" point about him being declared a "threat to National Security?" The "valid" point about "mimicking the exact rhetoric of the National Socialist Party of Germany in the 1930s?" The "valid" point about a "final solution?"
Savage's point is full of words chosen specifically to inflame passions without having the substance or proof to back it up. Are you honestly trying to say that there is any equivalency between executing an entire culture / race of people (the Jews) with trying to encourage diversity and fairness in broadcasting? Are you honestly trying to say that Michael Savage is on some sort of list which will enable federal law enforcement to take him away to Gitmo? Are you honestly trying to say that ANYONE is mimicking the exact rhetoric of the National Socialist Party of Germany in the 1930s other than a lone little man whose struggle (his "kampf") wants to galvanize a nation with words of hate?
Because that last one ... you'd be right. And his name is Savage.
I was referring to the point that the fairness doctrine stifles the free markets and can be likened to socialism.
Well, then. What you are saying is you had no point at all.
Actually Mutual has a great point.
The point is that people like Hinchey (and you) want to shut Mike up. Meanwhile the free market has spoken, but apparently you can't deal with it.
Checkers, if you are just going to shout "I agree" like Steve Carell screaming "I love lamp" just to be part of the discussion ... please just forgo lengthening the thread. On the other hand, if you have some information or an actual well-thought out opinion that doesn't depend on name-calling, please share.
If you don't like my posts, don't read them.(I ain't changin' for NOBODY) As for name-calling, I dish it out when it's posted to me. There is one well-known (to me) culprit in here who does it ALL THE TIME.
And of course, the answer to that is to simply act just as childish as that person. Look, if you won't do it to help me and the other people out who are interested in honest discussion, do it for yourself. Show some self-respect and try to rise above the name calling, huh? All you're doing by responding in kind is proving that they SHOULD call you names because you WON'T ignore it. If you feel you have to respond, respond intelligently with facts and by staying on point. Come on, rise to the challenge! If you feel you're right, don't sink to their level ...
"I was referring to the point that the fairness doctrine stifles the free markets and can be likened to socialism." mutualdis
How does throwing gates wide open to include everyone stifle anyone? Anyway, no such thing as a free market. If the market were truly free my right to toke up would not be stifled. Markets are, or at least should be, regulated to protect consumers from harmful products and practices. Fairness in the market is a fundamental question of morality and right now the market is anything but fair. From corporate welfare to income inequity for women and minorities it's obvious this market needs a soul transfusion.
You talk about the power of your dollar. Pishaw, screw privatization it's exclusionary and is strictly a pay to play transaction. Give me the power of the people. Give me that grand old institution of democracy, it's all inclusive and the only fee for admission is citizenship.
"Forcing me, the consumer, to listen to information that I do not want to hear"...
Totally explains why everyone thinks you reichy's are equivelant to a 5 year old. Y'all may as well put your hands over your ears and go LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!
Your poor use of rhetoric will not make up for your lack of argument. The way this works is I make a point, you make a counter point, and we continue till either one of us gets exhausted and quits, or we come to some sort of consensus. Ad hominem attacks are a waste of my time and a waste of yours to have to type.
If I want to consume a specific brand of information my consumer dollars will make that happen. Artificially restructuring the way in which information is disseminated in this country takes away my choices as a consumer. If I want to watch PBS then I will. If I want to seek out opinions that differ from mine then I'll visit partisan websites like Media Matters or Rushlimbaugh.com.
Keep your laws off my brain... or something witty here...
More cheese with that whine? My counter point was clear, you not wanting to hear facts that conflict with your opinion. I'm actually wasting my time responding to you because you made it clear up front that you don't want to hear an opposing opinion. You saying you will debate after an opening like that is the real ad hominum here.
I made it clear that I want to decide what opinions I want to hear with my consumer dollar. If I had no interest in opposing opinions then why would I be on this website? Why would I even be engaging you in conversation?
Condescension is never a substitute for a valid point. I am not sure what framework in your childhood formed such a narcissistic personality but I would implore you to separate the meat from the potatoes and attempt to make some sort of argument here.
If I am a waste of your time, then so is Michael Savage as well as this entire issue.
Those of us against the fairness act are not against the existence of opposing opinion. Rather, we are for the free market of ideas. We believe that the best and most consumable ideas will be those available in a free market society. We believe that the multitude of media choices that we currently have give ample opportunity to opposing opinion, and that any artificial manipulation of this free market of ideas stifles the ability of the consumer to make their own choices.
Furthermore, we feel that those for MORA and other such laws are the true opponents of freedom of speech. We believe that they are using such laws to artificially control consumer opinion without consumer consent.
If you are finding my posts condescending it is because you are not being straightforward about the issue. The free market of ideas is different from the issue of unanswered slander or misrepresentation of one's position. I wouldn't argue against MORA, I will argue that it doesn't solve the problem I am continually referring to. You have yet to prove how giving someone the chance to defend themselves to the same audience stifles free speech, your only supporting argument appears to be you don't want to be forced to hear the persons defend themselves. The only logic I can gather from that is that you prefer to maintain your opinion when it suits your needs. Show me why it is stifling free speech, I'm listening...
The "free market of ideas" has nothing to do with the dominance of the airwaves by the right wing. Media consolidation has put all or nearly all of the outlets in the control of multibillion dollar fascist corporations.
This was the restructuring. Radio was doing just fine before Reagan did away with the fairness doctrine and the FCC allowed the massive consolidation of all broadcast and print media.
The big lie that there are no liberals on the radio because no one wants to listen to them is just that - a big lie, justification for their nearly complete exclusion from the airwaves.
It is a fact that media can build and shape public opinion. The miracle is that there are any of us liberals left at all. The approve/disapprove ratings of the current usurper in the White House is evidence that there is room for more than the wingnut point of view.
"Artificially restructuring the way in which information is disseminated in this country takes away my choices as a consumer."
You'll be glad to know that only 15% of Americans believe that humans evolved without God's influence. It won't be long before evolution fails due to lack of consumer backing. And what's wrong with that?
Would that everyone's taste in media could be so well-served as (apparently) yours is. But with ownerships of media concentrated today to a handful of Corporations. That concentration was unleashed upon us by Ronnie Ray-Gun; and along with "supply-side" deficits and "Star Wars" that won't work for at least a further decade of computer advances, form his primary legacy.
Unless the increased and increasing concentrations of ownership of media creation and outlet are reversed, those whose tastes in "news" include a liberal/progressive voice are in the same plight as those who would prefer scripted drama to "Idol" or "Fiji" or "Dancing" - ignored in this so-called "marketplace". Just as Clear Channel wasted millions to deconstruct Air America; just as the same opportunities to entertain that have always existed, are now avoided; just as no outlet missed the opportunity to loop the Swiftboar liars throughout the 2004 campaign, and none undertook massive exposure or debunking of those lies and liars; the only contribution the public is allowed in the application of (largely PUBLIC) resources to Corporate Media, is as butts in the easy chair, to consume that homogenized dreck that enhances our consumption and erodes our community.
I am demographically the second-most valuable person in the US; but rare indeed is the Corporate Media offering that suits my taste; and I see even less that would serve minorities - or indeed, anyone whose brain is allowed to function beyond recollection of the last advertisement seen, to guide the next consumption undertaken.
The cure? Well, despite your objections, it lies before you; MORA. Without even needing to "force" any of that Corporate Media to do more that divest all the excess accumulation of creation/outlet that the FCC has fostered, the diversity of this crucial "marketplace" is restored, disparate opinion afforded expression, and our freedoms enhanced. The Fairness Doctrine is effectively obviated in that marketplace diversity.
Plus, we might even reap a network schedule that provides more than the current one show per week that I will watch (for sixteen weeks per year, anyway; and I confess that I sometimes add "House" to my regimen of "Bones").
