Hannity further distorted Inhofe's dubious allegation to claim Clinton, Boxer want to "bring down talk radio"
Citing audio highlighted by internet gossip Matt Drudge, co-host Sean Hannity claimed on the June 21 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes that Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) stated during an interview on Los Angeles radio station KFI 640 AM's The John Ziegler Show that he "overhear[d] a conversation" between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in which the two were "conspiring to bring down talk radio." In fact, when asked by Ziegler whether "Hillary and Boxer were conspiring to end talk radio," Inhofe stated: "No, not to end talk radio. They just want to influence it."
Inhofe asserted during his June 21 appearance on The John Ziegler Show that "I was going out to vote the other day" and he "was walking with two very liberal gals," later identified as Clinton and Boxer, who "were outraged by something" a conservative talk radio host said. Inhofe claimed that Clinton and Boxer stated: "We've got to do something about this. These are nothing but far right-wing extremists. We've got to have a balance. We have got to have a legislative fix to this." But contrary to Hannity's claim, Inhofe stated that they were "not" discussing "end[ing] talk radio. They just want to influence it."
According to blogger Greg Sargent, spokespeople for both Clinton and Boxer have said the conversation Inhofe claimed he overheard never occurred. Sargent wrote on June 22:
Here's a statement sent to me from Natalie Ravitz, Boxer's communications director:
"Senator Boxer told me that either her friend Senator Inhofe needs new glasses or he needs to have his hearing checked, because that conversation never happened."
And from Hillary spokesman Philippe Reines:
"Jim Inhofe is wrong. This supposed conversation never happened -- not in his presence or anywhere else."
Jake Tapper of ABC News also reported on June 22 that Clinton's and Boxer's offices denied the conversation took place.
Media Matters for America has documented several instances of the media uncritically reporting Inhofe's false or misleading claims (here, here, and here). For instance, on the December 6, 2006, edition of Fox News' Special Report, during a report about committee hearings held by Inhofe that focused on " 'the hype of global warming' and what causes it," Fox News correspondent Molly Henneberg uncritically aired Inhofe's false claim that "[i]t was warmer in the '30s than it is today," and Inhofe's baseless assertion that "it was warmer in the 15th century than it is today."
From the June 21 edition of KFI 640 AM's The John Ziegler Show:
INHOFE: Realize that opinion is formed in this country mostly by Fox News and by talk radio.
ZIEGLER: Well, I wish that was more of the case than it really is.
INHOFE: I'll leave out the names, but I think you can guess who they are.
ZIEGLER: Yeah.
INHOFE: I was going over to vote the other day, and I was walking with two very liberal gals, and that were -- they didn't pay any attention to me being with them. They were outraged by something you said or Rush Limbaugh said -- somebody said something that upset them. They said: "We've got to do something about this. These are nothing but -- nothing but far right-wing extremists. We've got to have a balance. There's got to be a legislative fix to this -- "
ZIEGLER: Whoa.
INHOFE: And as we got of the elevator, I said: "You gals don't understand. This is market-driven, and here's no market for your liberal tripe." That's in --so I -- I see that people are coming around --
ZIEGLER: You can't tell us which senators they were, Senator?
INHOFE: Hmm?
ZIEGLER: You can't tell us who they were? Was that Boxer and [Sen. Dianne] Feinstein [D-CA]?
INHOFE: You're halfway there. The other one's running for president. You figure it out.
ZIEGLER: Oh wow! So it was Boxer and Hillary? Boxer and Hillary told you that -- you overheard Boxer and Hillary saying --
INHOFE: No, they were talking -- they were complaining about the -- about talk radio.
ZIEGLER: And they were saying that we need to do something about talk radio?
INHOFE: Oh yeah. Yeah, well they do that -- this is common chatter.
ZIEGLER: So Hillary and Boxer were conspiring to end talk radio?
INHOFE: No, not to end talk radio. They just want to influence it. Anyway, the point is, the market's still out there and it still counts.
From the June 21 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: Welcome back to Hannity & Colmes. I'm Sean Hannity. The left-wing group called Center for American Progress, which is run by former Bill Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, is coming after conservative talk radio. Now, the group wants to challenge our domination over radio, but it looks like that silencing people like me and Rush Limbaugh is the goal, here. Joining us now is -- from the big one, WLW in Cincinnati, we have a good friend of ours, a great American as he is, Bill Cunningham is with us. Bill, welcome to the program.
The war against talk radio has begun here. The effort here -- and I want to just -- Matt Drudge has up on his website, at this very hour, Senator Clinton and Boxer are conspiring to bring down talk radio. Senator Inhofe, overhearing a conversation, "We need a legislative fix. Something needs to be done. We've got to do something about this." So this is what I suspected it was from earlier today. This is Senator Clinton's best friend, trying to come up with a blueprint to silence conservatives.
Hannity= Serial Liar.
Hillary's right, we need legislation to balance talk radio.
Given how spectacularly unsuccessful liberals have been on the radio, there's no other way that Americans will get to hear liberal talk radio across the country. Why would anyone choose to listen to it?
Except the conversation did not happen. Did you read the thread? Or is this more right wing smearing?
And who is going to pay the station owner for airtime he is forced to give up to opposing view people?
The left just doesn't understand that nobody cares what the opinion of the left is, that is why they can't get their opinion aired on popular stations. Why do you think there are so few successful (are there any?) liberal talk shows.
Projecting again. YOU dont care doesnt equal NOBODY cares. Talk radio may not be the venue for liberals we are not as enamored with the preaching to the chior that the right is. Having said that since they are using OUR airwaves to make THEIR money they will have to conform to the rules WE set for them. IF they dont like it they can make their money some other way. Making money is not the end all of existance and not the ONLY value that needs to be considered in this context. Their money is NOT more sacred than OUR right to control OUR resources and decide what constitutes the public service they need to perform for the PRIVELEGE of making obscene buttloads of cash off of OUR resource
Having said that since they are using OUR airwaves to make THEIR money they will have to conform to the rules WE set for them.
Ok, mr arogant, say it happens that way. How are you going to force a private radio station to air opposing viewpoints when there are already radio stations (that air opposing viewpoints) in their listener area? How can you demand equality when you already have it? Like a true liberal, since you can't be popular, you will force your opinion on those who don't want to hear it. Even your last president only got 30% of the vote IN THE NATION!!! Liberalism is so unpopular that the only way to get listenership is to use the government to force it on us.
One more question for you, you keep saying that WE set the rules for radio stations, but you never back that up with any proof. What rules say WE set the rules for radio stations?
OK mr MORON this is actually pretty simple but then so are you. Here goes. The fairness doctrine doesnt say that LIBERALS get to go on conservative shows it says anyone can offer an opposing view on ANY show. See how simple that is. The opposing side of a public issue has a RIGHT to be heard. I have already half a dozen times posted links to FCC rules. There is no dispute that WE OWN THE AIRWAVES. WE, through our government, democratically get to set those rules. I am tired of doing your homework for lazy righwingnuts when I have already done it half a dozen times. What part of WE OWN THE AIRWAVES are you incapable of understanding? Tell me something YOU own that you cant set standards for other people using.
Yeah, you haven't done any homework for anyone.
I own a truck. I cannot set the rules for use on the roads that WE own. Show me where democracy allows ME to set the speed limit, or lane structure!
Now explain to me how a privately owned radio station using publically owned airwaves is different than a privately owned vehicle using publically owned road system!
Liberalism as expressed by your constant arogance truely is a mental disorder.
As I have previously explained higher brain function is NOT a mental disorder its just you are far too stupid to recognize it. If you ever aquire two operating brain cells you MAY begin to understand this. Like your incredibly stupid attempt at an analogy. Since WE OWN THE ROADS, WE set the standards for THEM. You own the truck. IF you lend it to someone you CAN say put gas in it, or dont leave the keys in it, if they dont follow those rules you can refuse to continue to lend that truck to them I own a steaknife it doesnt give me the right to use it on someone else steak. This is so simple its embarrassing to have to dumb it down to your pre kindegarten level of understanding. You prove with each post that you are the dumbest thing going. How can someone as ignorant as you even type? Tell the truth you hire a five year old to type for you dont you? You actually stumbled on a proper analogy. Since WE OWN THE ROADS we get to set the standards of use FOR them. WE own the airwaves we get to set the standards for use of them too. Its actually hard to communicate with someone as ignorant as you are. I think you just dont care. I think you worship Mammon. So the making of money is sacred and the property rights of someones money making property trumps the OWNERSHIP rights to you since we are talking about that sacred money. You need to find a five year old to explain this too you. I cant make it any simpler. Your stupidity is a monumental challenge those of us with normal IQ's arent qualified to talk down to sub cretin level and it seems that level would still be a challenge for you.
