UPDATED: Savage on the "progressive movement": "the brownshirts of today ... the same rabble that brought Hitler to power"
On the June 12 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Michael Savage compared the "progressive movement" to the Nazi storm troopers who aided Adolf Hitler's rise to power, saying, "[T]hey are the brownshirts of today." Savage added: "[M]ake no mistake about it, it's the same rabble that brought Hitler to power, and we have them today -- and they're all on the left."
Savage made his comments during his criticism of C-SPAN for its coverage of the 2007 New Media Seminar held June 8-9 in New York. Savage, who received the Talkers Magazine Freedom of Speech Award at the convention, alleged that C-SPAN was trying to "censor" him, because it ended its coverage of the event before he delivered his acceptance speech. Savage offered his listeners the chance to defend C-SPAN by calling his show: "Did they do the right thing? And if so, support it with your call to this show. I'd like to see how you could support censorship, but I wouldn't be surprised by anything today." Savage later stated: "I know that the fascists of today call themselves progressives. I understand that. And I'm a student of the brownshirt movement in Hitler's Germany, and, to me, the progressive movement are the brownshirts."
As Media Matters for America has noted, Savage has frequently compared progressives to Nazis. On the April 23 broadcast of his show, Savage called a speech by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "Hitler dialogue." Additionally, Savage has repeatedly smeared Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), referring to him as the "chief National Socialist," because of Hinchey's support for reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine," which, until 1987, required "that discussion of public issues be presented on broadcast stations and that each side of those issues must be given fair coverage," as the Supreme Court wrote when it upheld the doctrine in 1969.
The Savage Nation reaches more than 8 million listeners each week according to Talkers Magazine, making it the third most-listened-to talk radio show in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.
From the June 12 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: Do you think that C-SPAN had an obligation to censor Michael Savage for what I just said? After all, they were at the Talkers convention, and they covered certain things, but they wouldn't cover my Freedom of Speech Award, the paramount award of the convention. Why? Did they do the right thing? And if so, support it with your call to this show.
I'd like to see how you could support censorship, but I wouldn't be surprised by anything today. I've heard so-called progressives support [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez's closing down a TV station.
So, I know that the fascists of today call themselves progressives. I understand that. And I'm a student of the brownshirt movement in Hitler's Germany, and, to me, the progressive movement are the brownshirts. The greens are the brownshirts -- only today, they wear green shirts and they don't beat anyone up -- comma -- yet. Although I do recall that the environmental extremists did beat up police horses, threw bricks at police horses -- again covered up by C-SPAN and the big -- and big media.
So, in fact, they are the brownshirts of today -- only today, they wear green shirts and they cloak themselves in environmentalism and peace. But make no mistake about it, it's the same rabble that brought Hitler to power, and we have them today -- and they're all on the left.
UPDATE: On the June 15 edition of C-SPAN's Washington Journal, host Brian Lamb noted that Savage "is upset with us because we didn't cover his ... speech he was to give in person before the Talkers Magazine convention." Lamb further stated, "The decision to not carry the speech was made by our programming department -- our vice president of programming, Terry Murphy -- and the reason was that Mr. Savage did not appear in person. He sent a DVD of an 11-minute speech, and we have offered him, in lieu of that, an opportunity to cover a speech that he might make -- the same speech if he wants to -- if he gives it before an audience out there in the [San Francisco] Bay area where his program operates." Later in the program, Lamb added, "[W]e don't show DVDs of somebody's speech. We'll cover them in person, and we've offered on occasion -- and he's turned us down -- to cover his talk show on television."
From the June 15 edition of C-SPAN's Washington Journal:
LAMB: The decision not to carry the speech was made by our programming department -- our vice president of programming, Terry Murphy -- and the reason was that Mr. Savage did not appear in person. He sent out a DVD of an 11-minute speech, and we have offered him, in lieu of that, an opportunity to cover a speech that he might make -- the same speech if he wants to -- if he gives it before an audience out there in the Bay area where his program operates.
[...]
LAMB: He's upset with us because we didn't cover his Freedom of Speech Award speech that he was to give in person before the Talkers Magazine convention in -- the talk show hosts in New York. We covered some of that, but not all of it, and chose not to cover -- rerun his speech. He didn't go to the event. He sent a DVD in, and we don't use -- we don't show DVDs of somebody's speech. We'll cover them in person, and we've offered on occasion -- and he's turned us down -- to cover his talk show on television.
"[T]hey are the brownshirts of today." Savage added: "[M]ake no mistake about it, it's the same rabble that brought Hitler to power, and we have them today -- and they're all on the left."
He's 97% correct. If you substitute "left" for "right" he'd be a perfect 100%, but 97% is pretty good in savage land.
Please elaborate on your "the right is the spearhead of censorship" asertation. Savage is talking about how his conservative speech was censored from C-span, are you saying he's a lib? Last I checked the fairness doctrine is targeted at conservative talk being augmented by more liberal shows. Who got Imus (who ironically was more of a lib than a con) fired? Cons? Please back up your accusations.
You mean like, discussing why it's ok for Savage to baselessly accuse liberals of being Nazi's? I recall just the other day being excoriated for saying "reich wing" of the republican party. Seems your side gets their panties in a twist whenever someone accuses you of acting like the political arm of germany responsible for the silencing and eventual extermination of all opposition, and here savage is doing the same, with your approval. I don't have to defend anything, buster. It's been proven time and again that savage wishes and dreams for our imprisonment, our silence, our eventual extermination of anything liberal. I'm turn about is fair play, so no. I won't "prove" anything, it's been done. You are on the chopping block to back up your drivel, go ahead - bring forth another of your famous "he really meant this when he said that" lines of garbage you are so well known for.
In parting, a line that somehow today really defines Savage:
I am a hero who never fails. I cannot be bothered with these details!
Wow, Ispent a few minutes typing a retort pointing out the times the left has censored, most recently Imus, and Savage being censored by C-span, and the fears of facism brought on by Margret thacher and Ron reagan who turned out to be instrumental in the ending of the cold war. When attempting to post I was informed that I shouldn't use profanity. After reading my post twice the most profane word I could find was "LIBS" which is a four letter word and is a group that is currently destroying our nation. I would like to thank the "administrators" at MMFA for giving me a first hand experience of censorship. I hope this post wasn't too "profane" (re: conservative) for the brownshirts in charge of this website.
Happens to us all. I was about to post my latest version of "I am, I said" - doesn't take much. Guess we just both learned that there's no reason to cuss to make a point...
My point is that I didn't and never have used profanity on this website. When I tried to protest I couldn't, just thought I'd let the powers that be know what happened.
you seem to have plenty of posts on this thread. your story of woe rings a little hollow.
It was only one post that was found to be offensive, though as I've already said there were no profane words and I tried to appeal but there was something wrong with that process
I know what you are saying, but believe me, it could have been a harmless word, but sometimes it takes time to figure out just what word is the bad boy. No one gets it, but rest assured, we all suffer it.
Yeah, I probably over reacted, just never happened on this site before.
But, back to the real issues you argued--
Imus, and Savage being censored--Give me a break. It would be more accurate to say Imus was boycotted. He may say whatever he wishes, just as the rest of us may. He no longer has a radio show to do that from. That's not censorship. A news agency didn't report on Savage's award. Cry me a river. How is this censorship?
. . .fears of facism brought on by Margret thacher and Ron reagan who turned out to be instrumental in the ending of the cold war.-- Jeez, I need another break already. The cold war ended when the USSR went broke. Oppertunistically, Reagan called for Gorby to "Tear down that wall" after it was too late for their Government to survive. End of story.
"LIBS" . . .a group that is currently destroying our nation.--In what ways? By demanding equal rights for all, fair elections, good employment, health care, an equal playing field, jobs, clean air and water, peace? Which of these beliefs are destroying our Nation? Do you believe that employing practices that are equitable for all will be unfair for Republicans?
Imus is an American hero who was railroaded by self serving race baiters like Al Roker. They scared Steve Capus so much that he reacted like the coward he is. Now MSNBC ratings have dropped 67% and NBC Nightly News tanked, causing untold revenue loss. The last time I looked, Adolph Hitler is the father of race baiting.
Look, Imus screwed up. He violated a public trust when he used his public position to attack private citizens.
He was held accountable for his actions.
"Imus is an American hero who was railroaded by self serving race baiters like Al Roker."--hemarten
I think you mean Al Sharpton. Al Roker is not a knonw "self-serving race baiter" that I know of.
so "the brownshirts on this site" weren't out to get you?
That said, what do you think of Keith Olbermann's Nazi Salute? Cons have long been considered the harbinger's of facism (and yes, the third reich WAS conservative) from Thacther's regime in britton (which was the inspiration for the graphic novel "V for Vendetta") and Ronald Reagn. When in truth it's leftist who recently are demonstrating a desire for censorship (think "fairness doctrine", Chavez shutting down an entire TV station, Sharpton V. Imus, Savage V. C-span). The most recent examples of censorship have come from the left and the fears of censorship from the right never have materialized.
I'm about to lose power here, will talk later. but i leave by saying the fairness doctrine is not censorship. it's main points are about giving fair access regardless of party affiliation. will talk later...
Which is impromptu censorship. Follow this line of thought. If a radio station has X number of broadcast hrs which they fill with Y number of conservative talk shows but the fairness doctirne calls for you to add Z number of Lieral shows what happens to the number of Con shows? Answer, because the Radio station can't magically add hours to the day and it has to "offer the other side of the issue" it has to lose some con shows. This is censorship and will hurt the earning power of said stations.
Back again! Yahoo!
Now let's talk. You just made my 1st point for me, that letting a disenting view on cuts into channel revenue. That's not censorship, that's lazy marketing on the station's part. They created a model that brings in sufficient funds regardless of demographics, but didn't bother wasting time maximizing market share, and that is the liberal's fault???
Point #2 - liberals created savage? Do you know who George Takai is? He's Sulu from Star Trek. Did you know that he grew up in a japanese internment camp in Arkansas? It took him 25 years to get in a position where his skills made him money, and you tell us savage couldn't wait??? Savage is clearly selfish...
And who put MR Takai in that camp? Answer, one of the heroes of the liberals FDR. NOT a conservative.
Oh, don't even go there. This was a decision that was driven by the majority of the country. You just skirted the main point as well, patience vs immediate compensation. Not a good start for you.
Well, I'm sorry history is on my side when it comes to facism from the left. The most recent acts of facism (including the internment of the japanese) has been done by the left. My gravest apologies that history goes contrary to your beliefs but, well, you brought it up.
You did not prove that point. FDR was a great liberal, but he certainly did not have a foolproof liberal cabinet to make 100% liberal decisions with. Much like Abe couldn't get 100% support from his northern generals, ja know...
Stop arguing about who signed, and start focusing on who drove it, OK?
He did have veto power right? That wasn't part of the patriot act or something was it? Just accept that he acted facistically and he was a lib. I accept that Lincoln made many questionable calls but he had to (he also freed the slaves) and he was the greatest president in history (and a republican).
And, in his day he was considered a LIBERAL! Remember the party shift in the mid 1900?
Was that before or after a greater percentage of republicans than democrats voted for the civil rights act?
Your talking about southern "Dixiecrats" who were in essence booted from the party. Your guys love to use this canard as a crutch to make the case that your party's not laced with bigotry. Problem is, it just doesn't fly with those who think.
Now, try responding to my questions, then please give me a challenge. If I deal with too much of this kidstuff I'll lose my edge.
Former KKK member Robert "Sheets" Byrd certainly wasn't booted from the party. Try again.
Nice rectum extraction. You forgot to mention his apologies, admission of wrong doing, and decades of ceaseless endeavors to right those wrongs. You also failed to mention the many Republican office holders who currently are working against racial equality.
That didn't stop him from using the "n" word on cable TV a few years back:
In 2001 on CNN: I couldn't even write the real n-word, because Media Matters censored it. That's how bad his comment was.
"Are much, much better than they've ever been in my lifetime.... I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us ... I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that. There are white n-word. I've seen a lot of white n-word in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."[
Mecaca.
Ugh. Really? That's your big proof that the Dems are the party of bigotry? Do you really think that'll work?
"You also failed to mention the many Republican office holders who currently are working against racial equality"
Are you talking about the Republicans in Congress who are fighting against the reverse discrimination policies that the Democrats support?
and Rino Hunter REALLY needs a date or a hobby...
And you really need to change your username.
Take a look at the voting stats, Rino, take a closer look
"booted from the party?" Au contraire, the Dixiecrats bolted from the party, and were welcomed with open arms by the Republicans. Johnson knew when he signed the Civil Rights act that he had damaged his party for the next generation. Nixon was quick to see the opportunity, and fashion the "Southern Strategy." As he observed, "the American people vote their fears, not their hopes." Republicans have been riding that horse ever since.
Right on the motherf*cking nose, Conchobhar!
Really going to go there? What party did the Southern Democrats join after the Civil Rights Act? If you break it down more closely, examine this, first from the House
Southern Democrats 7 for it, 87 against it (again, awful, but) 9%
Southern Republicans 0/10=0%
Northern Democrats 145-9 (94%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%)
Senate:
Southern Democrats 1 for-20 against (5%)
Southern Republicans 0-1 (0%)
Northern Democrats 45 for, 1 against (98%)
Northern Republicans, 27 for, 5 against (84%)
So, while you see it was mostly a North/South breakdown, not a single one of the 11 Southern Republicans voted for it, while a small number of the Southern Dems did.