*whistles and claps*
Thank you for your wonderful response.
If there is no media available to serve you, and there are a few thousand of you, then someone is clearly missing the opportunity to take your money.
My guess though, is that there exists more media for your tastes than you care to acknowledge.
Those large corporations that you fear cannot exist with your dollars. That means that if enough of you stop patronizing their advertisers then they will be forced to change the type of entertainment that they offer you
You act as if you are already defeated before you even begin to fight. You don't need the government, and we certainly don't need them telling us what information is fair and unfair. (It is very spooky to think of a bureaucracy trying to decide how balanced my information diet is.)
You can win this fight. Don't give up. Don't limit freedom of speech simply because you have yet to wield your's. Stand up, organize, make it interesting, and sell it.
Television, radio, newspapers, and many websites exist to make money. Show them that your demographic likes to buy things, and would love to buy from advertisers who advertised during something you would like to consume.
You haven't lost. You just haven't fought yet.
"Television, radio, newspapers, and many websites exist to make money. "
Explain the Washington Times.
Reagan also cut taxes and defeated the Soviet Union.
Air America went under because hardly anyone listened to them. That's a simple fact. People had the choice to listen to them but didn't. Had Air America had similar ratings to the great Dr. Savage, it would be doing well.
Reagan did not defeat the Soviet Union; it collapsed under its own corrupted weight. I'd hardly call Dr. Wiener great except in the arena of self-promotion and showmanship. If you want to argue that he's great on those grounds, by all means, I'll agree, but it goes directly to what I said earlier ...
Panderers make money. Real news and solutions don't.
His name is Weiner, not Wiener.
As far as Reagan goes, even Ted Kennedy has said that Reagan won the Cold War.
Air America is alive and doing well. I listen everyday.
And don't tell me cons don't boycott AA. They do. All across the country AA affilliates are boycotted, that's fine, I have no problem with that, just don't tell me it doesn't happen.
Christian conservative groups in Arizona bought a local radio station that broadcasted AA just to silence it. Now the good people of Phoenix have a 5th all ESPN all day station, thank God for an openly competitive market. You see this is an example of the types of political agendas that interfere with the idealized model of the market; true competition is stifled. The majority of consumers were denied access to AA because a small fringe group manipulated the market process.
We see this same market failure to meet basic human needs for adequate health care.
Take for example the Plan B emergency contraception pill. It was scheduled to hit the market as an over the counter drug. It had been researched and found safe and effective by the FDA, yet it was bitterly opposed by a small faction of a politically strong right wing movement. A movement opposed to all forms of contraception and promotes abstinence only in spite of the fact that EC has the potential to prevent thousands of abortions.
There is no such thing as a free market. It is manipulated and stifled at both ends (buyer and seller) by dishonest people. Why not make the market adhere to moral codes of conduct, codes that operate to serve the common interests of communities instead of corporations and cabals?
Because there are dishonest people out here, every other aspect of our society is bound by law. Why should we expect the people powered market to be exempt from dishonesty?
Round, the Christian right isn't against contraception. Emergency contraception is different, since it kills a fertilized egg.
Wrong, absolutely wrong.
EC or Plan B prevents an egg from being fertilized, yet the Christian right fought it on the grounds that were it OTC it would promote promiscuity among teens.
There is a drug known as RU 486 that actually terminates pregnancy. That is separate from Plan B. Get your crap straight or maybe address the fact the market is not free, it is manipilated by the politically powerful and therefore should not be relied upon to make decisions when public health issues are at stake.
Emergency contraception can prevent implantation, which is post-fertilization. Some pro lifers consider that to be an abortion; some don't. However, with some notable exceptions like the Catholic Church, most Christian churches (even fundamentalist ones) don't have a problem with birth control per se.
Reagan was right for ending the Fairness Doctrine.
Alternately, you could, like so many people crow "not listen to it." But then again, bombastic hyperbole always sells (thank you Howard Stern! Grrr!) because people will either find they have some alignment with a beyond-the-bounds-of-common-decency mouth, or they will have a lurid desire to hear what comes out next.
You're right about one thing, though. No one really wants to hear "reasoned response," "let's work together," and "let's overlook faults to try and build a better tomorrow for everyone." What they really want to hear is "If we just all focus our hatred on this one point, and push it away, everything will be magically better." They also like "You're not to blame! There's a secret force of people who really don't give a fig about you or your lives, but they're actually so powerful, they're stealing your rights and taking everything away from you, because they're actually a worldwide secret criminal society of masterminds."
It's a sad fact that most people prefer to look to others to decide, to blame, to galvanize. These people exist on both sides of the fence, and the Panderers do the worst injustice of all - they keep them benighted for their own selfish purposes. Radio shows that put responsibility on the listen, and call on him or her to do things would NOT be popular, and that's why so much of the so-called "Conservative" talk shows are popular. "Sit there, be complacent - donate some money, you don't have to go anywhere! It's not your fault! Let me martyr myself for YOU ... just don't move ... don't think ... don't decide ... follow me, let me do it all for YOU."
It's obviously your opinion that the existence of right-wing radio stifles free-thinking. Fortunately that is just your opinion, to which you have every right.
Regardless, that in no way warrants stifling the freedoms of talk radio simply because you feel their brand of information is tainted.
Instead of just turning off the radio, you and others should be turning on information that you enjoy. Many of you are educated and wealthy, and could organize to form your own loud speakers of information.
If what you believe and exhale from your lungs has merit then the masses will consume it. We have the benefit of living in a free society in which one voice can really make a difference, and maybe that voice is your's just waiting to be heard.
Use the free-markets to your advantage. Use the relatively low costs of internet radio to propogate your message and to garner more support until you are strong enough to move to the radio waves. Build your organization from the ground up and counter this evil thought machine you see on talk radio.
That is the best way to win, and the way that will last. Disseminated ideas are stronger than trying to stifle the ideas of others.
It's obviously your opinion that the existence of right-wing radio stifles free-thinking. Fortunately that is just your opinion, to which you have every right.
I never said that, at least I don't believe that I did. I did intimate that right-wing radio panders to those who don't want to think for themselves, and doesn't stimulate them to do so. That isn't stifiling, but it isn't helpful either.
Regardless, that in no way warrants stifling the freedoms of talk radio simply because you feel their brand of information is tainted.
And no one is stifiling the freedom of talk radio with the Fairness Doctrine. As you say later in your response, they have every right to go ahead and use Internet Radio technologies. And as a consumer, you have every right to listen to or not listen to the public airways as well as internet sites.
Instead of just turning off the radio, you and others should be turning on information that you enjoy. Many of you are educated and wealthy, and could organize to form your own loud speakers of information.
Information shouldn't be about "enjoyment." Information should be about "information." Opinion, drama, et cetera ... that is "enjoyment." Information is simply information, reported without bias, name-calling or false equivalencies.
If what you believe and exhale from your lungs has merit then the masses will consume it. We have the benefit of living in a free society in which one voice can really make a difference, and maybe that voice is your's just waiting to be heard.
Assuming your voice is heard by those who are willing to pay to hear it, you'd be correct. Of course, a single person who has ideas of merit involving personal responsibility and civic mindedness without blaming or hating isn't very cathartic. Despite the merit in accepting responsibility for their own behavior, few people want to. Hence the success of fearmongering and demonizing people who are easily identifiable as different (like middle easterners) and people who can "pass for normal" but are different (like homosexuals.) Everything can be (and is) blamed on boogeymen to assuage the guilt of the audience, which is the crux of Savage's rants (amongst other talk-show hosts). This leaves the realm of information and becomes sensationalist opinion made slightly more real by the mention of peripheral factual details.
Use the free-markets to your advantage. Use the relatively low costs of internet radio to propogate your message and to garner more support until you are strong enough to move to the radio waves. Build your organization from the ground up and counter this evil thought machine you see on talk radio.