Obviously, I'm striking a nerve...your insults get more creative by the post. I expect that from a liberal. I never expect civility.
My analogy was perfect and you skirted the issue. I wasn't surprised. "don't leave the keys in it"? The same can be said for the radio station...don't leave the keys in it. If you adjust your pride a little and see I'm comparing USING the roads to USING the airwaves. What's the difference in our ability to set the rules?
WWWAAAHHHH Only Autopsychotic gets to insult people. WWAAHHHH dont insult psycho back. WWAAHHHH. Get over it. If you dont like the insults stop insulting us. Or keep insulting then snivelling about it, that is amusing. Hit a nerve? With your IQ you couldnt hit water at an Ocean pier. If you WANT civility then BE civil. No your analogy was WRONG I asked what YOU own that YOU cant set the rules for using then you talk about how someone else sets the rules for the use of the ROAD. YOU dont own the road WE own the road and we DID set the rules for use of it. The radio station in this context is like the truck and the airwaves are like the road. WE get to tell the truck HOW he can drive on the road. Really I cant make this much simpler.
Why do you like saying WWWWWAAAHHHHHH so much? Are you a baby at heart?
Because it is indicitive of you rightwingers constant snivelling about how WE attack YOU AFTER you attack us. Most six year old girls wouldnt be such whiners.
And the worst "insult" that autopsychic used against you was calling you "arrogant," which doesn't even begin to compare with the hateful things that you just called him.
So telling liberals that liberalism is a mental disorder ISNT an insult? Hey I know you like to define an insult as something a liberal does and if a conservative does it then it isnt an insult but you are full of it. This guy is as hateful as it gets and I am only returning serve. I couldnt care LESS whether you like it or not.
So telling liberals that liberalism is a mental disorder ISNT an insult?
Fact isn't an insult. The only real whiner on this forum is you. Constantly belittling others then claim 'return serve'. Actually, you have NEVER waited for a first serve from someone else. You always START your posts with an insult and ALWAYS insult rightwingers with every name you can think of just because they're rightwingers. Then have the gall to whine about generalizations about liberals.
Then what is your complaint me telling you that you are a liar and a moron incapable of higher brain function isnt an insult its simply a FACT. You have proven THAT over and over. You are still snivelling in a way that would embarass any little girl that only YOU should be able to insult people. You are a hateful, ignorant poster who is MOSTLY insults then its WWAAHHHHH how dare anyone treat you the way you treat us and NONE of that is an insult by your definition because they are obvious demonstrable and indisputable FACTS.
You're absolutely right. Solon is always the one who starts confrontations. He starts the personal attacks simply if a conservative like you or I comes here and advocates a conservative political philosophy. He doesn't seem to realize that criticizing a political ideology is completely different from attacking someone personally.
You are a LIAR. You guys attack us with your rude and insulting characterizations I do NOT start the insults. To be fair I have at times when called on that I have appologized but YOU guys just want the exclusive franchise on insults. YOU want to be able to say the most horrible things about liberals then whine like a little baby that I insult you back. With you two its always WWWAAHHHHH, stop treating me the way I treat you. WWAAAHHHHH only us conservatives get to be insulting WWAAAHHHH. Do you have any concept how pathetic the two of you are?
You guys attack us with your rude and insulting characterizations I do NOT start the insults.
I can use one hand to name ALL the liberals on this site that DON'T use rude and insulting characterizations of right-wingers. You can use one hand to name all the right-wingers that DO.
To be fair I have at times when called on that I have appologized but YOU guys just want the exclusive franchise on insults.
Oh? Once, when you picked on the handicapped (just the other day). Never before have you apologized, in fact that's where I started calling you arogant, when you told the guy you apologized to that you would do it again if you felt like it.
Ha ha! You're funny Solon! That's like the 100th time that you've called me a liar, and then you claim that WE'RE the ones who start the personal insults. Ha Ha! Now that's HILARIOUS! The fact remains that I don't personally attack you despite your numerous personal attacks against me. I simply won't allow myself to stoop down to your level.
solon no offense meant here you are an extremely intelligent poster these guys routinely insult you and start arguing because they cant keep up with you and cant poke holes in your posts but your temper allows them to hijack and force a thread off topic every time try staying on topic its the best way to beat these guys
So telling liberals that liberalism is a mental disorder ISNT an insult?
Fact isn't an insult.
So, dr. detroit, pray tell us how you were able to prove that is a fact? Something besides Ann Coulter, I mean.
And I found it quite funny you talking about striking a nerve when it was clear you threw out the 1st insult. Typical right wing bully, throw out an insult then try to hide behind the skirts of the teacher as you point your biased finger and say "he insulted me!" Childish.
When did I complain about him being the first to insult? Read solon's 3:18:34 post (this computer doesn't allow me to copy/paste). I pointed out that he insults on a regular basis. And, I wasn't the only one to notice that (maybe the liberals, here, don't notice the insults). Be kind enough to read the posts before denagrating others.
BTW, read the very first post and see who actually starts with the insults. Was it a liberal or conservative?
Irrelevant, because the insults really started ad then heated up between you and solon. Projecting poster #1 into the equation as a personal attack is bogus unless you are Sean Hannity.
Which insults did I throw at him besides 'arogant'? Who got all heated up? Pointing out someone insults continueously is 'heating up' the insults.... get real.
The radio station in this context is like the truck and the airwaves are like the road. WE get to tell the truck HOW he can drive on the road. Really I cant make this much simpler.
At what point are WE telling the truck that the product he carries is controlled by US? At what point are WE allowed to tell the truck owner that when he carries strawberries that he is required to provide room on the truck for carrots?
"At what point are WE telling the truck that the product he carries is controlled by US? At what point are WE allowed to tell the truck owner that when he carries strawberries that he is required to provide room on the truck for carrots?"
We're saying make room on our highway for other trucks. And I think the best way to make this happen is to break up these big media conglomerates.
I don't know how radio stations are in your area, but in mine (the bay area CA) you can turn the dial and there are plenty of "empty" frequencies. I didn't realize that there is an area the actually fills the entire radio dial. So, again, how can you demand that the produce hauler start hauling car products? If all you need is a different truck then the same can be said for radio...just use another frequency. Yet, it seems the demand is to force the already in place frequency to change it's format to appease another's demands. There are PLENTY of frequencies to go around, pick one and use it to voice the opposing opinion. If you can't make your money that way then you should not be in the business of voicing the opposing opinion.
you don't just "pick a frequency" and start broadcasting. a frequency must be assigned by the government. the reason most are not "filled" is because they would cause interference with another frequency. some stations have to send their signals in a particular direction to avoid interference with a previously established station. that is why older am stations around the country have the strongest signals. when many of them were granted licenses in the 20's or 30's there was no competition and they could send their signals for hundreds of miles in some cases. it's not as easy as you suggest.
Ok, I understand that concern. Does that stop the 'other opinion' from aquiring available signals? OR, are ALL available signals taken in each area? There seems to no problem with FM signals all using 'every other' 1/10 frequency and there are still plenty of them available. AM signals I could see this being a concern, but realistically, not much of one. Just get an available frequency. It isn't as hard as you make it out to be, either.
again, it is not as easy as just pick a frequency. you can have a station with the same frequency in a city that's a hundred miles away and you cannot interfer with that signal. and when you have companies like clear channel owning so many stations and putting the same programming on every station, it is a problem. why is ed schultz on so few stations when he gets very good ratings in some markets and clear channel will keep on conservatives with meager ratings. if you have an explanation other than his politics, i'd like to hear it.
I don't know about "some" markets. I can tell you one fact, in San Fransisco, clear chanel owns 2 stations that I listen to...one is conservative (910am) and the other is liberal (960am). Both come in clear as a bell and both are able to voice their own opinion. Tell me how that is unfair!
Again...get your own radio station if you don't like what is on. Can't afford it? Get into another line of work!
nah nah buy your own station. now you just want to be ridiculous, but that shows more about you than me. it's a proven fact that conservative talk is far more prevelant than liberal/progressive, and you still can't answer why schultz is on hundreds less stations than some right wingers with poor ratings. there are lots of areas around this country with no progressive talk at all.