In the North, 190 Dems voted for the Act, and only 10 against, (95%), Republicans show less support in the North, 165 for, 29 against (85%).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party_and_region
After the Civil Rights Act, the Wallace Dems left the party. Goldwater, who voted against the Civil Rights Act won 5 states that hadn't voted Republican since 1876. Wallace carried most of the South in 1968.
So, please, when you start by saying that Republicans won the Civil Rights Act, take a closer look.
Hmm, hear that silence? My parents and grandparents had a huge problem with the Republican Party. You see they were from a small town in the South. My grandparents told us of their horrible experiences with Southern White racist, it was a tad better during my parent’s time but not much. Most of the Blacks left town and headed north for a better life. You see they always felt that the Racist Southern Democrats that had made life so bad for them immediately became Racist Southern Republicans when the Democratic Party adopted civil rights as a platform item. Every honest person in this country knows that happened. Maybe some of these people have reformed their racist attitudes but and have remained Republicans, that I don't know. But their initial response to equal rights for Blacks was met by a mad dash to the Republican Party, and RINO is complety delusional, and furthermore The Republican Party of 2007 does not even resemble the Republican Party of the 1960's. At That time those ranks were made up of mostly Northern affluent people, The party had the interests of business as a priority.
Its deafening, Lynn. Thanks for the reply. I have posted that or a similar version on 3 or 4 threads for Rino or S. Shaw and have yet to get a good reply. Rino once acknowledged it was a north-south thing, but did not look at the voting ratios.
Feel free to copy and paste that post if you need it.
You're right. The Republicans didn't "win" the Civil Rights Act. The NORTH won the Civil Rights Act. It broke down into north vs. south. And no, there isn't a lot of difference between 98% and 84%. It's not a significant difference. All those stats prove is that the vast majority of northern Congressmen in BOTH parties voted for the Civil Rights Act and the vast majority of southern Congressmen in BOTH parties voted against the Civil Rights Act.
It is a difference though, but why do Republicans (not you) like Shaw continue to bring it up?
I don't know. I don't think it really applies today. I don't know of anybody in either party who now opposes the Civil Rights Act. It's not an issue anymore.
It's not an issue because the liberals won that one. Conservatives have a hard time admitting they were once on the wrong side of history. I find it encouraging they now largely take the liberal stand.
So all of the northern Republicans who voted for it were liberals as well?
Predominantly. Both parties were "bigger tents" in those days, each with a liberal- moderate-conservative spectrum.
For their day, they were probably considered to be more "liberal" than most.
and that differs from the present how?
S Shaw. Here is the 10 million dollar question, that no one on your side has been able to answer-- If there really is a Liberal Media, why then did the Reagan administration get rid of the Fairness Doctorine ?
Because Reagan supported free speech rights and he knew that conservatives would win in the market place of ideas. Getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine gave conservatives a platform on talk radio, and conservatives on talk radio finally had the chance to try to balance out the overwhelming liberal bias on television and the print press. Talk radio is the one sector of the media that conservatives actually have control of, and it is due to the fact that Reagan got rid of the rigid government control of the media and allowed the free market to reign.
Nice try, but you make it sound as though talk radio was never there until Reagan got rid of the Fairness Doctorine. Something we both know is untrue.
If you were to believe that ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS (those were the only news stations on TV throughout most of the 1980's) were Liberal, why would you get rid of the only mechanism that would allow Conservative rebuttal?
The bias on those stations were more subtle in nature. It was so called "objective journalists" who were liberally biased because of what they covered and what they refused to cover. They weren't necessarily coming right out and pushing a liberal agenda. The Fairness Doctrine couldn't have been used against reporters who were claiming to be objective. The Fairness Doctrine only applies to those with an admitted political bias.
Fairness Doctrine only applies to those with an admitted political bias. - RINO Hunter
Where do you get this stuff? It's almost funny the way you make up s--- as you go along.
You didn't even try to refute what I said, so it's obvious that you can't.
The Fairness Doctrine only applies to those with an admitted political bias.--RinoBrain
Can you please define "admitted political bias" and show me where in The Fairness Doctorine it said that?
Then, try again to answer my post above. What you said made no sense at all in rgards to The Fairness Doctorine.
Correct he chose not to join in your bizarre hallucination. The relevant question here is do you EVER know what you are talking about?
Funny how you call actual explanations "bizarre", but can't refute what is said. I think he asked for your opinion on what he said, but was offered only insults. Perhaps that's why the left can't keep anyone on the air in public radio, all they end up doing is insulting their rivals and never offer viable explanations.
Now, they want to force conservative radio to air money-losing left opinions that only insult the general public. Yeah, that's real "fair" of the fairness doctrine.
Only funny to someone to dumb to know what they are talking about. The fairness doctrine NEVER had any stipulation that it could be used ONLY against those who admitted a political bias, that is fantasy. Thus bizzare as an assertion. Do I need to hold your hand and walk you through every point I make that would be obvious to a reasonably bright ten year old? He pulled nonsense out of his ass and pretended it was factual. That is bizzare. The fairness doctrine only says that both sides of an issue be heard. If you think THAT insults the AMerican public it is further evidence you arent very brigth and have a low opinion of the American people. Since the fairness doctrine existed for decades and I dont remember any station claiming it was a drain on their income that sounds like another of your long line of baseless assertion that you pulled directly from your rectal database
Examples?
RINO:
So, "objective journalists" were NOT "pushing a Liberal agenda" ... and this was a problem for Conservatives HOW?
Because there was no blatant bias, the conservaties were powerless to demand equal time for THEIR blatant bias? And the answer to this rank unfairness (NOT pushing a Liberal Agenda) was to turn all airtime, broadcasts out to "the highest bidder" ... read "monied interests with a conservative PRO-business bias" ... and allow Blatant Bias for the RIGHT without any "equal time" requirement?
Your formulation makes no sense.
On the other hand, TRUTH and REALITY tend to have a Liberal Bias, because Republican policies ... pro-business owners and anti-worker, pro-discrimination and anti-fair treatment, pro-RICH and anti-POOR, pro-windfall profits and anti-environmental protection ... are all LOSER POSITIONS in an election.
If the TRUTH is reported, Republicans don't stand a chance at election. That's why they needed CONTROL of the Media, for propaganda purposes, and with NO requirement that they offer equal time.
So the Fairness Doctrine was done away with, and so were all restrictions preventing a monopolistic takeover of our Media by the hyper-biased corporate interests.
REAL NEWS OBJECTIVELY REPORTED is fatal to Rightwing interests. That is why the Rupert Murdochs of the billionaire class needed the green light to co-opt all American media and turn it into All-Rightwing, All the time Rightwing Propaganda.
And it has happened. The one thorn the Rightwing couldn't have anticipated is the Internet, which now exposes all the bias and lies of the "Mainstream" Rightwing Media, and they HATE that the Truth still exists to expose the treachery of rightwing propaganda.
"If the TRUTH is reported, Republicans don't stand a chance at election"
You don't have to worry about that. There's still a blatant left wing bias in both the print press and the major networks.
Pardon me for asking, but could you provide a few examples of the "blatant bias" you are experiencing.
I am just curious cause I have missed it.
The New York Times and the Washington Post are both blatantly liberally biased, and they are the two biggest newspapers in the country. The New York Times placed the recent terrorist plot that the government broke up on about pg. 53 of their Newspaper. On pg. 1 they actually had a story about indian brick builders. How absurd is that? That's just one obvious example. CBS had a partisan Democrat in Rather as host of the evening news for many years, and now they have another partisan Democrat as host of the evening news in Couric.
Rino,
Did you note that the NY Times had a lead for that Terror story on page one? Did you also notice that they banged the drum as loudly if not more so for the war in Iraq with their Judith Miller reporting? They also had the NSA wiretap story a year before they wrote it, but for some reason, they said they didn't want to affect the election. To me, both of those examples strongly favored the current regime.
The Washington Post editorial board is strongly conservative even to the point it contradicts its own reporting.
I will agree with you on Rather, but did you see that Couric revived the Obama in a madrassa story a few weeks ago after it had been totally debunked? I think its too early to decide on her.
I think the NYT and Post have, if anything, distorted things in favor of conservatives with the examples I cited above.
Also, if you think its ok to have conservative bias in talk shows where many people, like my mother, get their news why can't newspapers?
I am not saying there is a bias in the Post or Times especially after reading the reporting leading up to the War in Iraq or reading Washington Post editorials. Just my two cents.
The more we find out about those terrorist wannabes the more page 53 seems about right.
No there isnt. Feel free to keep repeating this nonsense in the vain hope it will magically make it come true but wishing wont make it so.
THE RICK:
WITH the Fairness Doctrine IN PLACE, Ronald Reagan delivered regular radio messages in preparation for his run for the presidency. He used the radio, and his Hollywood-trained voice, to build name recognition for himself and deliver his "view" of policy and issues.
Reagan was HEARD. The FD did not silence his voice; quite the contrary. He used the medium of radio well, and had no problem at all with censorship.
Rightwingers don't want equal access, they want total control and monopoly. THAT is why Reagan got rid of the FD ... HIS voice was heard, but he didn't want his OPPONENT's voices heard as well.
Your argument makes no sense at all. The radio is a free market. Any liberal can create their own show and become successful. There aren't any barriers to entry. If there were liberal talk show hosts who got good ratings, radio stations would love to air their shows and make a lot of money. They are all about making money, and if there were actually liberal hosts who were successful and got good ratings, these radio stations wouldn't hesitate to put them on.
Markets, money, entertainment, popularity. Where does truth, fact and an informed electorate fit into this model of profit driven media?
Your friend Tex has come right out and said that the truth is acually LIBERAL, so it's obvious that many of you think that any media which isn't 100% liberal isn't truthful and has a conservative bias. Many liberals want a media which is 100% liberal, since as Tex said that is the only way to be fair, balanced, and truthful. Most Americans are right leaning and disagree, however. The media today still leans left, so you really don't have much to worry about. All that we conservatives have is talk radio and Fox News. Liberals still have control of the print press and the three major networks.
Truth is interpretative; it is formulated within the framework of one’s worldview. Fact is objective and supports our perception of truth. Greater precision and accuracy pertaining to objective fact binds truth, almost molecularly, to one’s worldview. If Tex and I believe progressivism reflects more cohesively fact bound to truth, who is to disagree? The same follows for conservatism. But why do conservatives hang their hats on distortions and logical fallacies? Distortions like, torture yields the best information when study after study proves otherwise. Logical fallacies like, popularity measures honesty.
REALLY?Tell that to Jim Hightower
Reagan allowed a few rich oligarchs to buy up all the press, so they can lie their arses off and make a bundle doing it. That's not freedom, that's tyranny.
So I suppose letting the government run the media would be "freedom?"
Restoring the rules that keep the media oligarchs from owning everything is all we need. I don't want Murdoch or Clear Channel owning the complete press of entire states to push their reactionary agenda.
Aw, c'mon. How could the fact that 90% of the media market is owned by nine conglomerates possibly distort or undermine our democracy? Surely they will police themselves, the unseen hand of the marketplace will work its magic and an informed citizenry will be the result. And if not, at least we'll all be well-versed in the latest activities of Paris Hilton.
This isn't about the market place of ideas in my opinion. I couldn't care less about talk radio, but what I do care about is the truth. Our mainstream media is long on opinion and short on truth. It shouldn't be about conservative vs. liberal ideas. All of this talk about conservative ideas being more profitable is silly, and not the point. How are people supposed to have well rounded opinions based in fact when we are routinely denied the truth by the mainstream media?
For example, we heard little about the genocide in East Timor because we were supplying the Indonesians with weapons. We don't hear much about Blackwater, or GE's refusal to clean up their mess in the Hudson river, or the treatment of the people of Diego Garcia who were kicked off their island by the British so we could lease the island to put a military base there, or that NATO bombed refugee camps during the conflict in Bosnia. The list of what we aren't told is much longer than that which we are privy to. The role of the media is to tell the truth, so we can be a well informed populace with the ability to foster democracy. Our media is not liberal or conservative, it is corporate, and those with pro-corporate content are rewarded. Others are marginalized and ignored. The media's purpose was never supposed to be to make a profit. It was meant to be a tool of democracy.
Our present corporatist media just proves that the "free market" cannot be trusted to police itself. The rich will just buy up everything and use their wealth to crush all opposition. So regulation of markets is not only necessary, it's vital.
I agree completely. Some people just confuse corporatism(fascism) with capitalism. Capitalism is not capable of doing the job of a government, it is a good economic system, but it is not the cure all for society.
Seraphim
Great post, your right on target!
Thank you.
Great post. Exactly so. Timor was a perfect example
Thank you too Solon.
I feel for you if you actually believe what you just wrote.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
That is funny stuff!
Catch yourself on, lad. The entire country was basically united in the war effort, and the rage between left and right didn't exist as it does now. The internment of the Japanese was one of those shameful things that peoples do when they go to war. Both left and right disgraced themselves, as did Congress, which let the Executive do it, and the Supreme Court, which approved the atrocity. There's plenty of blame to go around.
I agree completely. We SHOULD learn from our mistakes
The most recent acts of facism:
GITMO dear boy, GITMO. Have you disappeared lately?
I'm still laughing at the fact that Rino boy thinks Republicans have ANY ideas. Well. any ideas that would appeal to the average American. Delusional.