Alternately, we can call upon the government to protect us from large threats (the nature of societies is to band together to defeat threats that no one person can combat individually. In this case, we have the American government fighting a multi-headed hydra of special interests and monopolies), and the so-called "stifled" hosts can, as you say, use the free-markets to their advantage and turn to Internet radio to propogate their message which, because it is so valuable, will push technologies forward and not cost them their listeners.
That is the best way to win, and the way that will last. Disseminated ideas are stronger than trying to stifle the ideas of others.
Except that no one is stifling said ideas. As you say, there are options available for them. No one is talking about taking away their voice. No one is arresting anyone for speaking their mind. No one is preventing you, the listener from turning off your radio or opening a website. What they are doing is ensuring that a monopoly of ideas and viewpoints are not dominating public airwaves.
I appreciate your calm demeanor during this conversation and your ability to formulate a clear thought, even if I disagree with your opinions. You speak well without having to resort to condescension or ad hominem attacks and I hope others here look to you as a blue print for an effective argument.
My point continues to be that the existence of right-wing radio does not constipate the ability of opposing opinion to diffuse throughout society. Air America exists in the same medium and is simply not patronized as much as right-wing radio, which is by consumer choice.
If the roles were reversed, as you exampled, and left-wing radio was more prevalent on the airways the situation would be the same. If there is a market for left-wing ideas on the radio then it will become the dominate voice on the radio.
The reason I example the Internet as an alternative means of broadcasting opposing ideas is that I see it as a starting point for your cause. Obviously it would be tough to create a radio program for left-leaning consumers if there wasn't an audience already available for such a program. I believe that if you and others like you formed an Internet organization, and your ideas had merit, you could easily compete and overtake the dominance of right-wing radio.
The difference between you and I seems to be in how we view the freedom of information. You seem to believe that right-wing radio is a threat to your existence, when it is merely a machine that outputs opinions that differ from yours. You also believe that if the masses are not consuming the information you want them to consume, that the government should step in and force the media to broadcast opinions you agree with.
That is how many of us see the fairness doctrine as stifling freedom of speech. If ideas have merit then they also will have an audience in a free society. Fabricating the markets to broadcast opinions that the consumers haven't chosen is simply wrong.
If your ideas have merit they will find an audience. If your audience gets big enough, you can commercialize them and make a profit which will allow you to reach more people.
We live in a free market society and information is all about enjoyment. The more we enjoy how information is given to use, the more we want to consume it. There is no utopia of untainted information.
Well, my aim is to foster discussion, not shout it down. I like to think of myself as reasonable ^_^
You see, part of the point you fail to consider is that so-called "right-wing" radio is the only thing in existence for most listeners. because of the corporate monopolies on broadcasting, and their desire to (possibly) push an agenda and/or (possibly) parrot a successful format lays the ground.
In that ground, you find that people who like, say, O'Reilly like slightly different things from, say, Limbaugh. You maximize these differences while keeping the same underlying messages and themes because that will bring you audience. When other people who are not interested tune in, they may continue to listen just to have something to listen to, they may decide to channel surf for something they prefer, or they may decide to turn it off.
Assuming that you live in an area which has media which caters to your particular needs, you listen to that station. If that station is a "maverick" or a little business, other misfortunes ranging from buyout to loss of license can destroy this little media outlet which does not have the deep pockerts of a larger media company. Assuming the corporate "master" snaps it up, it decides to change format and policy for what is deemed "better." Whether or not this station succeeds is not necessarily the issue. They'll either listen to this station or one of the corporation's other two stations. It does not necessarily behoove them to continue to previously (moderately) successful format because either it didn't work (bankruptcy or misadventure) or because it doesn't suit their needs (agenda or rivalry).
Thus, the consumer who liked this small, underground station no longer has this option. And like it or not, the radio waves, which in my understanding are a public resource, like fish, are public and are made to be easily accessible to all. When I'm driving in my vehicle, I can't necessarily dial into an internet radio or satellite without the purchase of special options / equipment. Thus, despite my being, say an 18-34 year old white male (which I am not), no stations care to play what I want to hear, reasoning I'll either listen to another of their stations, or they'll eventually have to close the station down (eliminating rivalry as well as the need to pay duplicate strategies).
As an example of this practice, where I am used to have 3 rock stations and one hip-hop/rap/pop station. Now, there is only one station that usually plays rock. But Clear Channel (which owns the other three) doesn't feel that my money was valuable enough to continue my rock format, changing each of these stations to the same hip-hop/rap/pop format.
In this case, what is a consumer to do? Do I write to Clear Channel, organize a movement begging them to change back? If the previous numbers of the radio did not move them, what numbers could I bring to the table instead?
(TBC)
(continued from previous post due to space constraint)
Back to talk radio, if all that's on the air is "conservative" or "right-wing" (or both), how am I to demonstrate that this is not what I want? Do I patronize the only alternative station (which always seems to be on the verge of bankruptcy or selling out), or do I tune out all such radio and just listen to entertainment and find news on the web? What if I don't like what's on the one alternative station? That doesn't help my views either.
So let's say I start my own Internet Radio. Again, how do I reach the wide range of people that "conservative" radio reaches? Where do I pull my advertising budget from? Do I expect them to purchase special equipment to listen to me, and if they do, will that inspire other stations to change their format, or simply start their own internet radio, thus leaving public airwaves thoroughly "conservative" and a non-issue?
The other aspect of this problem is that by its very nature, it seems, left-wing talk is much less galvanizing than right-wing talk. Where most right-wing talk radio seems to be aimed at addressing "injustices" to the key 18-34 white male demographic, left-wing talk shows tend to be more ambivalent and more interested in a wider approach. Where you can always depend on the "right-wing" to be against a particular bogeyman, that is not always the case with left-wing. There will be those who feel the evil is in the political process, others who feel that it is in a lack of responsibility to the suffering, and still others who have a similar bent in that they are being repressed / opressed / compressed / whatever by another ethnic, cultural, or racial group.
To boil it down, left-wing radio tends to deal with a wider range of views and topics, thus virtually ensuring that they will not have the numbers a corporation might require of highly-focused right-wing audiences who simply look to be directed toward enemies.
To summarize:
Assuming that people are expecting to find variance and difference on the radio, currently they do not. Why would I, as a consumer, look to my radio for a program that speaks to me when, currently, not a single program does. How am I to demonstrate to corporate interests my disdain for this as well as a desire for something for me?
A "Fairness Doctrine" would help to ensure that a diversity of opinions is put on the radio (which does not stifle any free speech, because all concerned can still speak freely wherever, whenever to their heart's content), allowing for not only people like me to perhaps find something and begin a listening base, but also for people who feel they have been wronged or maligned by one of the "right-wing" shows the chance to defend themselves in the court of public opinion. As it stands, with the latter, they do not. If a host feels he can make money by presenting the opposition (and usually attempting to silence, color, or subvert a response), the maligned can defend themselves. If the host does not, then this person goes largely unheard except by those who very likely are already sure the person has been maligned.
In closing, I would like to say that there should be a source of "untainted information," and it should be news programs, not news that is broadcast, aggrandized, and distorted by personalities. If a "Fairness Doctrine" did this (and nothing else), I think it would be best for all concerned.Below the pile of rhetoric that Dr. Savage has piled on there actually is a point. Currently free markets decide what type of entertainment and information that we consume. If there wasn't a market for Savage then he wouldn't be on the air.
Agreed. Like with kiddie porn. Why can't I find it in the drugstore?
Why is the opposing opinion to Dr. Savage unable to create their own radio show to counter his views on an opposing station? The short answer is that he consumer...
No doubt. When Air America listeners aren't as rabidly fanatical as Weiner listeners, and realize they need the foundation of groupthink to support their positions, maybe then they'll get some decent sponsors like Weiner has.