I can't say why someone puts one person on over another. Perhaps it's because of "potential" earnings are higher with one than the other. Perhaps the owner just doesn't WANT liberal viewpoints voiced on HIS business. It's the business owner's choice, not yours what he broadcasts.
it's "his" business, in which he is using the public's airwaves. that owner applied for a government licesne. it's not like a book store where you can stock what you want. when a certain viewpoint is kept off the air when it has shown that it can garner ratings, we have a problem. there actually would be no discussion here, except the reality is what i pointed out. in large areas of the country, progressives cannot get on the public airwaves. if the companies can't work that out among themselves, then you're inviting the government to do so.
it's not like a book store where you can stock what you want. when a certain viewpoint is kept off the air when it has shown that it can garner ratings, we have a problem.
Yes, it is! Are you expecting me to believe that owners of rap-music stations play that stuff because they are "told" to by the government? That is total and absolute bunk! Owners get in the business to make money the best way they think they can. The government DOES NOT tell them what to play or how to play it! At least, not yet. If liberals get their way, then yes, the government will tell you when to take a crap! AND WHERE!
So what if YOU have a problem with the way a private business makes it's money. As long as it's legal. My feelings are hurt every time I hear rap music on the radio, am I allowed to force that station to play country music?!?
again, it is the public airways they are using. the government does not have to regulate everything on every station, but when a company has as it's one and only goal to make money, then the community is not being served. and it's been proven that progressive radio can get ratings. but you claim that an owner can keep someone off a station because he does not like liberals. and it's you guys that want to regulate everything about personal behavior.
As a truck owner, your analogy makes little sense. You make it about the product carried, but it's much deeper than that. I have to have state tags to put it on the road, I've got to pass a federal vehicle inspection to ensure my carrier is up to code. I have to pay additional licensing fees depending on where I want to carry my product and I am always subject to roadside inspections to ensure my carrier is still in compliance. If my carrier fails? They fix it and charge me.
And then there is the product. Guess what? Someone else owns it. I could care less about whether I haul tomatoes or carrots, and in fact, unless I sign a form commiting my trailer to just one product, I'm gonna haul tomatoes to dallas, unload them and pick up a load of carrots for the haul to texarkana, dump that load and bring potatoes to kentucky, and then load my trailer full of kentucky bourbon for the haul back to austin. So yes, I can and will put whatever I want on my truck, and usually do because it makes more sense to diversify than it does to stick to one product.
didnt you just call him mister arrogant yet now you believe your "perfect analogy" is "striking a nerve"
I cannot set the rules for use on the roads that WE own. ... explain to me how a privately owned radio station using publically owned airwaves is different
Oh, this has got to be a put-on. You can't be that dense.
No, you can't set the rules for use of publicly-owned roads, but the public can. It can, as you say, set speed limits and lane structure. It can put up stop signs and signal lights. It can demand a license to be allowed to use the road and set limits on how big your truck can be.
In exactly the same way, a privately-owned radio station using public airways can be subject to regulations by the public for the public benefit.
Your analogy does not strike at the argument for a return to the fairness doctrine, it explains it! It endorses it! Thank you for raising the point.
No, you can't set the rules for use of publicly-owned roads, but the public can. It can, as you say, set speed limits and lane structure. It can put up stop signs and signal lights. It can demand a license to be allowed to use the road and set limits on how big your truck can be.
Now, we are getting to the heart of the matter. Finally, someone understands my analogy. Sure, we get to set regulations on use of the public roads, just as you mention. We also set regulations on how the airwaves are used. NOW, the difference....at what point is the public allowed to tell the truck owner, that makes his money hauling produce, that he MUST provide space on his truck to haul recycled car parts??
Isn't there a truck that hauls recycled car parts, already? Of course, not as many of them since there isn't such a demand for them. Are "WE" (the public) allowed to demand transportation of recycled car parts from the owner of the truck that transports produce over "OUR" road system??
"NOW, the difference....at what point is the public allowed to tell the truck owner, that makes his money hauling produce, that he MUST provide space on his truck to haul recycled car parts??"
I would say the truck is hauling nuclear waste that’s seeping out and fùcking up the road. The public then says you have to take measures to keep the nuclear waste inside the truck.
Yes, but that's a different condition. You are saying the nuclear waste is a danger to the road. Yes, correct the truck that spills it. How is conservative radio a "danger" to the airwaves? If the answer is to allow the opposing viewpoint to spill it's own 'nuclear waste' then why are you not trying to stop both? Instead, you insist on allowing both.
sure, allow both. sounds like you are arguing for censorship.
That isn't what I'm argueing. I'm trying to find out what the left is after. Are they after; forcing both opinions on one privately owned media company or are they trying to allow their voice to be heard? If it's the prior then that should not be a forcible thing, when they already have the option of the latter. If they are after the latter, then they have that option, already.
Either way, the left has no leg to stand on when they fight for this bill for the reason they seem to be fighting for it. Maybe you can make clear that part of the discussion.
This lefty is after bringing back the most relevant sections about the fairness doctrine regarding personal attacks. Letting a lie go unanswered is wrong, period.
Then we are in agreament. I'm all for letting anyone have their opinion voiced, but do it on your own dime. I don't think forcing someone else to pay your dime is the fair way.
we are almost in agreement. The rules I point out specifically allow for the agreived party to air his side on the same venue as the insult or lie was told. That ain't on "our" dime. That's on the stations dime. If they don't want to "pay" for a liberal voice on their show, then perhaps they shouldn't allow conservatives to spread lies about them in the 1st place.
Yes, we are in disagreament, there. For instance....one scientist says global warming is caused by one thing (and some are insulted by that opinion) and another scientist says global warming is caused by another thing (insulting others). WHO decides who gets the right to air the other opinion? In other words, who is to say one scientist is MORE right than the other?
If radio host 'joe schmoe' calls some politician a monkey's behind and the politician is insulted. This is not enough to cause the politician to gain air time on someone else's business to attempt to prove he is not a monkey's behind. That's my opinion.
it's not one on one in the global warming debate. it's being presented that way, as is frequently shown on here.
Take the example for what it is! The concept is "WHO" decides when someone's feelings are hurt.
i didn't realize the truth or untruth of science was based on "insults".
Liberalism is a mental disorder
My gosh. You people are so lame that even your insults are someone else's scripted talking points.
only a blimd deaf person doesnt realise that the majprity of americans are liberal
The end of talk radio as we know it will be brought about by it's own arrogance and self importance.
As they continue to beat this dead horse of a war, America will come to it's senses.
I wouldn't bet on all of America. The religious right despise demos and they love charlatans. Right wing talk show listeners and believers are like people into child porn. They are sick. They don't understand much about logic, reality, truth and justice.The mindless right unfortunately propagate and indoctrinate. This mental disease will unfortunately, continue just like there will always be sickos into zoophylia and coprolagniacs. They are equally disgusting as well.
Right wing talk show listeners and believers are like people into child porn.
While the right may be "like" people into child porn, the left "is" into child porn. And, like the left will force their opinion into privately owned radio stations, they will force the legality of child porn into our lives. Just like all the other immoralities they force into our lives, already! So, while the right may be "like" something immoral, the left indulges in it and promotes it exceedingly.
those people need to be hunted down and captured then prosicuted. I have a sneeking idea (I could be wrong) There is a higher %age of deviants on the right as they are so repressed
I think I'd disagree with that. The HIGH percentage of deviants that live in SF all seem to lean to the left. As well as the same deviants in every other city....leaning to the left. I guess it depends on your description of what "deviant" is, huh?
So much for not insulting people, Auto.
You got something substantive to add to the conversation or you just gonna troll? Perhaps I'm just one of the few you can name from the right that does the same as so many from the left. But, it appears the few from the right are much more 'dangerous' than the many from the left.
"We've got to do something about this. These are nothing but -- nothing but far right-wing extremists. We've got to have a balance. There's got to be a legislative fix to this -- "
Ok so that's not conspiring to "bring down talk radio". Hannity as per usual spins or lies, whichever he can get away with... It's actually scarier. It's attempting to use government to manipulate the free market. And dictate what they [Boxer & Clinton] believe should be on the airwaves. I'm all for balance. Produce a program folks want to listen to...that's the way to do it.