Wow, and with that same thought process you support Democrats whos great adgenda for almost two years was "The strategy in Iraq isnt working, there needs to be change...what change you say? We havent decided on that yet."
Thank you for waiting two days foe that response... yes...
The Congress did decide. Remember the spending bill fo Iraq the Pres vetoed? I do believe it had an alternative strategy embedded in it.
Sebastion Shaw's ability to be inaccurate, apologetic for the right and ridiculously whiny are not new for this site. What bothers me is that he doesn't even attempt to make any sense or logical conclusions of any of his assertions. Plus, he's a boring writer, thus robbing me of the joy of getting fired up about his opinions.
History ISN'T on your side unless you mean the history of your slavish devotion to your delusional fantasies
Snoopy,That's a new low, even for you. You are on the record now supporting Japanese American internment. I guess there is a Michelle Malkin inside you. Ahem! BTW, are you saying that FDR had nothing to do with the internment camps?
WHAT???? I've never supported it, and you can't find a single statement by me saying I supported it. That was very low and disengenious of you to suggest I did.
That was completely unfounded, Genghiz. You're fooling no one.
Disengenuousness and dishonesty is his speciality
The Japanese internment was indeed a shameful violation of due process and the rights of the "accused".
But there IS another way of looking at the action. Pearl Harbor had just been bombed in a surprise attack, and the danger of Japanese spies on the mainland was a very real threat felt by the frightened American public.
Under these volatile circumstances, there is such a thing as "protective custody." Had those of obvious oriental extraction been left in place on the streets of America, it is very likely there would have been great violence done to them by angry Americans with a mob mentality.
It's very likely that locking them up for a time might have saved their lives.
George Takai is Hiros father on Heros.
Except the fairness doctrine demands no such thing only that if someone is attacked they get the chance to give their side and if a public issue is being discussed the other side has a right to air THEIR point of view. I dont see how demanding both sides of an issue be heard can possibly be considered censorship. When the Weinerdogs and Limbaughs of the world are told what they cannot say and who they cannot attack get back to us
Except the fairness doctrine demands no such thing only that if someone is attacked they get the chance to give their side and if a public issue is being discussed the other side has a right to air THEIR point of view.
Why would the fairness doctrine be needed for that? What is stopping 'the other side' from airing their point of view, now?
I can understand those demands if the company is owned/operated by a government entity, but forcing a private company to isn't a burden they should incur.
Its not always available. Private media corporations REFUSED to sell airtime to the group advocating the California proposition that would have installed a statewide single payer health care system so they wouldnt piss off their insurance advertisers. You CALL it a burden but THEY are making their money off of OUR resource that incurs certain OBLIGATIONS. When they use OUR resource to make THEIR money they must fullfill the obligations WE demand of them, maximizing profits are not the ONLY interests that have to be served here.
ALL private media corporations refused to sell air time?? Or, just some (the more popular ones)?
If a car company sells dodge cars in a small town and it's the only dealership are they REQUIRED to sell chevy's if someone demands they sell chevy's?
AUTO: If the auto dealer is using public lands to display and sell their cars, then they damn sure MUST accomodate other dealers. Otherwise, it's the government supporting a monopoly, which is ANTI-CAPITALISTIC.
Of course, Capitalism contains within its tenets the seed of its own destruction. Capitalism instructs businesses to compete fiercely, to increase market share or die, and to absorb or destroy all competition. By this formula, MONOPOLY is inevitable, and happens soon.
Monopoly WILL occur, if not prevented. Anti-Trust law prevented many monopolies at the turn of the century (railroads, steel manufacturers) which had consolidated to such a point there was no viable competition. Monopoly is a TOTAL FAILURE of Capitalism.
Republicans simply WILL NOT ENFORCE the regulations and laws necessary to save capitalism from itself. They think "the market" will solve all problems, and that concentrating on getting a billionaire his next billion is the most honorable pursuit a government servant can do. In fact, this mindset is destroying the American economy.
So, you're saying that ALL radio stations are now government controlled and are required to air ALL information that the government tells them to? Isn't all land owned by the government and individuals actually just 'rent' land from the government? Since the government has the right to take land at any time it chooses(eminant domain). Doesn't that make every business a government overseen entity? And all business's are now required to sell items it isn't in business to sell the moment someone demands they sell any given item?
And, you didn't address this concern; have ALL media companies stopped airing 'the opposing view' or just the popular ones?
WE OWN THE AIRWAVES PERIOD. The radio stations use OUR resource to make their money. THAT gives us the RIGHT to a say in how they are used. Again this is a perfect example of how often rightwingers put property above people. Even though the airwaves BELONG to us its more important to some conservatives to demand corporate entities be able to do anything they want to maximize their profits completely ignoring the effects on society AND the ownership rights of the people.
Let's go this way. Solon, you've said you live in the bay area (like me), you probably listen to 'the quake' on 960AM (randi rhodes and ilk). You probably do not listen to knew on 910AM (savage and the rest). Both stations are owned/operated by clear chanel. Is THAT what you expect of the fairness doctrine? Or are you after forcing 910 to air liberal opinions during conservative shows and forcing conservatives to air their opinions during liberal shows on 960?
I dont know where you got any of that. I never said any such thing. I live in Arizona. What I have said is personally I dont care one way or another about the Fairness doctrine. The way it used to work is that when public issues were discussed opposing views had a right to give THEIR side and if someone was personally attacked they had a right to airtime to give their side. Again I dont care about the FD. My argument is that it is NOT an infringement on Free speech nor is it censorship. What I am saying is we have the RIGHT to have a discussion and democratically decide if the use of the airwaves that belong to us is fulfilling their public service function. Saying it is an infringement on free speech is saying we dont have the right to that discussion. I say we do once it is engaged you conservatives are also owners of the airwaves if YOU convince people the FD shouldnt be brought back fine, if the other side convinces enough people it should be fine I dont care how it shakes out I am only saying we have a right to the dialogue
What I am saying is we have the RIGHT to have a discussion and democratically decide if the use of the airwaves that belong to us is fulfilling their public service function.
Well, when a government controlled media service has a discussion and someone's "feelings" are hurt from the discussion then they can have the right to equal time. But, as long as it's privately owned broadcasting the person has NO right to demand free airtime on someone else's business time. The can get their own station and broadcast all they want. There are hundreds, if not thousands of frequencies to choose from.
But, since you don't know how it works, perhaps someone who does can answer my previous question and perhaps you can just sit back and watch, maybe you'll learn something.
Look you insufferable MORON, the airwaves ARE scarce like I said this has already been ajudicated by the Supreme Court. We DO have a right to regulate them PERIOD. WE OWN THE AIRWAVES. THEY BELONG TO US. What part of that are you just flat too stupid to understand? They get the right to make huge sums of money OFF OF OUR RESOURCE in return for performing a public service function. Telling me that us OWNERS have no say in how OUR resource is used because someone USING them doesnt like the idea is STUPID. It cannot possibly be taken seriously. They are sharecroppers on OUR LAND, we absolutly can say how that land is used.
Don't get your panties all in a bunch, solon, if you don't know the answer, just say so. Nobody expects you to know everything.
Anybody except solon, (who doesn't know this answer): Will the radio station that is forced to air "the other opinion" be reimbursed for lost airtime? Will it be at the going rate of what they charge everyone else to broadcast on their station?
Simple questions that matter greatly in this "fairness doctrine" conversation that I haven't seen anyone address, yet.
I did answer it. You are too stupid to recognize the answer. They are using OUR airwaves the deal is WE decide how they are used and they get to make money off of OUR resource. Its like they mine a gold mine on OUR property and WE get to say how they mine it. So we dont OWE them any reimbursement. IF they dont like the deal they can make their money some other way. Find someone with a normal IQ to explain this to you. Its really very simple but obviously beyond your limited comprehension capabilities.
I think you are wrong with that opinion and I believe that's all it is...opinion. I don't think you know what you're talking about concerning that aspect of the fairness doctrine. Why would a 'for profit' business be required to air 'the opposing view' for no charge when 'the opposing view' has their own ability to air their complaints?
Find someone with a normal IQ to explain this to you.
I'm trying to. You don't seem to be able to answer the question with fact, only opinion.
IF they dont like the deal they can make their money some other way.
Just like the liberal stations can't make their money in the radio business, so they plan on forcing the conservative stations to lose money airing liberal opinions? Ha! That bill won't go far!
Quick analogy for ya, solon. Along the lines of your 'gold mine' analogy.
If I own a radio station and I play only country music. Someone compains they want rap played on MY station will I be required to play rap music, since WE get to choose how the air waves are used??
Then what difference is it when someone has their "feelings" hurt by talk radio or music radio, since the airwaves are owned by US? Will WE have the same rights to force every radio station to play whatever WE want them to??
"have ALL media companies stopped airing 'the opposing view' or just the popular ones?"
All the media companies available in most parts of the country have stopped. Question answered?
Arguably the problem is not so much the lack of the fairness doctrine as the removal of the rules on market dominance. Most of the markets in the country have all their TV stations controlled by one or two entities and their radio stations controlled by a larger but still very small number. Prior to the removal of the rules, each company was only allowed to own one or two stations in each market, as well as having a maximum percentage. Now each can own dozens of stations.
This isn't such a big issue if you live in one of the exceptions, but it is for the rest of us. Hinchey's MORA restores the anti-monopoly rules.
If CARS were a publicly OWNED commodity you would have a point since they ARENT your post is a complete non-sequitur. WE OWN THE AIRWAVES. What part of that can you NOT understand?
Aren't the roads publically owned? Which (similar to airwaves) are being used by the privately owned items. We allow all the different brands to use the publically owned roads. If one brand isn't using the roads, do we demand that all other brands supply people with the 'not-used' brand to provide 'equal' usage of the roads?
How many frequency's are available in OUR airwaves? Will this example work?; a private corp, A, 'rents' a frequency from US to broadcast what they think will monetarily benefit them. If another private corp B wants to 'rent' OUR airwaves to broadcast what they want, what is stopping them from doing that? Why should A be forced to broadcast what B feels like broadcasting? Is B paying for the rent? Station B can rent their own frequency and do what it wants. Will B be forced to monetarily re-imburse A during this airtime that A is losing because of this act?
Yes the roads are publicly owned and they are regulated. You are told how fast you can drive, that you have to have a license, commercial trucks have added obligations on the road including some roads they are prohibited from. In fact if the airwaves were HALF as regulated as the roads we wouldnt be having this discussion
Your example is completely irrelevant. Since they dont RENT our airwaves they are given them to use to exploit to make their money and the airwaves particularly the radio are scarce so there is a limited amount of airspace available. This has already been hashed out in the Supreme Court. We HAVE the right to regulate the airwaves that simply isnt in dispute. Also what you are not taking into account is that since all media is paid for by advertising which for obvious reasons is dominated by business it makes for a business oriented domination of the media. That is a natural inclination. So if A were rented in your hypothetical by Dow and B by GM OR more likely business A who gets the majority of their advertising revenue from Dow and B from GM where would the public interest that is in conflict with corporate interest EVER be served? That was a well thought out point however and one made without rancor, I commend you on this post.
Also the private corporations ACCEPT those obligations as part of the deal they made to make obscene amounts of money on OUR private property.
Because private companies have their own biases, and in the cases we're considering they act as monopolies or oligopolies -- it's just as bad as government ownership, but without the democratic control.
NBC naturally doesn't want to air anything about NBC criminality (or criminality by GE, which owns NBC). Clear Channel is owned by right-wing true believers who put right-wing propaganda on *every* station with talk, regardless of market demand. FOX News reflects Rupert Murdoch's personal views. Just for a few examples.
The Wall Street Journal is a rare example of a paper which runs articles criticizing its corporate owners. This is thanks to another concept, the "news/corporate wall", or "editorial independence", which doesn't exist at modern TV or radio conglomerates.
The problem is worsened by the extremely small number of conglomerates which legally control almost all of television and radio.
You have to remember that TV and radio are *not* open forums where anyone can set up a station, the way the Internet is. On the Internet, the exact response you described works. It works because of net neutrality. In Canada, without net neutrality, Shaw Cable censored websites criticizing it.
Broadcast TV and radio, in contrast, rely on getting spectrum licenses from the FCC, a limited and expensive supply. There is every ability and incentive for companies to monopolize. The fairness doctrine would only apply to broadcast, not to cable and satellite. Cable and satellite are more open as far as channels, but cable and satellite companies -- cable companies are usually monopolies -- can still discriminate as to what channels to *offer*, they don't need to base this on customer demand, and they do discriminate. My cable company offers many channels of right-wing "Christian" bilge, and I suspect there's not a heck of a lot of demand for it, either; they don't offer any CW affiliate at all, and there's a large demand.
What's even more important than the Fairness doctine is the other part of Hinchey's proposed MORA law: reinstating the ownership limits on stations, so that the radio stations in an area can't be controlled by one or two owners or by related people (as they are now). That would mean that supporters of alternative views would have a much better chance to get their own radio and TV stations -- a chance which is very very difficult right now.
(FWIW, Clear Channel has changed their policies to some extent lately, true. The lure of money is powerful: even though it doesn't always overcome preconceived notions, sometimes it does.)
Might want to reset the tension on your censor detector. The phrase hair trigger comes to mind.
I just thought it was ironic that I got censored by a left-leaning website while debating leftist censorship.
right wing posters pretty much get free reign on here. we only have your word, which is contradicted by the reality.