Forcing me, the consumer, to listen to information that I do not want to hear intermingled with what I do want to hear is wrong.
Exactly. If I, the consumer, can't depend on my preconceptions and dilusions to remain untainted by something that may disprove them, then I will likely be assimilated by nazi liberal socialist homosexuals.
I think Media Matters is actually perpetuating Savage by giving him issues to rally the common man against.
Like the illegal gay mafia mexicans silencing dissenting voices? Right on, brother.
I want the power of my dollar to control what I hear on the radio.
Yeah. This country has shown time and time again that the corporations have our welfare at heart, and for the stinking liberal socialists to take that privilege away from them is downright unAmerican.
This bill really is scary when you think about it.
Right on. Thinking in general is scary...
I appreciate the beauty and wit of sarcasm, but when it is used to straw man my position I find it less striking. If I honestly believed that thinking was scary I wouldn't be four posts into a dissertation.
Most of your comments worked from the assumption that I or someone you were stereotyping me to be had a poor grasp of politics and current information. The assertion seemed to be that because I listened to Savage that I somehow didn't consume other sources of information. I think you have only to look at yourself if you want proof that listeners of the Savage Nation show consume a variety of media.
You obviously have partaken in the Savage Nation enough to be able to formulate an opinion of the host, and you also appear to consume various sources of information. You are living proof that the stereotype you put forward is untrue.
Our very conversation is proof that the existence of right-wing-radio doesn't stifle opposing opinion. There is a multitudinous amount of information available in the world with different spins, and opinions. The existence of talk radio is not a threat to free thinking.
Your stereotype is untrue, and I refuse to believe those things about you just because you have listened to the Savage Nation.
Anyone else who has noticed that all he is accusing the liberals if being and doing, can be applied to himself and his conservative friends? People like him seem to crave conspiracy in everything, I truly feel sorry for him and the likes of him.
And I appreciate a well-reasoned argument. I'm glad you recognized the sarcasm, but it wasn't meant to characterize what I thought of the average Weiner listener. It was meant to characterize someone with the extreme perspective of those tenets you presented.
This MMfA article was about Weiner accusing Hinchey of attempting to silence conservative voices - specifically Weiners - by pushing MORA. You made an attempt to promote that accusation with statements of ideology, rhetoric and assumptions that did not address the bill directly. I wouldn't directly accuse you of being such, but the substance of your comment was that of a fanatical ideologist whose views would not likely be altered by anything less than complete real-world failure of that ideology combined with the threat of personal accountability for promoting them. I happen to gather from all of your comments that you're far superior to that, and could contribute to the discussion with more than rhetoric.
In fact, we probably agree on the free market more than we disagree. But running through the body of entertainment is a vein of truth that needs to be preserved. This is what MORA addresses, in the same way as antitrust laws. (I don't assume that you'd be for the abolishment of all antitrust laws.), Weiners paranoia and sense of ostracism leads him to make false claims that mislead his listeners.
Actually, thank you, Neon, you made a point I've been neglecting to include (though it was my intent). You cannot have a free market when there is an unfair market dominance. MORA seems to be more similar to an anti-trust legislation than anything else, which should then be supported by anyone who wants a free market.
I think someone must have taken a dump in this guys gene pool!! That is the only thing that could explain his outlook on his miserable life.
Rbeas, shouldn't you be in school?
And so, the misinformation campaign begins. The only threat to Savage is allowing the "other side" of his rants the opportunity to refute his insanity.
The Fairness Doctrine does not mean a "hush Rush" or anything of the sort. It would however allow the opportunity for discussion as opposed to a one-sided hate -filled rant.
Hmmm.... Maurice Hinchey.
Isn't this the guy who was arrested trying to take a loaded handgun onto a commercial airplane? What would happen to any of you if you did this thing? What happened to him? Certainly not Project Exile.
Isn't this the same Maurice Hinchey who opposes average citizens carrying concealed handguns like he does? Apparently Hinchey thinks it only right and proper that he possess a loaded handgun and you be prohibited from doing so.
I have little use for Michael Savage, but Hinchey deserves every bit of the scorn he receives for his blatant hypocrisy and overbearing governance.
So a more-than-10-year-old gun charge has ... exactly what to do with this discussion? What hypocrisy are we talking about here that relates to this 10-year-old crime? The fact that a judge believed him and might not believe "one of us" has absolutely no bearing on the discussion. Please bring something substantive next time.
When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
Whether or not people want to admit it there is a very real correlation between Nazi Germany and some of the tactics being used by politicians here in the United States. People do not like the comparison because it means they are capable of the same ignorance and stupidity that allowed Hitler to be so successful in killing.
And do not start with the whole "Public Airwaves" argument. Anyone and I mean anyone can broadcast on those airwaves. It is up to the public in a free market to decide what they will or will not listen to. IF the public is giving all their rating to right wing talk show host then that is what will be on the airwaves. It is that simple.
In this free market society the Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary and insulting. I choose what is on the airwaves by choosing who to listen and when. If you want Savage off the air stop listening to him and get other's to stop listening to him. If the Imus taught us anything it is that the public can get people off the air if they put their mind to it.
Despite your wonderful plagarization of the Niemoller quote ...
When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
let's see here ...
Whether or not people want to admit it there is a very real correlation between Nazi Germany and some of the tactics being used by politicians here in the United States. People do not like the comparison because it means they are capable of the same ignorance and stupidity that allowed Hitler to be so successful in killing.
And do not start with the whole "Public Airwaves" argument. Anyone and I mean anyone can broadcast on those airwaves. It is up to the public in a free market to decide what they will or will not listen to. IF the public is giving all their rating to right wing talk show host then that is what will be on the airwaves. It is that simple.
Good, you buy yourself a radio transmitter and tell us how that all plays out, since anyone and you mean anyone can do it. Just because you don't consider it part of the argument doesn't mean you can simply discount it. So aside from the need to find a station, advertise, possibly employ assistants, possibly get a license to broadcast and all the equipment to do so, sure, anyone can broadcast on the public airwaves.
In this free market society the Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary and insulting. I choose what is on the airwaves by choosing who to listen and when. If you want Savage off the air stop listening to him and get other's to stop listening to him. If the Imus taught us anything it is that the public can get people off the air if they put their mind to it.
Actually, the Imus affair taught me that overreaction to a slap on the wrist results in a huge lawsuit.
But seriously, I'd like you to address the issue I raised a bit back. What about the people who have searched for an alternative they like, haven't found it, and decided to give up looking altogether? If 95% of the talk on the radio (or more) is something I don't like and I either don't like the alternative or, if by some stroke there is no alternative for whatever reason, what is the recourse? Like it or lump it?
No. uh-uh.
Public Access should reflect all facets of the public, not the interests of private concerns. I see nothing wrong with making money, but not when it comes at the expense of a public resource to the detriment of society as a whole.
So what I'd really like is your take on what I posted earlier. What happens when one media conglomerate essentially eradicates competition either through buyouts of healthy stations or buyouts of good-but-possibly-mismanaged (and therefore bankrupt) stations, attaches the same format to all stations, and doesn't care when you don't listen because they're not losing anything that way ...?
To reiterate - the Fairness Doctrine allows people to respond without being bullied, badgered, or spun. MORA is looking to break up conglomerates that have a monopoly on the airwaves. If your hosts are so popular, I don't see this is a problem for them. And, just like all the critics during the Imus affair said "don't listen if you don't like it."
Oh, and ... for what it's worth ...? the Imus affair had nothing to do with people not listening to Imus. It was about people banding together to form a stink over something offensive, and having the authorities - in that case his parent company - do something about it. Just like what's going on here, substituting the government for a parent company.