=====
Here's a statement sent to me from Natalie Ravitz, Boxer's communications director:
"Senator Boxer told me that either her friend Senator Inhofe needs new glasses or he needs to have his hearing checked, because that conversation never happened."
And from Hillary spokesman Philippe Reines:
"Jim Inhofe is wrong. This supposed conversation never happened -- not in his presence or anywhere else."
So Sen. James Inhofe just made the whole thing up? Fabricated it? Lied?
And why should I believe Clinton & Boxer instead of Inhofe?
Oh, Like the RNC/Bush Administration doesn't have an influence over the right-wing talkers as it is right now?
I seem to remember seeing a picture of Bush with a bunch of those mouthpieces at the White House.....
Just saying...
I don't know of any picture, but at least one meeting between Bush and the rightwing radio morons has taken place.
Jeter, Inhofe's lied about climate change, I see no reason why he wouldn't lie about this. It's a he-said-she-said -and-the-other-she-said, no downside for him.
Geez Val thanks for the link, but that's one damn long speech. Could I get you to summerize it? ;-)
Tell ya what, I'll go pour myself a cup of coffee and then read it.
Since "Climate Change" is not a topic I'm too well versed in, this could take awhile :-/
Unless of course you want to summarize it for me...oh wait I already tried that didn't I?
He ho ha... figured out my little trick did you? It's called a "document dump," and the traditional time for it is Friday afternoon...
In the speech, Inhofe claims "satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century." However the satellite temperature record does show a distinct warming trend (don't worry, the linked text is short, and there are pictures).
Also, since the satellite record begins in 1979 and the balloon record in 1958, Inhofe, by the most charitable interpretation, was vague in his reference to "the last century."
On the satellite record, though, he flat lied.
Better link Val, & I always do better with pictures ;-)
I decided to investigate the man a bit further...Whoa this guy Inhofe is a character
Not that Wikipedia is entirely reliable but this entry was certainly interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe
And then I found this little tidbit:
WASHINGTON — Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma says he doesn't need an eye exam or a hearing aid and that he clearly remembers hearing Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Hillary Clinton of New York talk about the need for a "legislative fix" to curb conservative talk radio.
But Inhofe now says the conversation he overheard took place three years ago, not "the other day," as he told KFI talk radio host John Ziegler on Thursday night.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,285933,00.html
or if you fear a link that brings you to Fox
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/22/minor-detail-inhofe-now-says-hillary-convo-happened-three-years-ago/
Now it could very well be he heard this conversation 3 years ago...however I'm just a tad more skeptical now about his version of the story.
The story is old. He's told it over 100 times in speeches but someone finally ran with it. Whether it is true or not, i guess they can hunt down the elevator operator who Inhofe says still works there and overheard the conversation.
Val says Inhofe lied about the westher satellites and balloons reading earth's temperatures. Of course it showed about a whopping 1 degree in the last century with a trend in the last 20 years up. That was only after multiple changes in the data which allegedly were "misinterpreted". The question is how accurate the data really is and since the temp trends up and down where are we at in the midst of trend cycle and if it is in fact meaninful or just alot of hot air so to speak.
So you should believe the guy who said he "overheard" it and not the people who were actually having the conversation? Sorry, but that makes little sense.
Also, as Ed Shcultz pointed out yesterday on Tucker, he has beaten Hannity in several markets head to head, and yet he has nowhere near the number of stations Hannity does. Stephanie Miller also does well and soon after the '06 election they tried to pull her off in Wisconsin for local high school girls volleyball. (Last I heard she was #1 in her time for talk radio there.) So no, it is not about "free market" and companies putting on what sells, otherwise these 2 (and many others, no doubt) would actually be allowed to compete.
So you should believe the guy who said he "overheard" it and not the people who were actually having the conversation? Sorry, but that makes little sense.
Just because the two having the conversation deny it doesn't make it so. To accept their denial as factual makes little sense.
My question was simply why should I believe Boxer & Clinton instead of Inhofe?
Just because they say it didn't happen?
That's not proof.
Of course you can just as easily ask why should you believe Inhofe instead of Clinton & Boxer?
Just because he said it did happen?
That's not proof either.
Like Val wrote:
It's a he-said-she-said -and-the-other-she-said
We have One accuser and Two deniers. And absolutely no proof of what actually transpired.
So some right-wing talk show guy spouts it as fact, even though there is no "proof". Typical right-wing talk radio for ya.
JScott,
I covered that in my first post:
"Ok so that's not conspiring to "bring down talk radio". Hannity as per usual spins or lies, whichever he can get away with"
We have One accuser and Two deniers. And absolutely no proof of what actually transpired.
Actually there is no proof than anything actually transpired. And my question is why do you see a reason to dismiss the people who actually had the conversation and believe the person who claims to have overheard it. And what a surprise, the 2 involved happen to be the two women the right wing have been attacking the most over the last 6 months. Amazing.
And my question is why do you see a reason to dismiss the people who actually had the conversation and believe the person who claims to have overheard it
Did I say I dismissed them [Boxer & Clinton]? I'm just saying their denial has as much credibility as Inhofe's accusation. In a nutshell, neither can prove what actually took place
Let me ask you this, why would Inhofe fabricate such a story? Why claim to have overheard these two Senators and go public with it?
If you reply, give me a little time to get back to ya. I have a quick errand to run. Then I need to get back to Val first. Then I'm all yours ;-)
MH,
If you scroll up to my post to Val:
jeter2 / Friday June 22, 2007 08:55:11 PM EST
I've found an interesting *update* to this story [you'll find the links there]
It appears Sen James Inhofe's version of this story may indeed have a credibility problem.
Glad to see you write that. As far as your question, I would say the 2 women in question have been enemies numbers 1 and 2 of the hard right for the last 6 months. The topic of "attacking talk radio" is the hot topic right now so what better way to rile up the base than to tie the evil Clinton and the enemy loving Boxer to the story.Playing to your base is a pretty big motivation for frabrication.
The topic of "attacking talk radio" is the hot topic right now so what better way to rile up the base than to tie the evil Clinton and the enemy loving Boxer to the story.Playing to your base is a pretty big motivation for frabrication.
Fair enough assessment. Especially now that Inhofe appears to be altering his story. What began as having "heard" this alleged conversation just the other day is now overhearing the conversation 3 years ago. It does make one a tad more skeptical of this guy's credibility for sure. [did you read the links I left for Val?]
I'm always willing to weigh the evidence. And to eat a bit of crow if I have to ;-)
Doesn't the burden of proof lie with Inhofe as the accuser?
He repeated what he allegedly claims to have overheard. They denied it. Do you honestly believe if they did say it they'd admit it?
I don't think it can ever be proved or denied with any certainty either way.
Since this isn't going to end up in a court of law the burden of proof isn't applicable.
Public opinion might be.
Like Val wrote:
It's a he-said-she-said -and-the-other-she-said
Yeah, it's total hearsay, and as such inadmissible as proof.
In the court of public opinion, hearsay is damn effective, though. There's not a really good way to counter it, because to deny it often makes you sound guilty... and to just let the charge go unchallenged isn't a good alternative. Cf. the whole "Soros funds MMfA" argument.
"...yet he has nowhere near the number of stations Hannity does. "Well, I guess that's because there are only a limited # of college campuses in the country, and left-leaning ones at that. Always funny to see how liberals forget to mention Err America's stunning market successes...LOL
Which party (lately) has lied, deceived, manipulated and used character assasination to further their agendas? There are no saints amongst us. On the other hand, If anybody has the letter R by itself, in their job description and they say anything at all about anything, red flags go up and I look into it. "read my lips"
The BURDEN of PROOF lies with the ACCUSER! Get it? But I think the only word you understand in the first sentence is the word LIES!
What is FREE MARKET about using OUR resource for FREE to make THEIR money? Its about like mining gold on MY land and then saying you have no obligation to be in ANY way constrained from doing so in whatever way you want too. As long as the public owns the airwaves those who use them to make money have to do so within the rules society deems reasonable. If they dont like them the free market means they can freely mine some OTHER market.
Other than occasionally getting a read on what America's destroyers are up to, listening to Hannity, Limbaugh and the host of other right wing wackos is a soul-killing waste of time.
This is the right wing echo chamber at it's finest.