Your dictionary must be defective. Sharpton didn't censor Imus, the Fairness Doctrine isn't censorship, C-Span didn't censor Savage, and this privately owned site's automated profanity filter didn't censor you.
Dude, Shaw, quit crying already. If I give you some wood and nails could you just crucify yourself and get it over with?
You are delusional. Imus was NOT censorship you apparantly dont know what the word means. C span is under no obligation to put a hateful insane bloviator like Weinerdog on their airwaves also NOT censorship. When Weinerdog or Imus is told they cannot say something on a streetcorner or the next book they right or in a park get back to us.
Alright I guess I'll throw out some definations of the word "censorship" to help you out
Decisive acts of forbidding or preventing publication or distribution of media products, or parts of those products, by those with the power, either economic or legislative, to do so.Does "reverend" Sharpton's group have power?
The practice of suppressing a text or part of a text that is considered objectionable according to certain standards
The text of Dr. Savage's speech was supressed was it not?
Well, if you throw out those 2 definitions of censorship than I guess you have a valid argument so maybe if you guys could only censor the dictionary your arguments would ring true.
No Sharptons group has NO SUCH POWER. His network made an economic decision based on the public outrage at WHAT HE SAID. Its called actions having consequences. He SAID IT therefore by definition it was not censored. By your second example if Cspan decided not to air ANYTHING ANYONE wanted to say it would be censorship. That would mean the networks had NO say over their own content. No showing of censorship try again
So the fact he had a large group of people crying to boycott Imus gave him no "economic pwer" that coerced the sponsors to abort the show? And CBS reason for cancelling the show wasn't for losing sponsors but because it didn't like Imus rhetoric. At least that was their "official statement".
A large group of OWNERS of the resource being used throwing a fit is what I like to call DEMOCRACY not censorship. CBS made their decision after many sponsers jumped ship. Whatever they said to distance themselves from the controversy its disengenuous to say it was anything other than an economic decision.
Let's use your definition and talk about The Dixie Chicks. Were they censored?
To play the Olbermann reference out, do you know what it was in reaction to?
Bill O'Reilly made false claims against WWII American soldiers. O'Reilly claimed that Americans massacred German soldiers at Malmedy in WWII to quote:
O‘REILLY: "In Malmady, as you know, U.S. forces captured S.S. forces who had their hands in the air and they were unarmed and they shot them down. You know that. That‘s on the record. Been documented"
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/06/bill_oreilly_sc.html
Unfortunately for O'Reilly, it was the Germans who massacred the Americans.
http://www.historynet.com/magazines/world_war_2/3030591.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre
When corrected by a viewer via email, O'Reilly only slightly changed his rhetoric:
O‘REILLY: Don Caldwell, Fort Worth, TX. Bill, you mentioned that Malmady as the site of an American massacre during World War II. It was the other way around, the S.S. shot down U.S. prisoners.” In the heat of the debate with General Clark, my statement wasn‘t clear enough, Mr. Caldwell. After Malmady, some were executed by American troops.http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/06/bill_oreilly_sc.htmlDo I agree that KO should have given O'Reilly the Nazi salute? No, but when O'Reilly refused to correct his assertion about a war crime committed by Nazis against Americans, even after his mistake was politely pointed out, he deserves some type of reprimand (not what KO did), does he not?
He just called 84 dead American soldiers War Criminals when they were the victims of one of the most gruesome acts in WWII.
Does that help?
Man you again show that you dont know what you are talking about. Imus wasnt censored. He said whatever he wanted and then faced the consequences of the subsequent ire of the PUBLIC who is the OWNER of the airwaves and the sponsers who didnt want to be associated with such churlish behavior. YOU have no free speech rights to say whatever you want on a privately owned message board. Any more than I have a right to put up a billboard in YOUR front yard. This has been explained ad naseam. One of the problems with propaganda parrots is they just dont care about reality or logic or facts. Only the utility of what they repeat for propaganda purposes. Imus had no RIGHT to his job or to a public audience. He crossed a line that alienated enough people and sponsers he got burned no where NEAR censorship.
Imus's sponsors got Imus fired. If you don't have sponsors for your radio, you're off the air!
>>Please elaborate on your "the right is the spearhead of censorship" asertation.
The right routinely calls criticism of the government unAmerican and treason. Firing Imus was the sort of private business decision the right supposedly likes.
Why do these idiots continue to make fascist references when referring to the left? Are they outright lying and trying to mislead (which, I might add, is a typical fascist tactic) or are they that historically and politically clueless? At least call us red's, or pinko's, it would be more accurate. There are no brown shirts on the left, and there never will be because fascism is right wing ideology. In fact, you would think these numbskulls would try and avoid Nazi references since they just open themselves to such comparisons, which quite frankly, are legitimate.
I love it when libs get so righteously indignant when those on the left are called facist but throw around nazi comparisons to people like Beck, Limbuagh, Savage, etc. The fact of the matter is that Savage is a product of the left's social engineering. After he got his PHD he was looked over for jobs because he didn't fit the preferred demographic (ie, he is a white mail) thus the left created a monster. More recently his freedom of speech award speech was censored from C-span. This speech was conservative in tone and in his opinion he was censored by libs (it's pretty logical if you think about it).
Are you serious Sebastian? He got mad because supposedly some minorities got jobs simply based upon their race. That is pretty weak. Why is it that most everyone complaining about "social engineering" are very very successful ? Clearly Mr. Savage has not been overlooked for jobs as he has a very lucrative one.
You also cited no actual instance of that happening. Has Savage claimed that before? Or did you make it up so you could bash on those with whom you disagree?
He's successful because he has a phd and despite some of his extreme rants is an intelligent man. His being turned away is documented in his first book "The Savage Nation", and like all books is subject to lible lawsuits. The fact that he hasn't been sued is enough for me.
He "may" be all you claim, but I have no use for someone who has to be abusive to make a point. It just wants to make me respond in kind, because the point was lost before he even started...
He has a PHD, gee so does Chomsky, he is intelligent, it seems that way to me but you left out that he is insane.
Sebastian, stop being a moron! Savage's PHD is in Nutrician. He's a glorified Amway salesman. Vitamins and herbs. ha haha! What won't you guys follow ?
VitaMeataVegamin !
Tell me about libel and slander laws Sebastion. Very very hard to win on.
At least that is Weinerdogs story, since the job he wanted went to a white man I find it hard to believe. More likely he thought he could make a lot of money spewing insanity on the radio.
If by "he was looked over for jobs because he didn't fit the preferred demographic (ie, he is a white mail)" you are referring to the incident when he was denied an interview for the position of Dean at the UC Berkeley school of Journalism, which he claims was due to reverse racism because of affirmative action, he is being dishonest. The person who they ended up hiring as Dean is a white male, just like Savage.
no, savage actually thought that the post should have gone to a raving lunatic, for which he was well qualified.
ah, I do believe, that the guy who ended up getting the job Weiner cries about not getting was also a white male. So that rings a little hallow.
Was that proven or just his guess? Anyone can make assertions like that. What was his PhD in?
Epidemiology and Nutrition Sciences
Although if you bring this up as the possible reason why he didn't get the job as Dean of Journalism, the parrots stick their fingers in their ears so they can't hear you. (or on here close their eyes)
Any time Weiner comes up here at least one person (troll) brings it up as proof that he is right. I remember an interview with Weiner a while back, he made the claim, and the interviewer brought up his education back ground. Weiner ignored him and kept arguing that it was discrimination based on race. In the end Weiner got up and stormed out because instead of allowing him to spew his bile, they actually questioned what he said. It was so childish, the way he walked off that it was almost funny, until you realize how many people listen to him and believe what he says.
Thanks, ADM. My preceding post was the equivalent of a volleyball set. Good spike!
"Fascist" really isn't accurate for leftists no matter how you cut it. "Fascist" is a subcategory of "Authoritarian" -- a particularly pro-corporate, military-industrial-complex variety as described by Mussolini. Other subcategories of "authoritarian" are "Stalinst" and "Maoist". If you want to say that left-wingers are authoritarian censors who want to restrict private corporations, call us "Stalinists", dammit -- fascists would never restrict private corporations, only individuals!
"Why do these idiots continue to make fascist references when referring to the left? Are they outright lying and trying to mislead (which, I might add, is a typical fascist tactic) or are they that historically and politically clueless"
What Savage was talking about is a new and dangerous faction on the left which seeks to limit or end free speech rights for those with whom they disagree. They want to get all conservative opposition out of the media, and they want only liberal thought left in the media. They want to impose the Fairness Doctrine to silence conservatives, since they can't compete with them in the market place of ideas. It's a very scary new movement that is definetely fascist in nature. They seek to end free speech rights for their political opponents, which is exactly what the fascists try to do as well. I wouldn't go as far as Savage and call them Nazis, but there's no doubt that there's a faction on the left that's fascist in nature and adamently opposes free speech rights.
Blah, blu blah, blu blah blah blah.
Progressives would allow homosexuals to marry, they must be fascists. Progressives want the privacy rights of women tobe respected, they must be fascists. Progressives want strong unions, they must be fascists. Progressives want media deconsolidation, they must be fascists.
Savage was whining about how "they" "censored" him by not giving him an acceptance speech after they smooched his backside. How is this about censorship in any way?
Also, the Fairness Doctrine doesn't silence anyone. That's like saying a store that stocks Pepsi is trying to run Coke out of business.
Maybe he ought to call for a boycott of C-SPAN, if they're so darn unfair, instead of crying to his fan club.
I'll post this again since you people just can't seem to understand how the "fairness doctrine" is censorship.
Follow this line of thought. If a radio station has X number of broadcast hrs which they fill with Y number of conservative talk shows but the fairness doctirne calls for you to add Z number of Lieral shows what happens to the number of Con shows? Answer, because the Radio station can't magically add hours to the day and it has to "offer the other side of the issue" it has to lose some con shows. This is censorship and will hurt the earning power of said stations.
you're assuming all the "con" shows are ratings winners all over the country and the "lib" shows are ratings losers. that's not the case.
Maybe not, but the ratings of most con shows are greater than most libs shows more often than not. Secondly, it is usually easier to sell advertising to shows hosted by conservative hosts as they are less likely to attack "corporations" and capitalism. But what would I know, I just produce radio shows.
and who owns the airwaves that those corporations advertise on? that would be the public, and when those licenses are granted it's to serve the public good, not just scratch out every nickel you can.
You're right! Severe weather report, traffic reports, PSA's used to inform the public definately don't derve the public. To maintain a license a radio station must provide a certain amount of these services along with whatever programming they wish as long as it's not obscene. How is the government mandating what you must play in the form of your actual programming (ie: non-psa's etc.) not censorship?
you really think public discourse is served by weather reports?
It isn't up to the government to determine whether "public discourse" has been served. The government has absolutely no business interfering in PRIVATE radio markets. These stations receive no money from the government, and the government has absolutely no right to censor the political speech on these stations. The FCC does have the authority to regulate obscene speech, but not political speech. There's a big difference between obscene speech and political speech. My guess is that if the Fairness Doctrine is ever reinstated the originalists on the Supreme Court will strike it down as being unconstitutional. (Although Kennedy is often hard to predict.) It's a violation of free speech rights and freedom of the press.
again, who owns the airwaves that those "private" radio stations broadcast on?
The public, and that's how the FCC has the authority to regulate obscene speech on the radio and television. But as I said, regulating obscene speech is completey different from regulating political speech. Censoring political speech is censoring a political idea and is a violation of free speech rights. Obscenities don't further a political idea and can thus be censored by the government, since the airwaves are a public resource.
again, the false choice you guys always make. no one is calling for censorship. the fact you say it shows the weakness of your argument.
Maybe you forgot about the black list Media Matters made a while back that McCarthy would have been proud of:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704120010
So WHAT it is still part of the democratic process of discussing the use of the airwaves BY THIER OWNERS.
i didn't see the part where they were to be removed from the air.
Then what was the point of the list if not to get these conservatives off the air just like Imus was? Hence the title, "It's not just Imus." Their goal is to get others off the air, since Media Matters succeeded in getting Imus off the air.
Rino,
We have talked about this at length. You said it was fine for people to write to sponsors and tell the sponsors that the consumers writing would no longer buy their products if they continued to sponsor Imus.
Do you honestly think if the sponsors had stayed with him that Imus would be off the air?
We had a conservative radio host in Denver say that if it were up to him he would require incoming Muslims and naturalized Muslim citizens wear GPS bracelets and he would bug mosques.
After that statement, advertisers were contacted with that statement and asked if they were willing to support that type of rhetoric, much like the list on Media Matters. Is that censorship or the beloved free market? I would argue that this type of behavior (the dialogue) is what makes America great. Unlike Imus's sponsors, enough businesses stayed on with this particular host and he is still on the air saying hateful things nightly.
That is all MMFA wanted. If businesses truly want to support the rhetoric that some find hateful, it is their right. If consumers want to boycott those business because they stand behind what some people (not everyone) call hate speech, is that censorship?
How are any of the actions I just explained censorship?
"After that statement, advertisers were contacted with that statement and asked if they were willing to support that type of rhetoric, much like the list on Media Matters. Is that censorship or the beloved free market?"
Dontchya just love how it's all about "let the free market decide" when things go their way, but it's "censorship" or some sort of attack on conservatism when it doesn't?
Yeah, I was beginning to think my post didn't show up. I thought they would like it.
Thanks for the response.