What people seem to fail to realize is their power in this society. Yes the IMus affair was an overaction. BUt the driving force was the public. People had enough of him and voiced their opinion and got rid of him. The same thing that can done with any other radio personality. We do not need more government control. We need more people to realize their power and exercise it. The more power we give to the government the less we as a people hold.
Where on earth did you get the idea that we the people are separate from our government?
Our government is of, by and for the people of the United states. And frankly, our democratic government is vastly superior to any privatized market. Markets are responsive only to money, it is therefore exclusionary and anti-democratic. Our democratic government is all inclusive and the only participation fee is citizenship.
You want to talk about power to the people? Look no further than our Constitution and Bill of Rights. You will get no such gaurantees of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from any market.
"Pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Secondly, if the government is vastly superior to the private sector, why has Communism failed?
I wrote democratic government, dimwhit. As in representive democracy of, by and for the people.
Thank for correcting my oversight but how does that change the fact that markets are ant-democratic?
People refer to the people and government separately on this issue because government, although of, by, and for the people, does things by force. People do things of their own volition. If liberals want equal time on talk radio, they need to get more people who will listen of their own volition. The government shouldn't legislate this. Corporations are not preventing liberals from succeeding in talk radio. Corporations simply want to make money. If liberal talk radio hosts made money, corporations would love to sign them.
State-controlled markets are by definition: anti-democratic. Unfettered markets are democratic, but not necessarily "fair." i.e Monopolies can develop...
The price system is by far the best mechanism available for mankind to distribute resources around the world. It doesn't work perfectly, but it works extremely well, and much better than any alternative.
One thing for the "anyone can broadcast in the Free Market of Ideas" needs to remember, which I touched on above, is that "anyone" needs to have an awful lot of backing and or training. Assuming you can get your foot in the door, you have to be sure that people know you're on, when you're on, and that you know your audience well enough to be the proper mix of news / entertainment / et cetera.
Simply stating that "anyone can broadcast" is at best ingenuous. That's like saying "anyone can drive, just hop in a car and start going." Sure, all I need is a license, a properly-maintained car, and gasoline. Just because anyone could conceivably drive, doesn't make it as easy as "just start driving."
You missed the point entirely. I wasn't saying you should go out and buy a radio station. I am saying that the public en mass has the power and authority to get people off the air. There have numerous examples of this. We do not need to pass of this power to the federal government.
See, now this is the root of our disagreement, Loki ^_^
As previously stated, in a post using the analogy of music radio, I had a station I absolutely loved. It was popular as one of the rock stations around. It certainly wasn't in dire straits, in fact it was the most popular rock station in the area, far as I know.
Then Clear Channel bought it out, and now it's hip-hop/rap/pop. I personally can't stand that. So I switched to the other rock station.
Do you think that bothers Clear Channel? Heck no, they feel they can get enough people on their vibe that the old listeners don't matter. It's been at least 3 years now since they monopolized the "good" stations round abouts.
Assuming I got all my friends and their friends, and somehow got every single person who listened to my old station together, and sent them a petition, do you think they'd change the format back? Highly unlikely. Not only did they change it while it was THE most popular Rock station, they have yet to change any of their other two stations to compete with the one remaining rock station.
The point of MORA, as I see it, is to break up the trust-like hold several corporations have on our airwaves. We cannot, as a people, simply go out and do that. Let's assume that every person who was ever dissatisfied with talk radio, as one, turned off the current crop of right-wing shows. That might work, yes ... but the people who have been alienated don't care to come back, and no new "fans" will trickle in because they "know" it won't ever change.
I fail to see how having the government enforce what seems to be, on its face, an anti-trust law is giving the government more power. The reason we have social orders (including governments) is to stand up to giant forces that no individual can. When you realize that, we are not giving the government any more power than it is supposed to have already.
First, the Federal Governments only official powers are intersate commerce and national security.
Second, if Clear Channel looses enough money they will change. That is where we have the power. There are examples of this all over our society.
Giving more power to the Federal Government is never a good idea. Once a government has power they very rarely give it up without a fight.
Hey, I'll even say that the act of breaking trusts and ensuring fair voices heard goes directly to interstate commerce. After all, public radio is an interstate resource. If liberals, progressives, regressives, whomever is not listening to the public airways because they're not being fairly and equally represented, then that's advertiser dollars and products that may be totally missed out on in the market. I couldn't care less about gold coins or that drivel. I'm a mecha chick. If you gave me a show which sold me the news straight, called it like it was, and didn't introduce amazing tirades against groups rather than individuals, and then advertised gadgets and other nifty products, I'd totally listen to it. Oh, and it'd have to be on at a time when I listen to the radio. So there you have it ... I'm not saying I'm typical, but that's indicative of what I'm talking about. Because conglomerates have a stranglehold on the radio shows and produce the same format (which is cheaper) and close down rivals (which makes it cheaper), there is no growth or change in the industry. And if (when? I hope) the current listenership dies away (which I doubt it will as long as they can find someone to hate and blame) the whole of talk radio would collapse.
But not until individuals run out of people to blame (rather than the reverse).
I was actually discussing this with a friend of mine and he said it's analogous to what happened in the world of Professional Wrestling. Something about the WWE crushing all its competition and how its product declined vastly (shocking, I know, thinking wrestling can decline).
Now, apparently there's at least one "alternative," but because the WWE has poisoned the waters with low quality and alienated sponsors, the alternative can't get funding and has resorted to using similar storylines and cast-off WWE wrestlers in order to bolster its rates.
I can't speak to the veracity of this comparison, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
Your talk is tight. Glad you've taken the time to join this conversation.
I like your take on the role of the people's government and I especially like your vision of the country as a commonwealth for the common good.
Keep on keepin' on, redrighthand.
Red, I agree about WWE. I blame most of its problems on John Cena. Cena is absolutely horrible. WWE's "competition" aka TNA is worse than horrible. Wrestling does suck now.
You need one other thing - a road to drive on. That's an excellent analogy because all the "roads" of our public airwaves are controlled by one end of the political spectrum. I'd love to listen to Air America when I'm in my car - it isn't available in the Clear Channel dominated Houston market. Houston is one of the most liberal cities in this right-wing dominated state and the 4th largest market in the country. We have a democratic mayor and most of our elected representatives to state and national government are Democrats.
If the "free marketplace of ideas" had anything at all to do with talk radio, we would have alternatives here. We don't.
The fact is that restoring the fairness doctrine is not about suppressing free speech (as the disingenuous apologists for the current suppression of liberal speech know quite well), it's a recognition that my point of view also deserves a hearing and that the public airwaves have been the exclusive domain of neonazi wingnuts like Savage for far too long.
The conservative domination of the airwaves is due to the free market, I should know, I work for Dan Patrick as a radio producer in Houston. If lib radio could get the ratings that cons do the sponsors would follow and air america wouldn't have to hold pledge drives to stay afloat.
Everybody isn't a rich kid like the wingnut Patrick who can buy a station to push his agenda. Easy to claim that Air America is in financial trouble because there is no market when the market is dominated by megacorporations who won't provide an outlet.
Sorry you're guys can't compete...hopefully you can get congress to force the market to make way for liberalism since that's the only way it'll ever happen.
Suuurrrre thing, buddy. Liberalism didn't happen Nov. 7, 2006, right? Oh, I forgot those were conservative Democrats that made history that day.
How ya likin' those conservative measures and laws all those conservative Dems are proposing?
Round, actually a lot of conservative Dems did win on Nov. 7, 2006. That former Redskins' quarterback certainly isn't a liberal. The Dems won last November because the American people oppose our incompetent president. The election had nothing to do with the liberal agenda. Trust me; it didn't. As Savage has said, look at the ballot initiatives around the country on the same day. Extremely conservative initiatives passed. Once the GOP nominates an articulate, intelligent conservative (aka Savage) for president, the party will be back on top. The idiot Bush is totally to blame for the last election. 100%.