Some nut job makes something up and it works its way up the food chain treated as fact. This is a cousin of the "we don't know if it's true or not but what if it is" discussion that passes as "commentary" on Fox.
Every coach knows the trick of posting inflammatory comments made by opponents on the bulletin board to inspire his team.
At least they don't make the quotes up.
Look, Sean is only interested in himself. It's about HIS survival in talk radio. He will do anything and everything to stay on the air. The man is ruthless. Ask anybody who knows him.
Hey Sean! Let me give YOU a piece of advice. You can complain all day about the "liberals" taking you off the air, but in the end Trent Lott and Tony Snow will be your Judas.
I think I like this better that the "some say" trick- the made-up, overheard conversation.
Even given the benefit of the doubt for bad paraphrasing, does the exchange between the two "liberal gals" sound like any conversation that has ever taken place between two Earthlings?
Or more like a badly written campaign ad scenario?
Right. These "gals" were plotting to bring down right-wing radio, RIGHT IN FRONT OF ONE OF THE MOST FAR-RIGHT SENATORS IN THE ENTIRE SENATE. OooooKaaayyyyy.
I find the whole thing pretty far-fetched as well. But on Fox Nothing Channel, hearsay is now big news.
Well, I mean, to be fair to Clinton and Boxer, they had no idea Inhofe was in the next stall.
Badump, crash!
Good one.
They shouldn't be surprised. After all, he IS a well-known s#@&house stalker.
Here's one of my favorites, the touching story involving a very badly written fictional overheard conversation.
I first got this emailed from a co-worker a couple years ago, but have since seen several versions, some with the husband dead, some just deployed and young, some a career man.
I've seen the same story with at least 3 different names for the soldiers wife.
Some people will do anything to get someone else to pick up a check.
I'll bet the protesters can't wait to spit on some vets when they return, just like their parents did.
I've received a dozen different versions of the same premise. I've heard it happened at a gas station, a check out line at the super market, a book store, train station, etc.
I think the God Bless America tied the whole piece up nicely. That's something they all have in common.
What the people who tell the tale fail to understand is that God doesn't choose sides when men decide to kill each other.
WK, I hadn't thought about this example of the "overheard conversation theater" scam for a while, but I made myself curious by digging it up.
Apparently the woman that this version is attributed to (Lori Kimble?) is a real person/teacher/military wife, but she's also a contributor to a paper, and this was one of her columns.
I found it mentioned here, at Snopes, and apparently the story couldn't be confirmed as the author wouldn't respond to requests for verification.
You'd think that restaurant manager (with his very convincingly described cobbler a la mode) or those servicemen would have helped her out.
I guess this is off-topic, except that it's an example of the overheard conversation that just happens to be made up of the eavesdropper's favorite strawman talking points.
It's also a classic in that it pretends to be a tribute to the woman's husband and the good ol' US of A, while actually being all about her and her heroic fictional adventure.
I know that there a lot of people that dont like what is said on a lot of talk radio stations around the country. But do we really want the government to be regulating what can be said, or the format in which it is said. I may not agree with everything that they say, but free speech doesnt discriminate.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "free speech doen't discriminate", but money talks, and that's where discrimination can affect our media. Those with the most money and influence can always get their message out.
I don't know of anybody wanting to regulate free speech, just provide an opportunity for opposing viewpoints to be heard.
Thats my point. I dont think it is the government's job to make sure that opposing view points are heard. What if the gov. said that for every article that Media Matters posts that shows conservative bias in the media, they must post one that shows liberal bias also. Would you agree with that? It is none of the governments business what MM posts on its website and for the gov. to have a say in what is posted is absolutely rediculous.
The problem with your analogy is that anyone can own a website. To get a radio station you need deal with the FCC to get your signal. BIG DIFFERENCE THERE. So the government is already involved with radio, and has been for a long time. The problem is (well, one of the problems) that over 90% of all talk radio; government sactioned talk radio, is conservative. There are some progressive talk shows that do very well when given a good signal and a few months to grow. Ed Schultz does well, Al Franken did well, Stephanie Miller, does well, and yet still less 10% of all talk is from thier side.
Precisely. Anyone can publish a newsletter, anyone can start a web-site, anyone can conceivably start a newspaper. There are a finite number of frequencies used for boradcasting. The licensee is "supposed" to use it for the public good, not for ideological domination. These are OUR public airwaves, and we are completely within our rights as AMERICAN CITIZENS to DEMAND that there be equal access for all ideological viewpoints.
"The problem is (well, one of the problems) that over 90% of all talk radio; government sactioned talk radio, is conservative"
That is a problem for liberals, but it's a problem that the government has absolutely no business dealing with. The market dictates which shows are popular and which shows aren't. If liberals really want to make talk radio more balanced, they should work on their business and broadcasting skills and broadcast entertaining radio shows. Air America has been a complete failure, due to the fact that the liberals there have absolutely no broadcasting skills, and also because most people don't like to hear a far left point of view. Americans voted for the Dems in the 2006 elections, but that doesn't mean that they're hard core liberals. They simply wanted an alternative to the corruption and unaccountable government the Republicans were running. But most simply don't agree with the far left views put out by the Air America hosts and other liberal hosts. Liberals should try to defeat conservatives through the market place of ideas and not government censorship.
Americans accept and always have accepted corruption and elected officials who are un-accountable.
The 2006 election results were in direct response to the War in Iraq.
"The market dictates which shows are popular and which shows aren't."
It doesn't always work that way because it's probably in the best interest of these large media conglomerates to have conservatives on the air. Conservative talk will defend corporations at all cost while Liberal talk won't do that. These anti-competition media conglomerates could potential lose out by putting liberals on the air.
I think we should break up these large media conglomerates. This will lead to greater competition, smaller companies having access to higher frequency stations and more diversity on the airwaves.
"That is a problem for liberals, but it's a problem that the government has absolutely no business dealing with."
It's the public airwaves; the government should be involved.
The government has the right to censor obscene speech on the public airwaves, but not political speech. The FCC has the authority to regulate obscenities on the airwaves. They just can't tell PRIVATE radio stations which talk show hosts they can and can't put on the air.
"The government has the right to censor obscene speech on the public airwaves, but not political speech."
Why?
And there's no censorship involved here. The Right will continue to have the right to lie even if the fairness doctrine is revived.
"The FCC has the authority to regulate obscenities on the airwaves."
Rightwing talk is obscene.
"They just can't tell PRIVATE radio stations which talk show hosts they can and can't put on the air."
Of course they can.
Here you go again spewing baseless assertions as fact and pulling nonsense directly out of your rectal database
Do you have the slightest evidence the reasons you give are the ones that Air America hasnt been wildly popular instead of bussiness hostility and an inability to get access? Liberal talk show hosts seem to do quite well head to head with the top names in conservative radio in specific markets but cant get on as many stations. That argues that you are full of it as usual. Also WE OWN THE DARN AIRWAVES. This is more than a strict business decision. You act like money is GOD and making it the only thing that matters. WE OWN THE AIRWAVES. We have every right to demand that if companies want to use OUR airwaves to make THEIR money that they perform a public service and what that entails. They have no God given right to exploit OUR AIRWAVES with no regulation. IF they dont like our conditions to use OUR AIRWAVES to make money they are free to do something else to make their money.
"Liberal talk show hosts seem to do quite well head to head with the top names in conservative radio in specific markets but cant get on as many stations"
"Liberal talk show hosts seem to do quite well head to head with the top names in conservative radio in specific markets but cant get on as many stations"
Do you have a source for the ratings in certain markets? The last time I checked, Limbaugh was still dominating in EVERY market.
Shultz seems to be beating Limbaugh in Miami
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Liberal_talk_radio_trends_ahead_of_Limbaugh_among_2554_i_0711.html
http://www.onthemedia.org/yore/transcripts/transcripts_100104_sixmonths.html
BOB GARFIELD: When Air America debuted, most of the attention was on Janeane Garofalo, and especially I think, Al Franken. Your story in the Post Magazine focused on Randi Rhodes, who had been a host of a local talk show in Florida. PAULA SPAN: She was almost the only person in the whole Air America lineup that had any background at all in commercial talk radio. Her show in West Palm Beach, Florida consistently beat Rush Limbaugh for the past five years, so she had a track record.
http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Air%20America%20Radio
Baltimore Sun: "Despite ongoing financial woes, Air America Radio appears to have garnered a significant audience during its first month on the air, particularly among the younger listeners sought by advertisers. An analysis of recently released figures from Arbitron, the radio ratings service, showed that in New York Air America beat Rush Limbaugh's station among 25-to-54-year-olds during the period that Limbaugh and Al Franken, the host of the flagship show "The O'Franken Factor," go head-to-head.