Sorry it took me so long to respond. I've just been busy doing other things. It is legal for people to tell the sponsors of radio shows that they will no longer by their products if they keep sponsoring certain shows. That's their 1st Amendment right as well. But simply because something's legal, that doesn't necessarily make it a good idea or honorable. Liberals have always claimed to be open minded and accepting of other view points, but when they advocate that conservative talk show hosts be taken off the air, it seems to me as if they can't seem to handle opposing view points which challenge their liberal ideology. And again, it's legal for them to advocate that conservative talk show hosts be taken off the air, but it makes them look very closed minded and un-liberal in my opinion. Many liberals, especially on this site, brand anything that a conservative says that they disagree with as "hate speech." In reality it's usually just something that goes against the liberal ideology.
One last point is that Brock and others at Media Matters have long advocated bringing the Fairness Doctrine back. So it's more than just legal censorship. They want to get the government involved in the issue. They want the government to control what private radio stations can play on their own stations. The Fairness Doctrine is constitutionally questionable to say the least, and to me those who support it prove that they aren't open to the concept of a free market and winning in the market place of ideas.
Rino,
Thanks for the response, but I think you missed my point. For one, I have never advocated for the Fairness Doctrine. I realize that others are, but that was not my argument. Also, I disagree with you regarding talking to a show's sponsors. That is a perfect example of the free market. I would compare it to boycotting a company because you don't like how they treat their workers. In this country, if someone or something happens that you don't agree with, you are able to voice your opinion by actions or words. You don't have to just change the channel.
The conservative in Denver said far worse things than Imus (if you read my post, you will see it) and sponsors who did not realize what the host was saying (they had bought air time at the station and their ads were played during this gentleman's show) appreciated the notification and decided they did not want their name associated with such content. To me, that is democracy at work and nothing close to censorship.
I applaud those who stand up for what they believe in and confront those who either lie or distort. The sponsors could have stayed with Imus. They chose not to. There is no censorship there nor was MMFA advocating any. They were just trying to make sure the people who pay a host's salary knew what that host was saying. You can call it censorship, but I will respectfully disagree.
Just for fun, no one answered this a while back, but what did you, or any other conservative, think when stations pulled Dixie Chicks music?
I thought that the whole Dixie Chicks thing was way overblown. I didn't even think that what they said was controversial. They simply criticized Bush, which they have every right to Bush. Even some conservatives now criticize Bush. I think that it was dumb for the stations not to play their music, and it was dumb of some of their funs to not buy their music simply because of the remark that their lead singer made. It was also absurd that O'Reilly spent so much time covering it. It was really a non-issue. No one should really care what the Dixie Chicks say. They aren't political figures, and they shouldn't be treated as such simply because of one remark that they made that some thought was offensive.
Except what you advocate that is the people getting involved in how THEIR RESOURCE ought to be used is a function of practical DEMOCRACY and you know how rightwingnuts HATE Democracy
Actually, it's mostly liberals and Democrats who seem to oppose democracy. They don't want to even give the people the right to VOTE on controversial social issues like abortion and gay marriage. They want activist judges to force their own views on the American people and not even let them VOTE. They support tyranny and not democracy. They are afraid to actually let the people vote on these issues, because they know that they can't beat conservatives in the arena of ideas.
That is absolutely false. Let me ask you this. What are things that legislatures should vote for and what are things private citizens vote for?
Also, if a law on the books is violated and charges are brought, what choice is there but to go to the courts. If the issues you describe should be on the ballot, why are the Republicans not starting iniatives for abortion to be on the ballot?
Also, if you feel we are against democracy, how do you feel about Bush's signing statements? Before you tell me that all Presidents do that, note that most of the previous signing statements were ceremonial and did not talk to the substance of the law in question and they certainly did not speak to as many exceptions as Bush has made.
To me, if I was completely concerned about democracy (which I am) would be my primary focus and concern. Bush is essentially saying that laws voted on by the elected representatives of this country do not apply to him when he signs them into law. Does that process concern you?
Both legislatures and private citizens should be able to vote on issues that the Constitution is silent on. There are some rights in the Constitution that people can't vote on such as the right to bear arms and the right of freedom of speech. States seldom have ballot initiatives seeking to ban abortion because even if the initiative wins and abortion is banned, the courts will strike it down. The lower courts have to follow the Roe v. Wade precedent.
On the other hand, I agree with you on the signing statements. Bush didn't veto a single bill during the first term of his presidency, and that concerns me. Bush should simply veto the bills he disagrees with rather than adding signing statements. I agree with you completely on that.
I appreciate the civil discussion Rino and I have another question for you.
Recently, my hometown has been in the middle of a Bill O'Reilly firestorm. There was a controversial, unbalanced panel at Boulder High School that discussed sex and drugs. Many people were outraged, and justifiably so. However, the panel was not as bad as the media made it out to be.
O'Reilly has told his audience that the panel advocated drug use, unsafe sex and other things. That was not the case. The controversial part about condoms was the speaker, as a 38 yr old, talking to himself as a 15 year old. O'Reilly misrepresented that. O'Reilly has also said that the speakers have been invited back to Boulder High for next year. They have not. O'Reilly said that the local papers did not cover this conference. They did. O'Reilly had a local conservative on his show to discuss the issues and whenever the guy corrected him, O'Reilly called him a liar. The funny part was when O'Reilly called him a S-P when he is a part of the most conservative think tank in the state.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_5567267,00.html
O'Reilly has slandered my hometown repeatedly, lied about the high school kids here and called us left-wing loons. The Conservative on his show (the guy I mentioned) wrote a 30-page report detailing the lies and falsehoods put together by O'Reilly and a local radio show.
http://www.i2i.org/articles/IP_3_2007.pdf
My question to you is this: When someone puts together such blatantly false reporting, what should be done? I believe in changing the channel in most cases, but the propaganda and lies, to me, go way beyond letting this go. He has crossed the line. What would you do in a similar situation?
For me, personally, I am going to notify his sponsors of the lies. They are free to continue sponsoring him, but if they do, they have lost a customer. I realize that you think I should probably just change the channel, but this level of discourse should not be permitted to go unchecked. Do you agree?
If you feel that O'Reilly has crossed the line and should be held accountable, then feel free to call his sponsors. I doubt if it will do any good, but go ahead and try. I don't have as much of a problem with that as I do with the Fairness Doctrine. I know that you said that you don't support the Fairness Doctrine, and I applaud you for that. True liberals who support free speech rights should oppose the Fairness Doctrine. In regards to O'Reilly I listened to the speakers of the conference on his show, and I found what they said to be absurd and abhorrent. I don't think they were being taken out of context. The speakers encouraged the kids to have sex and use drugs. They even joked about using drugs themselves. I'm sure that you're right about O'Reilly being wrong about the speakers coming back next year. I'll talk your word on that.
No matter how often you repeat the dumb lie that the fairness doctrine is a violation of free speech rights it will never represent reality. Its like I am talking to a six year old child, I tell him the sky is blue he says no it isnt its gray look. I say that isnt the sky its clouds and he says the sky is gray look. No those are clouds that is not the sky, but the sky is grey look. Like I said that isnt the sky the sky is blue those are clouds sometimes clouds are gray. Yet he will say AGAIN the sky is gray look. Never even TRYING to address the issue. The fairness doctrine only says the other side be heard it doesnt stop ANYONE from saying ANYTHING therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE to say it infringes on freedom of speech. Keep telling me the sky is gray because you cant tell the difference between clouds and the sky it is NEVER going to make it true.
RINO,
The conference was not the problem. It was how O'Reilly attacked it. The stuff he attacked about sex without condoms was out of context. The student rebuttal was nice, but after four days of O'Reilly bashing my town and rival high school, it was nothing in comparison.
The amazing thing about the interview and O'Reilly's tirades was the sheer hypocracy. Did you know in his book he said similar things to the panel?
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/06/14/press_release_from_boulder_high_student_about_bill_oreilly.php
Did you know he had invited three kids on the show, but at the last minute cancelled two of them?
O'Reilly can complain about the content, but he claimed that the local paper never covered the event which was absolutely false.
If you read the context of the quotes he used, he took some completely out of context.
I encourage you, if you have interest in the issue to read that Independence Institute report. The man who wrote it is very conservative, has a daughter from Boulder High and goes into greater detail. He claims (no clue if he is honest or not about this) that he agrees with O'Reilly on most things.
It is definitely one of those situations where free speech is not an option, but, due to the coverage there is absolutely no chance for fair rebuttal.
Did you know the administration at the high school has been receiving threats from all over the country because of O'Reilly's slanted coverage? He is absolutely out of control!
Okay. You make some good points. You've obviously paid more attention to the issue than I have, since you live in the city where the controversy took place. I wouldn't like it very much if someone criticized my city or state as well. It's nice to be able to have these civil discussions. You're very respectable and make good points without personal attacks. I can't say the same about Solon.
So, if you were me, what would you do? We have been slandered here. The administration at Boulder High has been threatened. According to that link (the report) one of the administrators at Boulder High was the victim of a felony perptrated upon her by O'Reilly's cameraman and interviewer who would not allow her to go to her car.
Boulder is a very liberal place, but for O'Reilly to hammer the town based on lies is unacceptable. Unfortunately, the people of Boulder have no voice large enough to combat the venom that O'Reilly has dispensed. I would love to think that if I changed the channel, it would go away, but the damage has been done.
With the current configuration of the media, how can O'Reilly be held accountable?
And also, this will be my last post on this subject because the posts are getting way too skinny.
If I was a Boulder administrator I would probably just go on Olbermann's show or some other anti-O'Reilly show and make my point. I'm sure that there's plenty of media outlets you could go on to make your point.
Sorry. Meant "take" your word.
Also, O'Reilly did bring a student on his show from the school, and the student told his side of the story which countered O'Reilly. Viewers got to hear an opposing view.
Yeah, the kid got about 50 seconds, O'Reilly had about four shows.
The constitution was written so that the RIGHTS of unpopular minorities are still protected. Your presciption would have had us put Jim Crow laws up for votes and places like Mississippi and Alabama might STILL be keeping black people as second class citizens. The Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and what isnt that is as the Constitution mandated.
No actually it isnt. We have already seen that your definition of activist judge is one you disagree with. Accepting the tenets of the constitution is not anti democratic.
Sorry. I forgot that the abortion clause in the Constitution is found right after the sodomy clause.
Dishonest and disengenuous. No one is advocating taking anyone off the air because of their political views. Imus wasnt taken off the air because of their political views none of those on the list made it thier because of their political views you KNOW that, your entire argument is a strawman without the slightest validity. Your repeated nonsensical repitition of the flatly ludicrous talking point that the fairness doctrine has anything to do with censorship shows your committment to propaganda and your complete disregard for any honesty whatsoever. Demanding the other side be heard silences NO ONE. This point has been made over and over you dont care repeating the propaganda is all you care about, honesty, reality facts, if they show different too bad for them. WE OWN THE AIRWAVES it takes a real committment to rightwing propganda to say that we have NO SAY in how something WE OWN is used. In fact its just plain dumb.
I'll explain how the Fairness Doctrine ends up silencing talk show hosts. If a radio host like Rush Limbaugh were forced to bring liberals on his show and let them speak on his show, his show would become watered down and he would lose much of his audience. Most people in his audience don't listen to his show to hear a liberal point of view, and many would simply choose not listen if Rush was forced to give liberals a platform on his show. Rush's ratings would plummet, and there's a good chance that he would just quit his show all together if his ratings went down the tubes. There wouldn't be any point of him running a failing radio show.
Also, many radio stations simply wouldn't want to put up with the red tape of having to book liberals to be on Rush's radio show all the time. and many would simply cancel the show all together. This would lead to fewer people who would be able to hear Rush. It would in fact be censorship. In the mid 1980's and before when the Fairness Doctrine was in place, there were very few partisan talk show hosts on the radio, because radio stations simply didn't want to put up with the hastle of all the red tape from the government. After the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, it enabled conservative partisans like Limbaugh and Hannity to have their own shows without fear of government censorship. The radio in effect became a free market in which both sides of the political spectrum could battle it out in THE ARENA OF IDEAS.
RINO,
Nice stream of conjecture regarding what would happen under the guidelines of the FD. Got any evidence or historical fact to back up that vision of how the FD stifled radio hosts before it was decommissioned?
It is a fallacy to assume that the market produces moral outcomes.
The fact that media corporations act in collusion to further their own self-interests, aka the proliferation of profitable corporate lackey DJ’s, sadly is held as a moral attribute by the conservative market fundamentalists of the here and now.
Be they media personalities, bloggers, coworkers or neighbors, Progressives offer a healthy dose of patriotic dissent whenever they speak. We rage against corporatocracy because we love our democracy. By your own former admission, the corporations will primarily sponsor ‘friendly’ talkers and that is just the type of anti-democratic collusion in which media conglomerates traffick. This has zero to do with the viability of common good promoting ideas and all to do with makin’ the green hand over fist.
RINO:
Your entire concept is wrong. Limbaugh would not be forced to alter his show one iota. But if a station ran 3 hours of Limbaugh, they would be obligated to run 3 hours of "opposing viewpoint" shows, which EXIST, and can be scheduled.
That's it. Your dire fear of Limbaugh having to "book" liberals for balance is simply incorrect.
When one has incorrect premises, one reaches incorrect conclusions (like the FD was "BAD").
Actually, you're completely wrong. To put it as nicely as I can, you simply don't know what you're talking about. The Fairness Doctrine wouldn't require radio stations to put on a liberal talk show host for three hours to balance out the conservative talk show host. What it would do is it would force someone like Limbaugh to book liberals on his show just about everyday. He would have to invite every liberal on his show that he criticized. That's a pretty long list.