Like I said, are you enjoying all those conservative measures and bills the Dems are proposing?
Well, the Democrat leadership is left wing. However, many rank and file members are moderate. Rank and file members don't get to decide the agenda though.
p.s.
The failure of conservatism is the reason, that and this country is returning to its liberal roots, for the Dem victory. Admit that and maybe the Rpublicans will win again.
p.p.s.
Bush could not have successfully pushed his agenda without the cooperation of the Republican held House and Senate. Conservatism today is an abyssmal aggregation of corporatists and theocrats. Purge the party and maybe they'll gain credibility with working people again.
I won't admit that conservatism has failed. Bush isn't a conservative. The then-GOP controlled House and Senate weren't either. If Michael Savage were president and the House and Senate were controlled by his clones, the GOP would have an 85% approval rating.
Boycott Clear Channel then. Stage massive writing campaigns to the advertisers demanding alternatives. Because you apparently think there is enough support for it. You do not need to have the Federal Government do it for you.
And before you say it cannot be done. Look at Don Imus, the only he got fired was public outcry.
Don Imus got fired because of nervous corporate executives. Don Imus was punished because of outcry which immediately raised the spectre of racism (which isn't to invalidate it, because it was a racially charged comment, but meh). Don't confuse the two.
Yes Don Imus was punished initially because of public outcry. Then the public threatened his advertisers with boycotts and they pulled there advertising for fear of losing money. Hence, Don Imus was fired because of public outcry.
Also look up the word "nappy" there is nothing racially charged about it. You looked up any other racial epitaph and the dictionary says it is a racist remark but there is no such distinction for the word "nappy". IT means your hair is matted, or can be a serving bowl, or British slang for a diaper.
Loki, my friend, if I said "nappy" amongst just about anyone I know, at work or amongst my circle of friends, the first thing to come to mind is a specific insult used amonst the African~American community. The fact that the dictionary hasn't caught up to slang yet isn't really an issue.
Of course, this goes hand-in-hand (and slightly off the beaten topic path) with my feeling that words are either ok for everyone to say or for no one to say - there shouldn't be a free pass because of race, culture, gender, etc. - but the fact of the matter is, both "nappy" and "hos" are specifically racial slang.
How long did it take Mr. Webster to catch up to the slang usage of fa66o+, anyway (trying to dodge a possible word censure here)?
I agree with you and will go so far to say that I cannot say word because I am white is just as racist as if I were to say you cannot drink from that fountain because you are black.
I never knew "nappy" was racially charged. I have heard white and black woman use it across racial divides. "HO" is sexist not racist.
Well, as my understanding, both "nappy" and "ho" were co-opted from black slang. Honestly, I don't think the issue is so much that they are racist remarks, but racial (in terms of "stealing" the words because we "have no right" to them, or in terms of using race-specific slurs with individuals of a specific race).
But meh, I'm not an expert ^_^
Sebastion, at first I thought that you were talking about Dan Patrick the sportscaster. Then I did a Google search, and I found the correct Dan Patrick. He seems like a great guy. He's 100% against illegal aliens. He's a borders, language, culture man, it seems. Michael Savage would like him.
If there were enough people in your market that wanted Air Americathen they could be there. If you wanted alternatives to what is already being played you could get that from Clear Channel. The problem is people do not try anymore. They seem more than willing to hand off their freedoms and power to the Federal Government.
Um, you do realize that the federal government is our government don't you? It exists to represent yours and my will.
What is truly appalling is market fundamentalists like yourself who would give away our liberties to the CEO.
What liberties? There's no constitutional right for a liberal to have a talk radio show.
Big picture, MSFP. Think in greater terms. Privatization of the public domain is anti-democratic.
No one is saying privatize anything. All I am saying is that we can get a handle of this ourselves without government interference. Yes the Federal Government is ours and answers ultimately to us. When has that ever stopped them? A healthy fear and distrust of your government is essential to the Democratic process.
So the federal government should own every broadcast TV and radio station in the country? That would suck. I like the current system. It's capitalistic.
You know, with all their bitching and moaning about the "librul media", you'd think the neo-cons would want the Fairness Doctrine to be enforced. After all, according to Rush Limbaugh etc. ABC, NBC, CBS & CNN are all run by screaming liberals and are the "drive-by" media (whatever the f**k that means). That's why they claim their work is necessary: it offers an alternative point of view to the supposed leftist, mainstream media. If this were true (which we all know it isn't) then it would follow that the Fairness Doctrine would be advantageous to conservatives. After all, they would only lose one TV news channel (Faux), whereas the liberals would lose four (the abovementioned news channels).
Also, if the media is so mainstream, how can it be so leftist, as they claim? After all, conservative talk show hosts argue constantly that mainstream America is conservative. Wouldn't then follow that either the mainstream media cannot be liberal, or that the liberal media cannot be mainstream?
Oh thats right, I forgot: CONSERVATIVES ARE STUPID!!! They are completely incapable of abstract reasoning or nuance, and worship at the altar of symbolism, manicheanism, and the golden calf of the almighty dollar.
Just remember, when you scratch your head and wonder what the f**k is wrong with these people: CONSERVATIVES ARE STUPID!!!
In closing, if you wish to respond angrily to this post and expect me to respond in kind, don't waste your time, because I don't talk to conservatives, because (drum roll)...CONSERVATIVES ARE STUPID!!!
I'd say that you're concept pf the fairness doctrine possibly being used to help cons balance out some of the supposed liberla television media is a brilliant, revolutionary ideal....except for the fact that Savage has already addressed that possibility almost a year ago. BTW, as a "stupid con" I'm begging you to tell me how regulating the capitalist market of radio and stifling one particular groups' free press and speech rights in order to "even" the playing field through legislation because the libs can't seem to keep up with the cons when it comes to that one thing that has eluded air america for so long....ratings.
Cartoon, this message board is for adults.
Why do mainstream America and the mainstream media have to have the same views? I don't get that. The only commonality between the two is the word "mainstream." Mainstream America is conservative. The mainstream media are liberal. The word "mainstream," in defining the media, does not mean that the media reflect the views of a majority of Americans.
The fairness doctrine would only apply to broadcast stations. It would not apply to CNN or Fox News.
Conservatives are against the fairness doctrine with regards to the mainstream media despite the fact that the media are liberal because: 1. we believe in freedom and 2. it would be hard to prove that the liberal media are biased since they pretend to be unbiased. Their bias is covert.
Cartoon, since you won't respond, I win. I get the last word.
Secondly, I'm a paleo-conservative, not a neo-conservative.
Stupid conservative. - Cartoon Messiah
Don't you know that government regulaion of who can and can't speak is good for you? Free market be damned we must stop conservatives at all costs....only then can we have the socialist society our forefathers dreamed of.
Signed, libs
Don't confuse em with logic, Cartoon. They can't handle it.
What logic? His post was illogical and insulting.
But dig my other point as well, Uneasyone: we should not even bother ourselves with attempting to engage in debate with these sub-human, sub-intelligent people. It's about as useful as trying to debate your dog, or convince him to poo in a box like a cat.
On their blogs like LGF, Freeperville, etc., they ban you if you fail to goosestep. MMFA is an open forum, and they take advantage of this to come here and post asap to direct the discourse. The best tactic to take is to ignore them. Like the insects they are they will simply buzz off!
"I am a reasonable conservative who likes to write about politics and culture. Since the media is biased I get all my news from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Jay Leno monologues." - from the conservative blog Jon Swift (an insult to the real Swift, of course)
Cartoon's last post was full of generalizations. This guy has nothing.
No we just understand that is what the market wants and do our best to offer alternatives to those who want it.
When Congress was debating the Iraq war I remember Savage on TV(Fox) foaming at the mouth and insisting that Kucinich should be convicted of treason because he was arguing against the war on the floor of congress. Doesnt it frighten you that more than 5 people follow Savage. He is against the very process described in the constituion. Can he even define nazism?