Is that enough? I suspect there are more.
It's not surprising that Schultz is BARELY beating Limbaugh in Miami (In one age group). Miami is a very liberal city. You'd think that the liberal hosts could at least compete with conservatives in liberal cities. That was also only for the 25-54 age group, and not for everybody. I read somewhere that Limbaugh's AVERAGE audience is somewhere around 55 years old, so that's not really a fair comparison when you don't add everybody else. And your story about Air America was after THE FIRST month of broadcast. The fact that Franken beat Limbaugh at ONE POINT IN TIME THREE YEARS AGO in ONE AGE GROUP in the VERY LIBERAL CITY OF NEW YORK doesn't mean anything. Air America went downhill pretty fast. They even went bankrupt because they couldn't get anybody to listen to them.
There is a reason they talk about THAT demographic. Shows are paid for by ADVERTISERS and THAT is the most coveted demographic IF you are still making the economic argument THAT is the most important statistic. IF he is beating the number one rated radio talk show host ANYWHERE then there is obviously a demographic that wants to hear it. There are a whole lot of liberal cities and a whole lot of liberals scattered out there in conservative areas. Bottom line it isnt being shown that the problem is NOT a demand but a reluctance of business to support a message that is not conservative.
RINO,
If liberal lack broadcast skills, how can anyone claim that a liberal media ever existed? Also, you said your self that Ed Schultz was pretty reasonable, are you familiar with Tom Hartman? He holds debates regularly and they don't devolve into shouting matches.
When I listen to political shows, I listen for information not entertainment. Maybe to survive they need to be entertaining, but if they devolve to some of the "entertainment" I see posted here, they will lose me.
Also, when do these people listen to these shows? If I was listening when all these shows come on, I would be fired. Are people just listening at lunch?
I've never listened to Tom Hartman. I'm sure he's reasonable as well. I'll take your word for it. I will admit that one reason conservative talk radio may be more popular than liberal talk radio is because it is more entertaining. One reason that I like listening to Rush's show is because it's entertaining as well as informative. I get a lot of laughs from some of the stuff he says. He has a good sense of humor, in my opinion. Many liberal talk show hosts are more intellectual and aren't as entertaining. People simply get bored listening to them. I simply don't believe that the government should mandate EQUALITY on the radio. If you can't find your point of view on the radio, you can go read a book by a liberal or go read the New York Times editorial page.
As far as the media being liberal, I've admitted that the one sector of the media that conservatives have control of is talk radio. I've admitted that conservatives have a big advantage there. Liberals have a huge advantage in the print press and the major networks, in my opinion. 90% of all journalists are registered Democrats, and I believe that they often let their own personal opinions show. There was a recent study done in the last few days which shows that 91% of journalists who give money to political groups give money to liberal groups, and only 9% give money to conservative groups. That's a huge disparity. Also, I think that many people listen to talk radio when they're on the road. A lot of people have jobs which require them to be on the road much of the day. I'm sure that a lot of stay at home moms listen to talk radio as well. They tend to be pretty conservative as well, so that might be another reason that conservative talk shows are more popular than liberal talk shows.
Besides the stay at home moms, don't forget the retired ,unemployed, unemployable, shut-in, mentally ill and idle rich demographics.All able to listen to several hours of radio a day.
Yeah real informative this must be why you are SO wrong SO often. Limbaugh making things up MAY be entertaining to you but it can hardly be called informative. You learn things like there is no such thing as an implied contract, or that Tufts University did a study comparing bra size to IQ or that there are more native Americans today than when Columbus 'discovered' America or that Clinton was the first president to ever have control of both branches of Congress. The problem is NONE OF THOSE THINGS ARE TRUE. You thinking Rush is informative explains a lot. I guess they dont call you Limborg guys dittoheads for nothing.
I wasn't talking to you. You give yourself to much credit.
I dont care WHO you were talking to. Did you think you were having a private conversation on a public message board? IF you want a private conversation get an e-dress or a phone number I will comment on any post I like. YOU have delusions of adequacy.
I was answering his questions. I regularly have conversations with Friedbergboy, and the conversations are actually civil and substantive, which is quite different from our conversations.
Really? You dont LIKE the hostility between us? Fine be civil so will I. I prefer civil discussions. I have been arguing with Jeter and Bruce for two years and rarely a rude word passes between us. They actually talk about the points. They dont jump directly to rude and insulting statements about me or liberals. YOU want to call accuse liberals of horrible things lie about us call us names then whine pitifully when I do the same thing to you. If you talk about the issues and stop smearing me specifically and libearls in general then I will be glad to stop smearing you. Regardless of your LIES about this I dont usually start the insults I try not to. YOU LEAD with insults then act all pious and preachy when YOU are insulted. Either stop your own insults or get used to being insulted or keep being a whiner that snivels I treat you the way you treat us. I also dont care who you talk to sporadically or regularly. This is a public message board if you want a private conversation this is the wrong venue. I will absolutly respond to any post it amuses me to respond to. Get over yourself.
If you talk about the issues and stop smearing me specifically"
The only time I've insulted you specifically was after you started it by calling me a moron. I simply called you a jerk, which was the nicest thing I could say about you considering the hateful personal attacks you use on a regular basis. Other than that ONE time, I've never personally attacked you. You've personally attacked me at least 100 times. Attacking the liberal ideology is fair game. It doesn't violate the terms of use of this forum. If I say something about liberalism that you believe is false, then refute the actual point that I make without personal attacks. I don't personally attack you, and you shouldn't personally attack me or other conservatives that you disagree with. There are actually some civil liberals on this site like Friedbergboy who can engage in a civil discussion without name calling. You could learn something from him.
The issue is not one of free speeech, or censorship. No one is trying to silence anyone. The issue is fair access to the airwaves. Due to the massive media consolidation of the past decade, MOST of the broadcasting done on radio in this country is controlled by a small handful of powerful right-wingers. 91% of the talk radio content in this country is supportive of the right-wing ideology. 91%!!! The free market does not choose to have Rush Limbaugh on four different stations in the same market while there are no competing left-wing programs to be found. The consolidated media ownership chooses to do so.
There are many progressive talk show hosts that are beating right-wing talk shows in the head-to-head ratings, but ABC Radio has ZERO progressive talk-shows in his program line-up. Is that a fair use of the public broadcast license thay have been awarded? No. Does it serve the public good to broadcast ONLY one ideology? No.
We need to return to The Fairness Doctrine. In spite of what Insannity keeps spewing, it is NOT censorship. It is NOT an attempt to destroy him or anyone else. It is NOT an attempt to stifle free speech. It is only an attemp to bring BALANCE to the PUBLIC airwaves.
The right-wingers keep spouting nonsense about how their talk radio success is completely market driven. If that is so, then why are they so afraid of the Fairness Doctrine. It seems to me that if their ideology is so pure, and so right, that they would welcome the opportunity to showcase it against the opposition. Instead, they resort to demonizing Liberals, instilling fear and loathing, and spinning outright lies through their total domination of the broadcast spectrum. The American people deserve better.
"We need to return to The Fairness Doctrine. In spite of what Insannity keeps spewing, it is NOT censorship"
Wrong. The Fairness Doctrine is the ultimate example of government censorship. It's blatant government censorship of freedom of political speech. And yes, liberals do have the opportunity to have successful talk shows. The radio industry is a free market. If the liberal hosts were popular and were generating high ratings, radio stations would be eager to put them on, and they would have the opportunity to run a long term and successful talk radio show. There's nothing holding liberal talk show hosts back other than their own ineptness. It's a free market where ANY talk show host of any political ideology has the opportunity to become successful. But liberals simply have to rely on government censorship, because they know they can't beat conservatives in the market place of ideas. They have to try to eliminate the one segment of opposition that they face. Only then will they have the opportunity to spread unlimitted propaganda without fear of opposition.
"Wrong. The Fairness Doctrine is the ultimate example of government censorship. It's blatant government censorship of freedom of political speech."
NO!