I believe that is how it works. Limbuagh would be forced to allow opposing opinions on his show to refute the lies and distortions that are his stock and trade. Its probably true that if the other side were heard Limbaugh couldnt survive. Propaganda is so much more effective when the other side isnt heard. People hearing both sides would start saying the man is a boob. What was I thinking ever believing a word the guy says.
Limbaugh has a "Conservative" show. He would have to alter NOTHING to be broadcast on any radio station. If he's put on for an hour, the FD would require balance in the form of an "opposing view" show of an equal runtime.
HOWEVER ... if Limbaugh, on his show, directed a specific attack on a specific person, that person would have a right to rebuttal. Whether that was on Limbaugh's show, or time provided by the station for such rebuttals, would be up to LIMBAUGH. The requirement for airing special rebuttals doesn't say Limbaugh has to provide it WITHIN HIS TIME.
While these rebuttals would be separate from a packaged "opposing view" show like Rachael Maddow's show, they could not require Limbaugh to alter his format ... the FD applies to the STATIONS, not the "performers".
I agree that, to rebut a Limbaugh one hour broadcast, it would take great dicipline to restrict all the responses -- to Limbaugh's individual attacks, falsehoods, and accusastions made within that hour -- to an equal one hour, but that would be the rule.
The bottom line is that it's all just a bunch of unnecessary government medling in a private market. It won't do anything other than expand the role of government and take away more freedom. Liberals should try to beat conservatives through the arena of ideas, not government regulation of the media. Any liberal can start a radio talk show host and be successful. You just have to have the talent and resources to do it.
That whole tirade is bunk. There is nothing private about our public airwaves. The FCC has every right to regulate the public airwaves.
This is where many conservatives show that to them property is more important than people. It doesnt MATTER to them whether the people are being served by the use of their resource. It only matters that corporations can make the most profit OFF of our resource.
Yeah. Indeed.
And I just love that personhood for corporations, money is free speech stuff.
BUNK that is plain dumb. WE OWN THE AIRWAVES. The government represents our interests. Your insane take on the issue is like saying if I allow a sharecropper to farm MY land I have no say in what he grows or how he TREATS the land that BELONGS TO ME. Those corporations use OUR resource to make their millions and millions of dollars dont TELL me we have NO say in how OUR resource is used.
You have the right to turn off your radio if you don't like a particular radio host. Nobody is forcing you to listen to conservative talk radio. We have freedom of choice in this country.
No, 700 radio stations carrying Limbaugh is no choice at all.
Ain't capitalism a bit#h?
I like capitalism. I have problem with the disproportionately powerful owners of media outlets, and their radical hencmen, restraining true market competition.
Especially when it nullifies your idea of censorship, eh ;). The free market took Imus off the air, not censors.
No one is forcing you to listen to Limbaugh. You can either turn off your radio or listen to Air America or some other liberal talk show host.
Just pointing out that there isn't really choice. I have right wing and right wing lite 100% of the time. That's an odd choice for a country that's just as left as it is right.
We also have a right to tell sponsors what they think of their investments, do we not?
And you have the right to look away if I put a billboard in your front yard. However since you OWN your frontyard you can also demand it be taken down. WE own the airwaves. WE can decide if what is on them serves the public interest or NOT. We collectively have EVERY right to make such a decision. YOU are trying to say we DONT have any right to even TRY to say how OUR airwaves ought to be used. The argument is ludicrous on the face of it.
You own your own radio, and you can listen to whatever you want on it. Just don't tell me what I can and can't listen to. If you don't like Rush, then don't listen to him. I don't understand why you're such a big advocate of censorship.
I'm not you just dont know what the word means. Owning a radio station is NOT the same as owning the AIRWAVES. The resource being USED to make the money anymore than owning a car means you can do whatever you want on the ROAD it travels on. This is actually very simple. I can turn him off and I can ALSO say he has no business poisoning OUR resource. Ya got nothin. At this point you are simply embarassing yourself with your basic inability to understand the simple concept that since the airwaves BELONG to us we have every right to a say in how they are used.
You don't seem to understand the difference between obscene speech and political speech. The FCC regulates obscene speech on the public airwaves as a public service. But they don't have the right to regulate political speech, as political speech represents the advocacy of particular ideas and view points. Political speech cannot be regulated by the government. Obscene speech on the public airwaves can be regulated by the government because it doesn't promote a particular political view.
And what you don't get, is that we all are the Government. Society dictates what is and is not acceptable. Do you think it's acceptable for Limbaugh to say without rebuttal that Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster? (one of about 12 million examples)
YOU are the one that doesnt understand, well virtually anything, WE OWN THE AIRWAVES. We get a say in how they are used. The FD isnt trying to regulate what is said on the airwaves. Weinerdog can still be insane. Limbaugh and Coulter can still lie. Then WE get to demand the other side is heard. We DEFINITLY HAVE THAT RIGHT. You can repeat another thousand times we dont in the vain hope a combination of repitition and wishing will magically make it true. It doesnt work that way. YOU dont get to tell us what we can and cant do. The FCC for DECADES had the FD so the blanket statement they have no right to bring it back is just plain dumb.
The Supreme Court was wrong in the past. I'm pretty sure that today's Supreme Court would strike down the Fairness Doctrine.
Do you mean the Supreme Court or yesteryear was wrong, or simply that it simply wasn't as RIGHT as today's Court?
The Supreme Court was wrong because YOU say so? I am supposed to accept that an anonymous poster on a website is more of an expert on the constitution than the Nine people whose job it is to intepret it? Well we are wasting our money, lets just disband them and whenever we have a constitutional question we will just aske you. Or maybe you are just talking out of your ass pray tell me your degree on Constitutional law came from WHERE AGAIN?
SOLON:
If you have an hour of Limbaugh, all is well. His "opinion" and viewpoint get out over the airwaves, and he "does the thinking" for his dittoheads.
If for every hour of Limbaugh, you had an hour of an opposing viewpoint from someone like, say, Al Franken ... then Limbaugh's effectiveness as a propagandist would go down the tubes.
Rightwing Propaganda cannot survive "fairness", so it cannot be allowed.
Oh, and if you oppose the war in Iraq, you hate the troops, you are a traitor, and you are bringing aid and comfort to the terrorists. This "message" will stand alone, and be your sole guidance, since any opposing view might upset our sponsors.
Exactly its like Goebells said for propaganda to be effective it is imperative that dissenting voices not be heard
There is no censorship involved at this point you are a flat out liar even saying there is. I also OWN THE AIRWAVES as much as anyone else and have EVERY RIGHT to say how they are used if you dont like it dont stay away from the website where I talk about it. Its the same argument. You keep repeating the same stale already shredded argument over and over weakly as if repeating it gives it greater validity it doesnt its just as dumb this time as the first dozen or so times you made it I AM AN OWNER I HAVE A RIGHT TO INPUT GET OVER IT.
And THEY have a right to close up shop and go into another line of business if they dont like the obligations WE demand on the use of OUR airwaves.
These stations receive large amounts of valuables from the government, contrary to your baseless assertions.
The government maintains a licensing scheme and enforcement to eliminate what are called "pirate" radio and TV stations -- radio and TV stations which haven't gotten a special license from the government. The so-called "private" radio and TV stations benefit very heavily from this, as they have guarantees that their signals and the other "licensed" signals will be received, and nobody else's signals will. Prior to the institution of this GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY scheme in the 1930s, anyone could start their own radio station just by building an antenna -- that was the *real* free market. This is absoutely not true since the 1930s; the licensing system is really a government monopoly grant to the private corporations who own the licenses.
Contrast the Internet, where anyone can set up a website, and thanks to net neutrality anyone can view the website. We don't need a fairness doctrine or media anti-monopoly rules on the Internet, because of net neutrality.
No, I said it was a public service, thus it helps the public who owns the airwaves. Can you not wrap your mind around that concept?
but that's not your original assertion. which was that only that which pleases corporations should be on the air.
To keep their license a radio station must provide a certain amount of public service. This does not apply to the content of their shows as the fairness doctrine wishes it did. Radio stations use PSA's traffic and weather reports to meet the FCC standards NOT their programming which is purely capitalistic through sponsors and in some cases directly bought by the hosts themselves
actually when the fairness doctrine was in effect before reagan, it did have to do with the content of programming. if your local station had an editorial you did not agree with, you could ask to make a response. the weather is a service you can get in any two bit dictatorship.
Since we are the public and WE own the airwaves I guess its up to US to decide what defines the serving the public function of their license. I am fine with a debate about that and letting it work out however it works out. Screaming censorship because we want input into how OUR property is used is trying to stifle that very dialogue. If anything THAT is censorship since you are saying we have no right to the dialogue itself.
Well, game on then! "cause if you own the airwaves SO DO WE! Good luck with your quest to silence cons (we're slightly ahead) and as long as the FCC certifies that the current means of public service are enough the programming will call under freedom of press. I apologize that the right capitalized on the current status of radio regulation before the left but I guess you win some and then you lose some. Is the current representation not equal? Yes. But the MARKET dictates this. As I've said before it's just easier to sell advertising to con shows.
YES you are the owners too so enter the dialogue. THAT is not what you are doing what you are doing is arguing we have NO RIGHT TO THE DIALOGUE. As an owner I have a right to say how the airwaves are used, you can chip in with YOUR opinion, however saying WE have no such right because the property rights of the corporate leasers of the resource trump the OWNERS of the resource is patently absurd
You're just not getting it, Solon.
The conservative posters here are making a simple enough argument that they have a right to a monopoly of the public airwaves. How can you even argue against such a carefully reasoned position. If we don't allow them absolute control of the public airwaves, we are reducing the absolute & unlimited levels of their free speech by selfishly injecting our own differing opinions into the equation. Anything short of their having an absolute monopoly of the public airways is a clear example of left wing progressive fascist censorship, for anything less than absolutely controlling all speech on the public airwaves is reducing the relative level of free speech that they desire.
Therefore all public dialogue is censorship. Debate is censorship. Resistance to monopoly is censorship. All non right wing speech is censorship. All expressions of non right wing opinion is censorship. All non right wing thought is censorship. Posting is censorship. MMFA is censorship.
Now, don't you feel ashamed of yourself for being such a blatant & unapologetic supporter of censorship?
Fascist liberal!
SS or Rhino please address Mescal's post. I would love to see you answer this, but I have feeling your going to ignore it.
Great one btw.
MHK
Thanks.
SHAW:
I believe your confusion with public ownership of the airwaves is because airwaves are INVISIBLE and thus intangible.
Let's talk about another PUBLIC ownership, a public PARK. You say you own the park TOO, and so can go there if you like, and that is CORRECT.
However, you cannot go into a public park with Limbaugh and Hannity and Savage and then CORDON OFF the entrances, and say, "NO LIBERALS ALLOWED!" It's a PUBLIC park, and SOLON is as welcome there as any of your guys.
You will say, "But Limbaugh is owned and sponsored by corporations, so he has a RIGHT to the exclusive use of the park, if that's what his owners want."
That is WRONG. Limbaugh's sponsors can buy a building and put Limbaugh in it and have him do whatever entertainments his heart desires. But if he wishes to do his bit in a PUBLIC PARK, then he has to allow equal access to other viewpoints. Because while the corporations may own Limbaugh, they do not own the PARK. The PEOPLE do.
Now, SOLON cannot cordon off the park and refuse to admit Limbaugh, either. This gets into your claim that YOUR rights are no less than Solon's. But Solon does not wish to evict (or censor) Limbaugh, he simply wishes to use the public facilities to give an opposing viewpoint. NEITHER side, in a park, can refuse admission to the other.
The invisible airwaves are NO DIFFERENT from the tangible park; the same equal access rules apply. The same irrelevance of corporate ownership applies as well.
The way it is set up now, the corporations control the entrance gates to the park (airwaves) and it is DECIDEDLY against all concepts of public property.
President Hillary will reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, and the "popularity" enjoyed by the monopoly rightwing shows will vanish, POOF.
Great analogy Tex well done
Tex
Excellent deconstruction.
One those outfits, Clear Channel has been found to be remiss in its public sevice/public aouncement duties. Happens when your local station is on a parrot line and there are no live people working at that station any more to pick up and pass on things. Some local emergencies are found out about in tomorrows paper.
So sue clear channel
Minot, North Dakota is a good example.
"Clear Channel's stronghold in Minot has become a political lightning rod. In January 2002, a train derailment at 1 a.m. spilled a vast white cloud of suffocating anhydrous ammonia fertilizer over Minot. One person died.
The police were unable to reach anyone by phone at the local radio station, KCJB, that is the designated emergency broadcaster. Station employees had to be roused from their homes, causing a big delay.
The police said that because Clear Channel was piping in a satellite feed from elsewhere, human presence at the station was dispensable — an assertion that Senator Byron L. Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, repeated in hearings on media consolidation. Clear Channel said that someone was always on duty during the night, but busy phone lines and technological misunderstandings resulted in the emergency failure.
Local officials now acknowledge that may have been true, but the event seems to have crystalized a sense of anxiety here and elsewhere over Clear Channel's grip on Minot and many other small cities and towns around the country, where the effects of consolidation can be disproportionately felt."