Doesnt it frighten you that more than 5 people follow Savage. - John Henry
First of all...There should be a question mark at the end of that particular sentence John. Secondly, it's acually over 5 MILLION people that listen to Savage and could be as many as 20 MILLION so yes....be very afraid
Let's see...nazi's weren't big fans of free speech or free press and the fairness doctrine is a tool to stifle conservative speech and press sooooo yep, I'd say the comparison holds though it is a little over the top. Face the facts, con radio has defeated lib radio due to the free market. Lib radio just doesn't get the ratings cons do.....that's why cons dominate in radio.
Liberal speech has been stifled since the fairness doctrine was gutted.
Nobody is proposing making Savage shut up (although the idea has it's charms). The idea is to mandate a forum for opposing views on the public airwaves. All the wingnuts on this thread (andSavage himself) are suggesting that if his lies, distortions and fulminations are not broadcast unopposed, he cannot survive as a broadcaster. That may well be true.
If Savage can't function in a balanced marketplace however, maybe he could try the truth for a change.
Conservative radio took over the public airwaves because of consolidation of the media into a few right wing hands. Liberals were denied a microphone as a result.
The notion that in a city the size of Houston, which regularly votes Democratic, there is no market for liberal radio is just another "big lie" by the right, completely laughable but repeated often enough to become credible to the uninformed.
That's what terrifies right wing radio - listeners who are not credulous and uninformed - or rather who are informed, but by both sides.
Sowhy does air america (which is a sizeable organization) work? Answer, the ratings aren't there and therefore, neither are the sponsors. When the "fairness" doctrine went away the market decided what message it wanted, the resounding success of rightwingers over the left in the media of radio is the result of the public wanting an alternative to the supposed left wing media. Now, that said it can neither be proven that the media in general has a left or right wing bias, to be frank the bias of the media is in the eye of the beholder, ie, libs think the media is right leaning, cons think it leans left. Now, you could "cherrypick" examples of supposed bias but for every bias to one side there's bias to the other side. In conclusion, and quite simply it was out of the publics desire for an alternative view that led to the conservative explosion, not the exclusion of the libs from getting their shot behind a microphone, just ask Al (I quit) Franken.
Even liberals do not want to listen to liberal speech.
If these 'fairness' rules are applied to talk radio then they have to be applied to other areas where there is predominately liberal bias - eg in Public Schools and academia. You can't have it both ways. Interesting news week article on fairness doc:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18366765/
Oh goodie,George Will. Now there's a fair and reasonable guy. Of course, compared to Savage, he is what is considered moderate in our librul media.
Face it, most Americans support "fairness." Only by repeatedly flogging the twin lies that A) Nobody really wants to hear the progressive point of view and B) Other media are dominated by "libruls" so whatever depredations are perpretated by wingnut radio are justified as a "get even" can any pretense of fairness exist.
That George Will, who regularly pontificates ad nauseum in various and multitudinous media outlets perceives liberal bias is a very bad joke and illustrative of the point that any liberal anywhere who has the opportunity to express a point of view is seen as a threat by conservatives everywhere.
Only by pushing that lie over and over can they keep up the pretense that our media aren't almost completely dominated by shades of the right.
Where is the proof that people want to listen to what you deem as a "progressive" message? Air America is failing all over. Other liberal radio is failing all over.
When people try to refute the liberal domination televised media they always jump to FOX NEWS or other 24 hour news sources. NEWS FLASH: not everyone has cable. Check the network stations' local affiliates, this is what most people watch.
The fact that they jump to "Fox News" isn't damning in and of itself; are you implying that Fox News is (by and large) a conservative talk show? Because if you are, I'd have to agree; its a gaudy and bombastic display of a particular political message - i.e. not news. The fact that Fox News sells itself as a news program does not obviate the fact that they do not report news fairly or accurately 100% of the time.
Assuming they have no ulterior political agenda (which, from what I've seen seems highly unlikely), they resort to sensationalism and yellow journalism in order to entertain rather than inform. This is not indicative of a good "news" show, but rather good entertainment.
If your response to that argument is "They give people the news they want to hear," then that in and of itself shows bias. Whether or not people want to know there is a truck bearing down on them as they cross the road isn't the point. They can choose to ignore the news, but someone interested in broadcasting the news wouldn't hide or omit news because they wanted ratings.
And if you wish to argue that they are in the business of making money, then you have just proven that the "Free market of ideas" is at best hostile to having truth told. Therefore, there is only a market for ideas that pay, without protection from some other source. So therefore, the truck keeps speeding toward us because we don't want the bad news. So long as we keep paying our money to live in the world where there is no street and is no truck, well, that's fine with FOX.
So which is true? We should have a true "free" market where ideas are able to be shared without having to turn a buck? Or a free market where only those with wallets decide what everyone needs to know, and those who don't know any better (or don't want to) are pandered to until they're used up and hang the rest of the listeners / viewers / whatever?
Again you miss the point. I was saying no one attacks network local news coverage which is what most people watch. Ever wonder why they don't? The answer will surprise you.
Oh, and please also clearly show how the "liberal media bias" is ruining televised news, since that was addressed in a later post, but is pertinent here. Please give me some examples of stories that were lost or otherwise slipped through the cracks due to this bias, or a misrepresentation of a major news event due to said bias.
I watching an interciew Katie Couric was doing of Nancy Pelosi before she was Speaker. And then the resulting news story were all biased to democrat liberals.
OK, that's good for a start, but I'm a little fuzzy because I have no idea when that interview happened or what went on with it ^_^
To counterpoint: The tremendous evidence of a lack of security in voting machines backed by corporations which have clear ties to Republican politicians is virtually uncovered by the news. From the government refusing to protect whistleblowers to numerous and repeated tests by independant parties proving the ease with which these systems can be compromised, not a single bit of this has graced any news I've seen in the last four years.
While this may sound like a conspiracy theory, the fact is, the proof of flaws have been largely (if not wholly) unreported by most "regular" news outlets. I have to get these reports from the web.
Further, the appaling lack of accountability on the part of the media to record and review the smear tactics of groups such as the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" would also point to the lack of a "liberal media bias," given that Kerry was, practically unarguably, a liberal candidate in comparison to Bush. A brief Google search brings up numerous articles to this point.
So I will argue that there isn't really a liberal media bias. ^_^
Bloggers ( the Alternative-Alternative Media) have been running with the voting machine story for the past four years. It does not have to be on network TV to be a mainstream story. Even people who cannot afford internet access get exposed to their stories.
I would argue that groups like the swift boat one are meaningless and not deserving of media attention.
Are you that effing crazy? The swifties were meaningless? Dear God , man their product was doubt and they gave it away like a pusher gives away tastes of heroin.
But they were bale to because of so much media attention. If the media ignored them they would have been nothing but a footnote in the election.
I saw another story with the headline "ULTRA CONSERVATIVE Bill O'Reilly wants DEMOCRAT Rosie O'Donnell fired." Why didn't it truthfully say, "Moderate Bill O'Reilly wants ultra left wing commie pig Rosie O'Donnell fired"? O'Reilly is hardly a conservative; he opposes the death penalty and even spanking. Rosie is not just a Democrat; she's a far left wing moron who thinks that 9/11 was an inside job.
The liberal media seem to be ignoring the story of Dianne Feinstein's corruption. Savage has been harping on the story for weeks, but the mainstream media are ignoring it. The media were quick to jump on the war hero from San Diego.
Hey now, you can fault me for missing your point, but you don't need to get snippy about it ... and since I missed your point, can you spell it out for me? I'm obviously not picking up what you're putting down, and I honestly do want to hear what it is.
I am saying that network local news is liberal biased. Media Matters may have a case on cable news shows. The balance the fairness doctrine is looking for already exist overwhelmingly for liberals.