The censorship began when Reagan gutted the fairness doctrine. Corporate censorship. Nobody is proposing that the junkie Limbaugh, the savage Weiner and their ilk be driven off the air as progressives were. That they be censored as the award winning platinum album selling Dixie Chicks still are by the right-wing mega corporation Clear Channel.
I own those airwaves! My viewpoint is the majority viewpoint these days. It is at least as worthy of representation as that of the billionaires who have been allowed by the fascist governments of the recent past to consolidate to the point where they can exclude opposing views. They proceeded to do exactly that.
Give me a piece of paper granting me a piece or radio spectrum and even if I had been penniless the instant before, I would be worth millions. In return for that grant I would have to promise to serve the public interest. I am the public and so are the rest of the progressives who are now excluded.
Self-identified Republicans are now third in this country after Democrats and Independents. The Orwellian spin that government assisted exclusion of progressives from the airwaves is freedom and demanding that the majority point of view be equally represented represents censorship is breathtaking.
As a SF fan, I was never all that impressed by the novel 1984. I still think that as science fiction, it wasn't really that great. As prophecy though, and as a blueprint for wingnut ideologues, it has no equal.
RINO,
There is nothing free about the radio market; participation is paid for by corporate sponsors. Only the most corporate friendly of radio hosts attract ad money. As for right wing radio audience, 4 to 5 million listeners, who get their news from limbaugh daily, is roughly .13% of the population. And he is the big man on campus. Big Whoop! According to Pew, 60 million people participate in online discussions and around 180 million get their news online. Here on the world wide web, where ideas count, where democracy is real and freedom is free, where participation is encouraged, we lefties flourish and shape the public discourse.
Baloney and LIES. IF all it is about is making money and free market why was Donahue take off the air when HE had the highest rated show on his network why was Hightower taken off when he was KILLING in the ratings. Also it is NOT censorship that is an outright lie as has been explained to you ad naseum. They can still say whatever they want then people have a RIGHT to air an opposing viewpoint. It cannot POSSIBLY be considered censorship when they can say what they want thats just stupid.
I already explained why Hightower was taken off the air. He criticized his own boss ON THE AIR. That was just an incredibly stupid thing to do. You don't have the right to publicly criticize your own boss and not get fired. It had nothing to do with him being a liberal. If the average person goes to work and criticizes their boss in front of all of his or her coworkers, they won't have a job for very long.
And I already explained to YOU that this is NOT an economic argument. YOU are saying if liberals could compete with listeners they would be on the air. NOW you say they have to tow the corporate line too and that isnt liberal. I already explained to YOU that this is part of the problem I was talking about. The inherent corporate bias. Media is not PAID for by listeners but by ADVERTISERS. Since if they had there way there would NEVER be any justified criticism of their corporations they use OUR airwaves to push messages THEY want heard while making obscene profits doing so. And if a liberal does well and puts out a message they dont like he is jerked off the air.
"NOW you say they have to tow the corporate line too and that isnt liberal"
I said no such thing. A liberal radio host can criticize all of the corporations he wants and still keep his job. He can bash Wal-Mart, Big Oil, etc. and nothing will happen. That's just a point of view. You just can't criticize YOUR OWN BOSS on the AIR for EVERYBODY to hear. That's just common sense. It has absolutely nothing to do with liberalism.
You mean the boss OR the advertisers so again we are stuck with limiting the liberal message where the conservative message is embraced. And of course you are full of it. Donahue didnt criticise HIS boss, he was critical of the war and even with the highest rating on his station he was yanked for FEAR of backlash from advertisers. You keep moving your argument. First its all about the economics. Then well there are other reasons too. You are trying to have it both ways. It is inherent that since the business community pays for the advertising shows will have a business bias and that is NOT a liberal message.
Hightower's case was an isolated incident. I don't know of any other liberal talk show host who got fired for criticizing a corporation. The only reason Hightower got fired is because he criticized HIS OWN BOSS! I don't know why Donahue got fired. It was most likely because Donahue was a far left extremist who made MSNBC look silly.
And maybe you made that post because you are an igonrant MORON who cant help but smear people. He had the highest rated program on his station.I know that a reporter named Cerra was fired for criticising a project that business wanted on Long Island from the NYTimes. I know that Kwitney lost his program for criticising US corporate policies in Guatemala. See the documentary Fear and favor in the newsroom and find all kinds of examples of media figures being marginalized or fired for not towing the line. YOUR claim is that IF liberals were popular then they would have programs yet Hightower WAS popular and lost his programming as did Donahue so your point is shown to be false.
"And maybe you made that post because you are an igonrant MORON who cant help but smear people"
Ha ha! Hilarious! You criticize me for "smearing" somebody and then you call me an "igonrant MORON." It's also pretty funny that you call me igonrant when you don't know the correct spelling of IGNORANT! Ha Ha! Also, I didn't smear Donahue. Calling him a far left extremist is a criticism of his political ideology. I made the truthful claim that he's part of the extreme far left in this country. I didn't attack his intelligence or his character. He may be an extremely nice guy who's also intelligent. I simply claimed that he is far left, which is simply a description of his political ideology.
Inhofe is a hoax.
Is it that crazy to think that a couple of prominent democrats would want to gain a little control over what right wing radio hosts say? After all, they do reach millions of people every day. That isnt too hard to believe.
Yes it's crazy. This is the woman that according to some conservatives, had a plan to run for President since 1992. Do you really think that she would be dumb enough to have a discussion about right wing radio while walking where anyone could overhear? Hillary is many things but dumb is not one them.
FREE market?
The left dominates the only truly free forum. All are welcome to participate on the internet without restriction, yet in a theoretically free market, where participation is bought and sold, the right has a stranglehold.
The right can have their talk radio dictators, prancing about in their competition-free, bought and paid for, market.
Here on the world wide web, where ideas count, where democracy is real and freedom is free, where participation is encouraged, we lefties flourish and shape the public discourse! Long live freedom!
i'm with the "this sounds hokey" side. these supposed "comments" sound like reading a script.
Even the repubs aren't to sure about 'conservative talk radio' anymore. Of course everyone who doesn't think like Savage is a Nazi.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/19/AR2007061902341.html?nav%3Drss_print/style
Of course the right wing supporters on here will have nothing good to say about this but: Still an interesting read for the rest of us.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/talk_radio.html
Just last night, Ed Schultz was on MSNBC talking about the "free market" talking point that the rightwing always trots out when it comes to talk radio.
I'm not a big fan of Ed's, but he took it even further on his show today and very convincingly made the case that it's about station ownership.
i've said this very thing several times. schultz has some very healthy ratings in some markets, and guys like hannity and o'reilly have fractions in some markets, and yet schultz cannot get on anywhere near the same number of stations.
Even some of the liberal talk show hosts are against the Fairness Doctrine, because they know it could come back to bite them if their talk shows ever become big and popular.
The fear of the Fairness Doctrine comes from the mouth of Savage, he is the main propaganda minister.
There is no possibility of the fairness doctrine biting liberals in the ass since we dont seek monopoly of opinion. If liberals dominate the airwaves in coming years and conservatives want to give their contrasting views that is all well and good as far as I am concerned.
Why do you think Ed Schultz is against the Fairness Doctrine?
I dont know or care. I am not obligated to talk for every liberal that exists. Ed is NOW a liberal but he used to be a conservative and still maintains some conservative views. That is not unusual liberals are not lockstep with ideology they never have been. My POINT stands the basic liberal view is that both sides ought to be heard so there isnt any way for that to be a problem. The Nation magazine is the pre-eminent liberal voice in the magazie world and they published Hitchens pro war columns for months they put articles in by conservatives who make an argument they want published. The NYTimes has many conservatives as frequent columnist we arent looking for a monopoly of opinion but both sides being heard.
"That is not unusual liberals are not lockstep with ideology they never have been"
What about you? Do you have ANY conservative views?
I dont have any views I consider conservative. By your standards I would say my opposition to hate crimes legislation and some gun control would probably qualify as conservative views
What do you mean "my standards?" You don't think that opposition to Hate Crime laws and some gun control laws are conservative views?
You shouldnt take that personally. You are being civil here and so was I. See this is what I keep saying. Things are not so simple. Is it a conservative view? Not to me, yet to many and I would say typically to conservatives they would say it was a conservative view. Many liberals who I have talked to about it agree with me and others disagree but understand my reasoning. They might NOT see it as a conservative viewpoint. I was only trying to say that by traditional conservative standards taking only that I oppose hate crimes legislation it would probably be considered a conservative position
I didn't take it personally. I was just trying to see where you were coming from. I just thought that opposition to gun control laws and hate crimes legislation were considered to be conservative views by everybody.