*LINK*
By the definition of censorship you offered, SS,
"Decisive acts of forbidding or preventing publication or distribution of media products, or parts of those products, by those with the power, either economic or legislative, to do so," we desperately need the Fairness Doctrine, to counter the corporate censorship to which we're now subjected.
SEBASTION SHAW claims to be a radio show producer, bringing his "expertise" to this forum.
Shaw says, "Ratings of most con shows are greater than most libs shows."
RESPONSE: This is true, but it says NOTHING about the quality of NEWS, which is the issue here. Worldwide Wrestling will get more ratings than a Discovery channel special, and Jerry Springer will get more audience than ANY news program. Shaw is talking about entertainment, and a desire to see dramatized conflict rather than being educated about the news and issues of the day.
SHAW continues, "It is usually easier to sell advertising to shows hosted by conservative hosts as they are less likely to attack "corporations and capitalism."
RESPONSE; A strong admission, and one that underscores the danger of having the "NEWS" controlled by corporations. Corporations misbehave. ENRON was corrupt, FORD produced cars that exploded, Haliburton can't account for Billions of taxpayer dollars they were entrusted with.
There are THOUSANDS of examples of NEWS and INFORMATION about corporations that the public has the RIGHT TO KNOW, and which a "free press" should feel obligated to report. But Shaw says, NO. Can't upset the sponsors. Can't report news that might put corporations in a bad light.
THANKS, SHAW, for making the Liberal/Progressive point that having corporate ownership of our "news" consolidated in ever fewer hands spells the DEATH of a "free press". If the GOP/Rightwing trend is allowed to continue, America will cease being FREE. Our FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY depend on having an informed public, not one which is entertained and kept in the dark, because corporate interests demand it.
Your post was a gem, Shaw.
Bang, Zoom, that ones outta here Tex.
"you're assuming all the "con" shows are ratings winners all over the country and the "lib" shows are ratings losers"
And that is indeed the case. Conservatives like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Savage dominate in the ratings while liberals like Franken and all the others at Air America have failed drastically. More liberals actually listen to Limbaugh than listen to Air America.
that is not the case. ed schultz does quite nicely in some markets.
I will admit that Schultz is actually a decent progressive voice on the radio. I listened to him once and he sounded at least somewhat reasonable. But can you name any other liberal on the radio who gets decent ratings at all?
the point would be why is he on so few stations when he has gotten decent ratings? couldn't he be on in some of the places where guys like o'reilly and hannity get fractions? the righties have an overwhelming number of stations, even when the ratings don't always support that.
Amy Goodman, Democracy Now.
What happened to Donahue when he was the highest rated show on his network? What happened to Hightower who was KILLING in the ratings when Disney bought his network? I didnt like those things but I didnt scream censorship
"What happened to Hightower who was KILLING in the ratings when Disney bought his network"
Hightower criticized is own boss ON THE AIR, and his boss fired him. It's pretty simple. You can't criticize your own boss on the air and expect to keep your job. That was just idiotic on Hightower's part.
THAT is not an economic decision though is it? I mean your point was that the rightwing KILLS in the ratings well I am only saying it HELPS when for this reason and that reason the Lefties that are successful get TAKEN OFF THE AIR. The fact the rightwing message is more corporate friendly is part of what I am talking about that is keeping us from any true competition
Maybe the liberal radio hosts should try to be mainstream liberal and not support outright socialism.
And maybe you ought to try a dose of reality rather than continuing to run off into Planet Wingnut delusions.
Don't worry, I still love you Solon.
You don't even know me much like reality
Yeah, you're right. But I just love everybody.
Thats wonderful. Now if you would just get aquainted with us AND reality
Link me to any host advocating socialism.
I am advising against holding your breath while waiting for that link or any corroborating evidence whatsoever. That is if you dont recognize Rhino's rectal database as a credible source.
FRIED:
You wish to be pointed to advocates of "socialism"?
The Rightwing informs us that Social Security, Medicare, and Public Schools are ALL examples of "Socialism".
Yet, we had a GOP majority House and Senate, and GW Bush in the White House, for SIX SOLID YEARS. ANY PUBLIC POLICY AT ALL could have been modified or eliminated by our legislators and their same-party president.
Since we STILL have Social Security, Medicare, and Public Schools, the answer to your question of WHO advocates "Socialism" would be ... THE GOP. Strange, ain't it? LOL
Very, I guess socialism falls along that "slippery slope" argument that comes with other controversial topics.
Thanks for the laugh, Tex!
By the way, Tex, others, I posted a long voting breakdown in this thread about the Civil Rights Act voting (regional breakdown, party affiliation etc) a few pages back. Feel free to lift it if you find it necessary for debate.
I don't know of very many conservatives who believe that Social Security is a "Socialist" program. The people who receive Social Security benefits have paid into the system their whole lives. Their is no income redistribution. I guess you can say that Medicare and Medicade are socialistic programs since it involves income redistribution, and for the record Republicans in Congress did slow the rate of growth of these programs. They also tried to get personal accounts for Social Security, but the Democrats in Congress threw a fit and blocked it. Nobody says that public schools are "socialism." That's ridiculous. Public schools are a common public service. There is no income redistribution with that. What I was talking about in regards to socialism is that in his books, Jim Hightower bashes capitalism over and over again and seems to advocate at least a quasi-socialistic system of government. I read one of his books called "There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road except Yellow Stripes and Dead Armidillos."
And I have read three of his books including that one. What he does is bash the excesses of capitalism. The problems with allowing corporations dominate society. Dewey called politics the shadow bussiness casts on society. That isnt bashing capitalism itself anymore that attacking the pedophile priests is attacking the Catholic Church. Give up your Manichean simplistic lens through which you see everything or you will never understand politics or the world itself. Hightower is NOT a socialist he is a POPULIST.
Rino,
If you would, go back a few pages to my account about censorship and Imus and another example in Colorado. I would like to hear your thoughts.
RINO says, "Nobody says that public schools are "socialism." That's ridiculous.Really?http://www.fff.org/freedom/0998a.asphttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20276http://www.newswithviews.com/Turtel/joel28.htmCareful of making those "absolute" statements, RINO.
RINO:
Actually, aren't you saying that the key to success on the airwaves is to be sycophantic and subservient to your corporate masters? Don't criticize the boss, never a discouraging word about a company, toe the rightwing line and its fealty to Rightwing politics?
In other words, it's not about "liberal versus socialism", it's about being the very best toady/lackey to the master. Since rightwing hosts have no problem with stifling any opposing viewpoints they might have (?) and caving in entirely to the message their masters demand, they do well. Isn't this what you are saying?
And in Nuremberg, the most heard excuse was "I was just following orders!"
So, in the *free market* which does not exist in radio, Hightower would have just gotten his own radio station.
Seriously, you can't have it both ways. The bias of corporations and bosses towards promoting *themselves* and suppressing views which oppose *them* is the primary bias which needs to be addressed by the FCC rules, and which isn't addressed at all.
And if all the Republicans jumped off the bridge, you would too?
Well, the FD doesn't mandate equal time. The FD demands that the targets of smears and slander are notified and, if the injured parties so desire, can be given time for rebuttal. Nobdy gets pushed out.
This works both ways, hence the fair, in FD. Cons would be given the same oppurtunity to address attacks from the left on lefty stations. In that regard cons would be given the chance to reach deeper into the market.
But, I don't give two shakes about the FD. Most progressive don't. This is a distraction by Savage. This is Michael building straw men. I visit tons of progressive blogs and only a small percentage of participants champion the doctrine. The progressives I interact with do not blame the media for past defeats and are more concerned with finding innovative ways to get their message out. In short, progressives are grassroots activists seeking change the democratic way: from the bottom up, hrough the power of the people.
Cons are forcing their false perceptions that progs are working from the top down. Absurd.
I agree I dont care beans about the FD. I only object to it being called censorship which is patent nonsense
That's right. Censorship is yet another dishonest rightwing frame devised to scare people into submission.
So you are posting again the proof you have no idea what you are talking about. Cough up the evidence that the Fairness doctrine is demanding that for every conservative show there has to be a liberal show instead of demanding that when public issues are discussed the other side has a right to be heard and if someone is attacked that person has a right to airtime to respond.
Exactly how is it that demanding that on OUR airwaves that are supposed to perform a public function demanding the other side be heard can possibly be seen as restricting free speech. You have no idea what the phrase means. When Weinerdog or Coulter or anyone else is arrested or denied the right to say what they want in a public park get back to us. So far you have once again demonstrated that you dont know what you are talking about AGAIN.
Not only is there doubt I find the very suggestion ludicrous. YOU demanding that rightwing bloviating screechmonkeys have a podium to spew their propaganda uncontested does NOT equal free speech
I don't censor right wing media folk. I just don't watch them.
That's exactly the way it should be. If you don't like listening to a particular talk show host, then don't. Nobody is forcing you to listen. I'm glad that you understand that and aren't one of the liberals who are seeking to undermine free speech rights and freedom of the press.
I think they're all just morons spewing garbage with just enough vitriol to keep an audience. They're all obviously psychos who only care about keeping their shows going. They spit out nothing but slurs, rumours, and disinformation. They are a total wasteland for accurate "news" intel, they have nothing of worth to offer.
There is no such attempt. Its like if I own a factory and the surrounding land and lease it to an operator and he starts polluting the land YOU are saying him doing anything he wants to maximize HIS profits trumps MY right to protect the value of my property by making him stop polluting it. THERE IS NO FREE SPEECH ISSUE HERE. By now even a reasonably bright six year old would understand this. When Wienerdog, or Coulter get arrested for what they say get back to us about free speech
And when someone tells him what he cannot say in his next book get back to us on freedom of the press. What you want isnt free speech rights its uncontested propaganda rights.
Let me ask you this:
In Denver, there is one station that seems to go through the entire state. On that station, there are only conservative talkers. In places in the mountains, that is the only station that comes in on the radio. In those mountain areas, there is no choice. The Air America stations don't have a strong enough signal, so there are people who have no choice
What if that talk show host lies about you or your hometown and there is no forum for rebuttal?
At least call us red's, or pinko's, it would be more accurate. There are no brown shirts on the left, and there never will be because fascism is right wing ideology.
AshenShard,
I was gonna make that very point ;-)
It's always been :
Liberals=Commies [or Reds & Pinkos]
Conservatives= Fascists[or Nazis]
Now of course none of those terms are exactly an accurate description of either group...But I always get a hoot out of Savage [or others on the Right] using Nazi to describe the Left. Damn silly.
I'd rather the Nazi thing not be used by either side.
Fascists & Commies will do ;-)
Jeter, you're one of this commies favorite fascists.
I'm guessing he flunked...
If, as he says, Weiner was a "student of the brownshirt movement", he certainly didn't pay much attention in class.
The use of "nazi" and "fascist" to describe the general tone of progressive ideas indicates that Weiner is just plain dumber than a bag of hammers.
Sorry hammers.
I disagree, Drafted. I'd say he seems to have paid very close attention in Brownshirt 101, learning all of their methods.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to write a nasty letter to ESPN, which censored my frisbee throwing in the backyard last night.The Nazis refused to air any of it.
That's because parisnacht, the night of the broken @ss, was far more important to cover...
"That's because parisnacht, the night of the broken @ss, was far more important to cover...
- snoopy / Thursday June 14, 2007 07:53:41 PM EST"
That was just wrong.
Wrong. It's much more advanced than Brownshirt 101 -- the Big Lie comes straight from Dr. Goebbels himself.
Wasn't it the Brownshirts aka Nazis that hated all gays and liberals? This must be a set up
Does Michael Hitler-Savage even KNOW what a Nazi is? If you read "Mein Kampf" and then read "The Savage Nation" (replace the word Jew with Muslim), you won't find much different.
Michael Hitler-Savage, you filthy scum of the earth.
If anyone is the brownshirt, it's Savage.
I don't have an exact quote, but maybe someone from Media Matters can supply one. I've heard Savage call for the UK to "unchain the soccer thugs" so they can "take care of" the Muslim youth of that country. I think it must have been a theme for him awhile back, because I've heard him say it maybe three times, and I'm not a regular listener. It's been a few months since I've heard him say that, though.
If recruiting gangs of street toughs to beat the hell out of a minority on the streets isn't brownshirtism, then what is?
Obviously you are not a listener, if you were, you would know that those comments were in retort to the young Islamic extremists vowing that they will convert or kill all those in the west and claiming they will make England a Shariah state at a public gathering in England.
If you dont believe in defending yourself and your family from people vowing to take over your home and kill you IN YOUR OWN BACKYARD then when the hell do you
By that logic when Coulter said we should air torture of Arabs as a televised sport and drop daisy cutters at random throughout the middle east. Ben Laden would have been justified by self defense to call on all American Muslims to jihad against Americans. He was calling for indiscriminate violence against Islamic youth in England because of something some nutbag said at a public gathering. Weinerdog called for killing one hundred million Muslims because someone pointed out there were one billion of them. The man is insane.
Also, not long ago, Savage was expressing that Islamist terrorists hated America because liberals wanted to allow gays to marry and because our women were uppity. He stated that a hypothetical potential terrorists "lion of the desert" had cause to hate America becasue of this, but that he would mellow toward us if he could hear that there were righteous fellows like Savage here as well (presumably the lion of the desert would ignore Savage's calls for flattening Middle Eastern cities).
Yeah he is pretty much insane
Well Christopher Howard, using Weiner Logic (Weinerology?) there is only one way to beat the terrorists.