YOU ARE THE ONE WITH THE WALLET! YOU DECIDE WHAT IS OR IS NOT ON!
The people have the power and authority to choose who is or is not allowed on radio without legislation. Boycott advertisers/radio stations. Sign Petitions and yes even buy your own station.
The reason that talk radio is such a hit in America is that it appeals to dullards, something in no short supply in this country thanks to our impoverished education system. That something is successful due to popularity is hardly a valid argument. Hitler, after all, was elected by a majority - of scared stupid Germans who had witnessed the worst of the global depression that struck in the 1930s.
"Good Night, and Good Luck 2005" See the movie & focus on Murrow's monologues to understand what has happened to our media.
So a dramatized embellished movie is your basis for your assertion? Talk radio is popular because it provides the average jo who cannot afford cable alternative media to the liberal dribble that is constantly pumped through on network news.
Please provide your proof of this concept. I disagree with the "liberal media bias" and the reasons for conservative talk radio preference. Since this is about the radio, though, please show me either a pertinent survey or a poll (one from an unbiased source if possible).
There is no such thing as a poll from an unbiased source. My proof is it's popularity. If it is not what the people wanted it would not exist.
Fair enough, we can agree there is no definite proof of the concept that it is more popular because it dominates the airwaves. I can also admit that I personally have no proof other than my anecdotal evidence from earlier in the postings. I will even agree with your point about giving power to government and having a hard time taking it back.
However, any collective structure (and before anyone goes all "COMMIE" on me, I'm referring to any social structure where people band together) basically exists in order to counter threats too big for the individual. My basic argument in favor of FD / MORA is that I can clearly see huge companies controlling vast areas of media that don't care about me and the others like me who have seen them void our interests for their own format. I do not clearly see how using the government (the collective that I am part of and pay taxes to to protect me and my interests) to break up the media conglomerates and enforcing the idea of making opinion programs show the opposing opinion without bias is a bad thing. This is why I am part of that collective, to be protected without doing the "extra work" of creating another collective to do so.
On its most basic level, would this not help to stimulate a free economy? Would this not expose people as the monsters some claim they are?
Finally, on a certain level, you can argue that any power we give to the government can be equally returned through the same methods you are espousing - raising support and such for specific candidates that will truly endorse our beliefs and fight for our needs. It should technically be no harder than fighting a huge national corporation ... in fact it should be easier, as we have specific benchmarks set for review and affirmation (elections.) Right?
On a basic level, yes. But we both know it would not stop there. It is like when you give the moose a cookie he is going to want milk. The problme is people have become to lax and too dependent on government and the Fairness Doctrine is a prime example.
Also, we all know the billionaire, convicted felon that would like nothing more than a return of the fairness doctrine. Hey if you are willing to cheat on stocks, might as well cheat on free speech.
Whatever. People have become too lax...in exercising their right to the democratic process.
The way you market fundies have come here and repeated, 'let the market decide, let the market decide,' would indicate to me who the dependents in the house are.
What the heck does that even mean?
Actually Hitler never received a majority of the popular vote. Secondly, statistics show that talk radio listeners are mainly well educated, upper middle class people, not "dullards." Poorly educated dullards usually end up on welfare and vote Democrat.
Cartoon is a cartoon. He just projects. He has no factual basis for what he says in here.
Why do the people who call themselves conservatives have no ability to understand that TV and RAdio are FORUMS WHICH ARE ALREADY REGULATED BY THE GOVERNMENT. The Strongest channel in the area carries Rushbo 3 hours a day 5 days a week and then more Jay I have Issues Severn at night. I am not allowed to get a transmitter and broadcast on this wave length. Other channels are almost the same. The GOVERNMENT prevents me or most of you from using that forum without the consent of the license holder. If you all really believe that the government should not interfere you should favor dropping any licensing and any restrictions on our right to speak on these airwaves. If the licensing role is appropriate then the government should regulate in such a way that all viewpoints are aired and given a reasonable shot. Rushbo is on the air 15 hours a week not because he more entertaining than someone like Franken. He is on the air because ownership wanted to build his following and advance his agenda. In the early days of Rock we used to hear about PAYOLA in the context of DJ giving air time to promote a record. Records that were played over and over became hits, others who could not pay for the exposure did not. Ownership of these stations is almost always wealthy and stands to profit from the benefits of moving the public to the right. Even if the speech proferred had no commercial appeal what is the justification for effectively allowing the licensee to invoke the powers of government to silence it. These are forums regulated by the government already.
Good post, steel drivin' man.
Great post Mr. Henry. If i remember correctly, Rush Limbaugh (the show) lost tons of cash in its first years, but was propped up by conservative sponsors.
In D.C. we have WPFW, listener supported radio; 89.3 on the FM. IT hosts a half hour Community Comment every weekday, where a topic is set for the half hour, and listeners can call and voice their opinions. No host to override their comments, no screener (gasp!), just the Station Manager to moderate and make sure that the basic rules aren't abused (no calling everyday, no foul language, 1 minute per caller so that new callers and listeners can have their say). On Friday, its "Your Story of the Week, and Why" where the callers pick the topics they want to discuss. The Station Manager's voice is rarely heard, and he almost never argues with a caller: the show is for the listeners (compare this with Rush's "Open Line Friday" where you still mostly hear Rush pontificating).
WPFW is wholly listener supported, and the list of well-known and well-heeled donors is long. It also hosts Amy Goodman's show Democracy Now, twice a day. One of the few places you can go nowadays and find a real, honest debate of the issues. It's been around for a good while, and has never taken one thin dime of corporate money.
It's also a great station for Jazz (the best and realest in DC). At night they play Reggae and World Music, and on the weekend nights they play Real Hip-Hop (that's Hip-Hop with real DJ's who can scratch and cut and have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the genre).
If you're in the area, tune in to 89.3 FM. You won't regret it. And if you happen to hit them during a pledge drive, give a little.
Your delusions know no bounds.
And your pugnacity is legendary. The airwaves are regulated, if you don't believe it, try and start broadcasting without an FCC license.
I don't think that any conservative has argued that the government doesn't regulate the airwaves. The fact that the government regulates broadcast radio and TV stations is not a good enough reason to bring back the Fairness Doctrine though.
It's a good enough reason to break up the media consildation in this country.
Youwon't get a rise out of me over the FD, I can take it or leave it.
The fact that airways are regulated to prevent one station from overpowering an other gives you the right to remove the consumer's right to choose the information they consume with their consumer dollar?
That's a real stretch.
Licensing exists to prevent all radio from becoming incomprehensible. Companies license the airways from the government so that they are insured official use of the airways without interference.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine. Free markets decide what gets on our airways because radio is a business. They require listeners to support their advertisers in order to pay for their operating costs.
Fairness Doctrine wants to force content on the airways that markets do not want to hear. If the words of opposing voices have merit then they will be heard.
I believe that this latest call for "fairness" is because of how effective talk radio is. Talk radio is a such an effective business that it is gaining listeners, and educating the political population to conservative ideology.
There are so many other areas of media dominated by the voice of the left. Apparently those with a leftist view fear that their opinions cannot compete in a free market.
I believe that if liberals were to truly be progressive, they could innovate, entertain, and compete in the free market without having to resort to bureaucratic control of the consumer's right to choose.
What is Democrats calling themselves Progressives?The Progressive Party is completely separate party. You are one or the other.
False choice. The world isn't black and white.
Spoken as a true lib. There is right and wrong (black and white) in this world: come over from the dark side.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnazium.html
Good point. Hitler supported euthanasia. Therefore, it must be wrong. Sorry, libs. Hitler was an environmentalist. Therefore, environmentalism must be wrong. Remember, you guys played that same card with Savage earlier. If you agree with Hitler on anything, you must be a Nazi. Lol.