Great comment Roundhouse!
Thanks for the clip, Pete!
I was struck by the comment whatever wingnut sockpuppet that was interviewing Schultz made: something to the effect that CBS would replace him with a communist tomorrow if that would bring in more revenue.
Anybody who's been around for a while knows that just isn't the case. There are numerous examples of very popular TV shows being canceled at the height of their popularity. The first time I was aware of it was the satirical "That was the week that was." "The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour" was number one in the ratings when it was canceled. (Both those shows had later incarnations that weren't as popular - I'm talking first run.) Shindig and Hullabaloo! were great rock shows that had good and growing ratings and were canceled.
WKRP in Cincinnati illustrated another tactic. Rather than canceling it when it was leading in the rankings, the network moved it several times in one season then canceled it when the ratings dropped.
The myth that programming is revenue and ratings driven is an appealing talking point for the spinmeisters and the ignorant but has no basis in fact. There are numerous examples other than the ones I mentioned here, generally involving liberal politics and that devil rock and roll.
Whoa Johnrod, if you have anything to back up the statment about incoming or intent to produce government regulations to accomplish those two goals. Cough it up.
I think there is a de facto bias in the media that is neither left nor right per se, but reflects the values and interests of the affluent-to-filthy-rich people who are the producers, writers, investigators and presenters of the news.
I am not comfortable with government regulation of content, but I think some limit on the size of media organisations could be salutary. Also if there were some way that news could be a not-for-profit enterprise by definition - maybe by making commercial-free news a service that had to be provided by anyone who holds an FCC license - it might go a long way towards reversing the "infotainment" trend that has so dumbed down the news.
Foser's column has some things you might find interesting Val.
It may turn out that Inhofe has two different version of the same story. In one version the incident happened just the other day. The other version the inicident happened three years ago.
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jun/22/inhofe
See Hannity makes millions and gets it wrong all the time. We find out the truth and get nothing. Strange strange world we live in Master Jack.
If they are targetting talk radio, perhaps their goal is to restore some balance in the process, because it's quite obvious the right-wing blowhards like Hannity--a liar himself (to Alec baldwin: 'You backed out on a deal to appear on our show'; to Ted Rall: 'We don't do deals on FOX.' Huh???)--are far more conspicuous on talk radio than the so-called 'liberal' threat. I might add these guys are probably a little worried that 'fair and balanced' will actually occur in the near future, thus presenting a challenge to these creeps. Bring it on.
Actually I hope Hannity's right and that this is a deliberate and concerted attack to bring down right wing talk radio. Dirty fighting deserves same. This is indeed culture war, and right now all the ammunition belongs to OxyBoy Limbaugh and his acolytes. You attack, you let everyone know what you're doing, and you fight dirty. The Republicans can do this. Why can't the Democrats?
The Dems lost a chance in 2000 to force constitutional crisis during the election. Kerry played "fair" in 2004. Is the Left finally going to get it at long last or are they going to whine and refuse to fight as dirty as they need to in order to silence--no, destroy--Limbaugh and his Mob?
This is my first day on MM, and have posted on a couple other stories as well. Anyone can distort or spin almost every thing that is said or in print by changing as little as one word. Some key words to look and listen for are "may", "necessarily", and "could". The "Liberal Media" is a myth believed by many folk simply because it is a flat out lie repeated over and over again for many years. I don't listen to talk radio, but watch the cable news/talk shows all the time. The only one I've found to lean liberal/progressive is Countdown. Keith Olbermann does a good job in that he presents a funny and yet fairly accurate account of the stories covered on the show.
So Inhofe says one thing and the people in question say the opposite and neither can prove emphatically that waht they allege is true. Hannity reported what Inhofe allegedly overheard. He reported that the senator SAID he overheard it. Therefore IF someone lied here it is not Hannity, it is actually inhofe. However, because the parties in question (clinton and boxer) cannot prove they never had this conversation it's impossible to assume it's summarily false.
Those are some impressive journalistic standards you have there, Komrade Shaw.
Do you feel the same way about those Bush military records that Dan Rather reported on?
Thats a pretty large group of conversations Sebastian. Pretty good trick picking it out. Inhofe's temporal confusion loses points for me. Check above.
Action Should Be Taken Now
A Three year old theoretical conversation is not helpful.
As Ed Schultz pointed out to “Tucker” host Michael Smerconish, conservative talk radio dominance is an ownership issue. As if we did not know that ownership is a problem with all media and freedom of the press. Media ownership by a limited number of major corporation, less money spent on research and investigation to improve profit margins and government influence have destroyed the Fourth Estate in America. The United States is ranked 53rd for freedom of the press out of about 153 countries by Reporters Without Borders. Here is a link to one report on talk radio. [link to www.americanprogress.org]
We on the "more correct Left" as compared to the "wrong wrong right" have somehow got to have a process to challenge these liars, Hannity, Limbaugh et.al. IMMEDIATELY when these hatements are made. But how does one combat the sheer volume of lies told on an hourly basis? As much as it is a great fantasy, I don't believe anyone of the Left would even try to rid the world of this pestilence of neocon radio, but obtaining a tiny bit of veracity and balance provided to our citizenry should be a goal of everyone who cares about our Democracy--Senators, Representatives, and citizens alike!
Back in the 90's, there actually used to be Rush "Listening parties" at a local sports bar.
I attended one just to see what it was like, and came away very, very frightened.
"Two Liberal Gals",were walking with Inhofe, and were gabbing away about about a legislative fix to Right -Wing Radio doesn't hold air! How long does anyone think that Inhofe was privy to any conversation between Clinton and Boxer? Did you notice in the conversation with with Sen. Inhofe, Hotdog (Ziegler) led with talking points,putting words into Inhofe mouth? Inhofe was led around like a pig to slaughter!
Exactly what chance did any Democrat 3 years ago, have in bringing up a bill or any bill, on the floor of the House or Senate?
I wonder if Hannity thinks that Jeff Gannon,or Matt Sanchez is a great American? I can't prove, but I do belive that Hannity would "hold one in his mouth till it went soft!"
Speaking of Bill Cunningham,he's another Yellow-Spined Chickenhawk,spent his youth in school,playing basketball, Avoiding the Vietnam War Draft,just like his buddy Hannity who hid out during the Ist Gulf War. Hannity was right around thirty at the time,wonder what his excuse was? Cunningham has that Mitch McMconnell look ,deadfaced stupid,with no lips!
Hannity et al do this kind of thing routinely.
They need to scratch for any hint of a pretext (no matter how bizarre/irrational) to characterize themselves as victims.
This is how all bullies/despots operate. In their self serving delusional universe everyone is out to "get them" so they then are justified in employing scorched earth tactics in their own "defense".
This is why no matter how much power and wealth the people/interests behind George Bush accumulate...it will NEVER be enough.
Their whole modus operandi is driven by a fundamentally pathological set of false/fixed "beliefs".
It's actually more scary when you understand that these folks truly do believe their own (male bovine fecal material).
Talk Radio is mostly Conservative for a reason. What is that reason? Alan Combs has a successful and well thought out radio show... but talk radio is like everything else...market driven, now it would be naive to think outside forces don't influence the market but what exactly are those forces, and what can we as people do to influence them? That needs to be the thinking, any malicious comments or political hackery just confuses the truth behind important issues with other wise perceived rhetorical opinion. Focusing on truth with research and diligence should be the way of the transformational thinker, not debasing an otherwise good argument with heated rhetorical opinion and political hackery...This idea transcends our conditioned Rep vs Dem thinking and should start by realizing we are all pawns in a game that corp and govt elites have created to divide us and keep us boxed in. A country divided will not continue to stand. We need to turn away from the slanted issues and talking points that politicians and news anchors feed us and start focusing on facts with the bottom line being whats best not for certain individuals or interest groups but for our society and people as a whole. News via Radio or TV shouldn't even be an issue because the last time I checked they are both more entertainment than anything else and are framed in ways to keep us people locked into opposing factions to fight each other while the few elites that control mostly everything are made even more powerful. If you don't believe me, put away your manufactured political agenda and look into this yourself! Democracy is dying and we are too busy fighting each other and focusing on garbage. We are all better than that? Right?