Mandatory gay marriages for all! Married already? you are now required by section 10, article 5 of the Patriot Act to divorce your husband/wife and go to the nearest gay bar to pick your potential future partner.
And we should elect Hillary. That will really show how "uppity" our women are.
Actually, that reminds me of this, one of my favorite Tom Tomorrow strips.
http://archive.salon.com/comics/tomo/2001/10/22/tomo/index.html
"Weinerdog called for killing one hundred million Muslims because someone pointed out there were one billion of them" - Solon
Actually it was in response to a claim that out of 1 billion muslims, up to 100 million were radical jihadists. So he said we should wipe out THAT 100 million. Just thought you'd might want to know from someone who actually listened to the the program, not just read an article online.
No he didnt. He did not say we should wipe out THAT one hundred million. He was reminded that there were one billion Muslims in the world and he said he was tired of hearing there were one billion Muslims and we ought to kill one hundred million of them no indication of any specific one hundred million. You just remember it the way you WANT it to have gone.
"...people vowing to take over your home and kill you IN YOUR OWN BACKYARD..."- beanzrus71
I'm going to start attending those neighborhood watch meetings.
I've just sent Beanzrus71 our new product catalog featuring our American flag themed adult diapers along with our American Flag style waterproof bed sheets.
We need to reach as many of these bedwetters as possible. Hopefully we'll be able to keep up with the increase in orders due to our 4th of July sale.
Wow, way to show your patriotism, wipe your @$$ with the American Flage. You really showed me.
ROFL!!!
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=814
Savage makes his living attacking “liberals, gays, academics, the homeless, the Clintons, immigrants, feminists, CNN, the American Civil Liberties Union, Muslims and other minorities” and “dreams of dispatching with ‘commies, pinkos and perverts’ and other undesirables (’I say round them up and hang ‘em high!’) and even paraphrases a remark attributed to Nazi leader Hermann Goering (’When I hear someone’s in the civil rights business, I oil up my AR-15!’).” Of course, for Weiner, any American who complains about the trashing of the Constitution and the fake war on terrorism is included in the above list of enemies—and he would gleefully string them up from lamp posts, sort of like the medieval Taliban lynched their enemies.
Of course, in Bushzarro world, loud-mouths who hate freedom—for instance Bill “phone sex” O’Reilly of Fox News who sics the FBI on those he disagrees with (one of his victims, Sami Al-Arian, is near death in prison)—are cherished, showered with awards, made into heroes, and endowed with multi-million dollar talk radio and television contracts.
It can be said, after all, “Savage” and O’Reilly are simply giving the people what they want—or what they are told to want, as hatred and warmongering are consumer items, albeit consumer items that benefit the ruling elite, determined to render the planet into a hellish gulag where Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
I have to agree with the above blog. This is too surreal to even think Savage would win a freedom of speech award. We are truly living in the most bizzarre times. Of course whenever Conservatives rule it's always bizarre.
Well, gotta go.
S. Shaw
Sure, maybe I'll see your answers to my posts tomorrow.
I wish there were some way we could somehow create an "unreality" show, a big prank-type TV show where Talk-show hosts like Savage were supposedly placed in a position of power. I think what they do with that kind of power would be very telling. Interviews and bombastic radio comments aside, I think it would provide unequivocal proof if hidden cameras and mics could pick up their thoughts and actions during this moment of supposed unrestricted power.
I guess the next best thing would be a game-show. "For $100, pull the left lever to execute 10 Muslims, one of whom might be an 'islamofascist!' Pull the right level, though, to execute 10 gay men."
And both levers could be connected to a pie in the face.
Ok, I need to ask a favor of any posters in the Washington DC area.
Could you please find Maureen Dowd and make sure she's okay? I think she may have hit her head really hard.
Thursday her column advocated the lifting of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and attacked Bush/Cheny/the war in Iraq.
This is a flip from her previous columns (although I realize she has attacked Bush in the past). She even quoted Oscar Wilde and a gay soldier/Arabic translator who was kicked out.
Although I know she's not as bad as Weiner-boy, I get the feeling she feels the changing winds. Either that or she's applying for a job at the Human Rights Campaign and wants to pad her resume.
Conservatives listen to talk radio.
Progressives listen to Ipods.
;-)
Then there are 100 Million of us progressives.
[link to www.apple.com]
That works for me. Sarah McLachlan, BareNaked Ladies, Cake, Guns n' Roses, Jethro Tull, Patti Rothberg, Tom Petty...none of them lie to me, and I can read while listening to them.
Meanwhile, dittoheads and hannityites get more ignorant and illogical by the minute.
Living with "rose-colored eyeglasses" doesnt change reality
This is getting stale. Lets go back to sleep!
And the funny thing is: "I am a student of the brownshirt movement of germany" he calls hmself out as a nazi, and calles himself after that (brownshirts are progressives) a progressive. mmmmm
I don't have time to read through all 217 comments, so forgive me if this has already been noted. Savage did not even attend the New Media conference. He went to a wedding, instead, even though he'd been prattling on about this award since March on his radio program and on his Web site.
He sent in a DVD to be played during the award ceremony, which was held during LUNCH on Saturday, hardly the "paramount" event. Why should C-SPAN record the playing of a DVD for broadcast, when the person winning the award couldn't even be bothered to show up?
SOLON:
I think maybe you are the one that is out of touch with reality. How can you possibly think that a billboard on a front lawn is the same as a radio show? Besides there is plenty of choices for your left wing bias. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC. Even FOX has some left wingers on like Alan Colmes, Shepard Smith, Geraldo Rivera and Greta Vansusteran (I probably didn't spell the last name correctly). Another thing you liberals have neglected to point out is that the fairness doctrine can be turned around and put right on you. So when any of the news anchors on any of the above mentioned spews their left wing agenda, Michael Savage can make them have him on their show to counter it. Hence the term "Fairness". Lastly, if you don't like it guess what? DON'T LISTEN TO IT!!! Whether you realize it or not we live in a free society where we have these choices. When I'm on the road and I get behind a car that has bumper stickers all over it ones like "Say no to sex with those that are pro life". I may cringe at the mere sight of it and be disgusted, but does the person in the car have that choice to put the bumper stickers in front of my face, yes. Why is it you rarely see bumper stickers that have a conservative point of view? Because the liberals will scratch the car with their keys.
WOW ... that's ... your comment was ... amazing.
OK ... as to the "billboard on the front lawn" bit; the point he's trying to make is that since "We the People" own the public airwaves, where these programs are broadcast, we have every right to call for regulation and different programming, just as a person with a billboard on their front lawn would. Expand the metaphor a bit; imagine it's on the front lawn of a house with 20 people, all of whom are equal owners. Each of those 20 people have a right to call for the retaining or removal of said billboard. This is not censorship, and that is what that argument refers to.
Second, no "liberal" is complaining about the Fairness Doctrine, nor have they ever done so. In fact, several posts have questioned why, if there is such an overarching "Liberal Media" why the Fairness Doctrine was overturned by a friend of Conservatives, when said Doctrine would have (and should have to that point) guaranteed that Conservative voices were heard. I, for one, would love to see Michael Savage on a show with a strong moderate or progressive reporter who will call him on his flagrant rhetoric.
We don't WANT TO LISTEN TO IT. The clear fact is that Media Conglomerates have bought out several "progressive" or "liberal" stations and silenced their voices so they can broadcast more of the same talk shows. What we would like is that the alternative programming that comes on stays on, regardless of nickels or dimes because, Guess What? it's a public resource, and so we have every right to ask for equal talk shows. In addition, I would like to see some of these "nameless foes" given substance by people who are willing to defend them, not cherry-picked bozos who can't defend themselves, much less ideals or false reporting.
Finally, your parting comment is foolish, prejudicial, and based solely in your own mind. Unless you have some sort of proof to back up your "joke" (if that's indeed what it is), it has no more place on this board then a "joke" I would tell such as "why don't men like children? Because they can't have any on their own."
Why is it you rarely see bumper stickers that have a conservative point of view? Because the liberals will scratch the car with their keys.
***********************************
I see them all the time. By the way, I can send you plenty of news articles about cars with liberal stickers getting trashed if you'd like. Don't claim innocence for your side, because it isn't so.
It is easy enough to see. WE OWN THE AIRWAVES. It is our RIGHT to determine how they are used just like we have a right to say how a billboard in our front yard is used. You can just turn around and look the other way if you dont like the lefty message I put up in a billboard in YOUR front yard but that really doesnt address the fact it is YOUR front yard and you have a say on how it is used. The fact you think the networks you listed are leftwing shows your complete disconnect with reality and really needs no further comment other than to point out their complete support for the war in Iraq that the left was adamantly against as one example taken virtually at random. As for the FD being used against us YOU STILL DONT GET IT. GOOD, I support the diversity of viewpoints if Weinerdog wants to refute something a lefty says I am all for it. That isnt AGAINST us it is WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. You completely miss the point. I dont want the left to dominate the message I want a BOTH SIDES HEARD. What part of having both sides heard are you hearing as only lefty opinions should be aired? Now that I have explained this further perhaps you have something cogent to add rather than repeated rightwing talking points and non sequiturs
I missed that last line its amazingly nonsensical. I saw a Coulter 08 bumpersticker not long ago and see rightwing bumperstickers all the time and I live in a fairly liberals city. You have lost all touch with reality
"Besides there is plenty of choices for your left wing bias. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC. Even FOX has some left wingers on like Alan Colmes, Shepard Smith, Geraldo Rivera and Greta Vansusteran (I probably didn't spell the last name correctly)"
HAve you even READ this website? Every one of the mentioned stations skews right-wing to the point of lying. Some (FOX, CNN) lie more often than others (ABC). None of the FOX people mentioned are what liberals would consider liberal -- they're right-of-center moderates -- with the exception of flamboyant bizarro man Geraldo Rivera.
You want to hear real left-wingers, even actual left-wing bias? Listen to Pacifica Radio. Oh, what, there's no station willing to carry it in your area? Why do you think we want the media consolidation rules fixed?....
I live here in Davis, CA a very liberal town in retrospect. there actually is a car around here that has more bumper stickers than car in my estimation and one of those actually says, "Say no to sex with those that are pro life". It actually was more on the lines of Laughing on the inside than anything else. By the way Michael Savage is vehemently opposed to to Murdoch wanting to murge. He said that if the media is owned by merely two or three people than we live in a dictatorship. He also says that most of the mainstream media is a part of what he calls the "Government media complex". I guess that is one if not the main reason he is the unknown talk show host as far as the mainstream media is concerned.
"We don't WANT TO LISTEN TO IT".
THEN DON'T!!!!!!!! There is an On or Off button or dial on your radio. It is that simple.
Tell me where you live and I will put up a liberal billboard in YOUR FRONT YARD if you dont like it you dont have to look at it.
You ought to be listening to Savage right now. He is screaming from the rooftop today. He called Trent Lott "Swine". He actually said, "We may have been better off with Al Gore. SHOCKING
Listen to the insane Weinerdog? Sorry I have an urgent appointment to get a vascectomy done by a street vendor with a rusty razor
Mike Savage is right on with the Nazi analogy. Last year when Dizzy and Daffy Dean (i.e. Howard and his less intelligent brother) marched into Connecticut to try to depose our beloved Joe Lieberman, they proposed a candidate that seems to hate black children. He was a multi millionaire that volunteered for a few hours in his life as a "volunteer" teacher in a Bridgeport Connecticut public school. Bridgeport Connecticut is one of the poorest areas in North America. He was backed by Soros. He gave huge amounts (millions?) to Harvard, Yale, Stamford and the private Greenwich Country Day school. We don't know how much. We just need to know it was so much he guarded the amount with his life. They (Diz & Daff) lied to us about this. The candidate refused to disclose financial information. We don't know who he was siphoning money off to. They lied about Joe Lieberman, trying to turn the loyal citizens against him. The people beat these "progressives" back across Route 7 and into Greenwich. We should have done this at Munich. The use of disinformation, defamation, lies are all Nazi tools and all progressives tools.
No Wienerdog isnt right he is insane the rest of your irrelevant rant is too off topic to bother with
SOLON
I am afraid that you have lost this argument. There is a difference between a billboard on a front yard and a radio show. DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!!!
Of course there are differences look up analogy in a dictionary or find a five year old to explain it to you. That doesnt mean the analogy isnt apt. Just because YOU dont understand you have been shredded doesnt mean you havent been shredded. YOU HAVE BEEN SHREDDED get over it.
Chris
Solon is absolutely right. You've been shredded BIG TIME, dude. You should change your username to Machaca.
By the way if it were EXACTLY the same it wouldnt be an analogy it would be an example
This guy is so stupid. He thinks that National Socialist = Socialist. He has no idea of history or political philosophy. A National Socialist is a Nazi, a Socialist is, at least in word if not spirit, associated with Marx. One supports the capitalist class no matter what (Nazi) the other workers (Marx). These are polar opposite points of view. Can no one teach this ass history?
OH MY GOD - i can't believe savage said that (yes I can)
The one person who screams on air (like Hitler) that the Gays and all the Libs are going to be the downfall of this country and they should all burn in Hell- and so on and so forth- just add 'gypsies and 'Jews' to the list and 'wa-friken-la' you have -Hitler- not to mention he supports an Administration that puts corporations ahead of the worker (fascism)
I don't wear a brown shirt. I wear a red one. Viva Garibaldi and Glory Man United!
I would like to get a Gramski tee-shirt to go along with the Che Guevara tee I wear to work all the time