Retroactive context? Talk Radio Network discovers "true context" for Savage's autism "views" in shows that came days after his original comments
SUMMARY: Talk Radio Network, which syndicates Michael Savage's radio show, posted on a website a statement asserting that Savage's July 16 comments about autism had been taken "out of context" and purporting to provide "true context" for Savage's "views." The website -- savageonautism.com -- features "20 audio clips of Michael Savage's comments on Autism," which the accompanying statement describes as "a representative sampling of Dr. Savage's views, as well as the applicable issues, in true context." In fact, all 20 of those audio clips are from the July 21 and 22 broadcasts of Savage's show, during which Savage misrepresented his July 16 remarks; they are not "context" for the July 16 remarks.
Responding to the firestorm surrounding Michael Savage's July 16 comments about autism, Talk Radio Network, which syndicates his show, posted on a website a statement asserting that Savage's comments had been taken "out of context" and purporting to provide "true context" for Savage's "views" on autism. The website -- savageonautism.com -- features "20 audio clips of Michael Savage's comments on Autism," which the accompanying statement describes as "a representative sampling of Dr. Savage's views, as well as the applicable issues, in true context." In fact, all 20 of those audio clips are from the July 21 and 22 broadcasts of Savage's show, during which Savage misrepresented his July 16 remarks; they are not -- as Talk Radio Network suggests -- "context" for the July 16 remarks. In addition, missing from the "representative sampling" of Savage's "views" is Savage's prior acknowledgment that he had called autism "a phony disease." Savage made this acknowledgment in a previous show that re-aired July 9 (portions of which were previously included in a YouTube clip posted on June 30) -- that is, before Savage's July 16 comments, as opposed to the after-the-fact "context" offered by Talk Radio Network.
Media Matters for America has reviewed each of the 20 audio clips posted as "context" on savageonautism.com and has confirmed that each of them was aired on July 21 or 22.
Savage said on July 16: "Now, you want me to tell you my opinion on autism, since I'm not talking about autism? A fraud, a racket. ... You know what autism is? I'll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is."
Responding to the ensuing controversy, Talk Radio Network issued a statement accusing Media Matters of "manipulat[ing] 84 seconds of commentary out of context." The statement -- which is also posted on savageonautism.com -- provides no evidence for this allegation, instead referring readers to savageonautism.com for the "true context" of Savage's "views":
In contrast to the cynical efforts of Media Matters to manipulate 84 seconds of commentary out of context, for its own ends, the Network does believe that the issue is about the children. While the 84 seconds at issue has created intense controversy, the Network welcomes the opportunity to broaden the discussion on the important issues relating to autism, the "autism spectrum", the validity of autism diagnoses, and the ever-expanding drugging of America's children.
The Network commenced this discussion in the July 21st and 22nd broadcasts of The Michael Savage Show. For those who believe that the 84 seconds cited by Media Matters defines Michael Savage's views on autism, the Network recommends going to (or clicking) http://www.savageonautism.com/ to view a representative sampling of Dr. Savage's views, as well as the applicable issues, in true context.
Under the heading "20 audio clips of Michael Savage's comments on Autism," the website provides 20 audio clips along with brief descriptions of each -- for example, "Savage says the real cases of autism need our sympathy and support," and "Caller Susan says her child was labeled autistic by school officials and that she was pressured to sign off on the diagnosis." But since all of the audio clips come from Savage's July 21 and 22 broadcasts, none provide any support for Savage's and Talk Radio Network's discredited claim that Savage's comments were taken "out of context." Media Matters is providing the following partial transcript of Savage's comments in the savageonautism.com audio clips for reference only.
| Savageonautism.com description | Highlighted comments (partial transcript of audio provided at savageonautism.com) | Date clip aired |
| 1. Savage says the real cases of autism need our sympathy and support. | SAVAGE: I'll repeat what I said yesterday: The real cases of autism deserve our sympathy and our financial support. It is the phonies and the misdiagnosed and falsely diagnosed that we are addressing on The Savage Nation. | 7/22 |
| 2. Savage says his brother was severely disabled and that misdiagnosis hurts the child. | SAVAGE: Now let me get very personal. I am the brother of a severely disabled brother, who suffered and died in a New York snakepit of a mental hospital. I know first hand what true disability is. Don't lecture me about it. | 7/21 |
| 3. Savage says that the genuinely autistic need as much love and attention as we can give them. | SAVAGE: Now there are children who are genuinely autistic, and of course, they need as much love and attention and help as we can give them, but many children are being victimized by being diagnosed with an illness which may not exist in all cases. | 7/21 |
| 4. Savage talks about his disabled brother who died in a hospital | SAVAGE: I thought about my poor, deceased brother, who lived without having spoken a word his entire life. He lived into his 20s. He was given away when he was very young -- five or six -- tore the family to pieces. He was sent to a snakepit on Staten Island, where he suffered for 20 years. And he died in that hospital, never having spoken a word. | 7/21 |
| 5. Savage speaks with Wendy Fournier, President of the National Autism Association. | SAVAGE: Let's go to Wendy Fournier, National Autism Association. Miss Fournier, welcome to The Savage Nation, thanks for being with us. | 7/21 |
| 6. Savage interviews psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin. Dr. Breggin says that though there are real cases of autism, those involved in the broadening of its diagnosis are in the pay of pharmaceutical companies. Breggin says Savage is correct that autism is over diagnosed. | SAVAGE: I have a medical professional on by the name of Dr. Peter Breggin. And Dr. Breggin is one of my favorite guests. I haven't had him on in years. | 7/22 |
| 7. Savage speaks with Dr. Stephen Camarota [sic] of Vanderbilt University who has worked extensively with autistic children. He says that the definition of autism has been expanded too far. | SAVAGE: Now I'm going to have another expert on right now, a real expert in the area of autism -- someone who has studied autism for decades, someone who has written about autism for decades, and someone who knows what he is talking about. Professor Stephen Camarata of Vanderbilt University. | 7/21 |
| 8. Caller Kyle is a school psychologist who works with autistic kids and agrees with Savage on the over diagnosis of autism and how it only hurts the kids who truly have the condition. | SAVAGE: New York City, Kyle, thanks for holding. Welcome to The Savage Nation. Your point, please. | 7/21 |
| 9. Caller Susan says her child was labeled autistic by school officials and that she was pressured to sign off on the diagnosis. | SAVAGE: Texas, Susan, you're on The Savage Nation. What's your story? Go ahead, please." | 7/21 |
| 10. Caller Tikvah is a therapist in New York City who works with children who says that kids are frequently labeled with autism even though they have other conditions because the agencies are provided with more funds for that diagnosis. | SAVAGE: Tikvah in New York City on WOR, my wonderful affiliate in Manhattan and -- and surrounding area, what's on your mind Tikvah? | 7/22 |
| 11. Savage says his comments about autism were directed at those who are falsely diagnosed and that he knows what it's like to have a child suffer in front of his eyes. | SAVAGE: We've been talking about autism, whether too many children are being categorized as autistic; about my comments which were ripped out of context. My comments about autism last week were aimed at the children who are falsely or misdiagnosed. And they were meant to boldly awaken parents and children to the medical community's attempt to label far too many children or adults as autistic. And I stick to that. And I will say again, I know firsthand what it is like to have a child who suffers in front of your eyes. | 7/21 |
| 12. Savage reads from his book Healing Children Naturally where he cautions against the drugging of children. | SAVAGE: I want to refer to something for those of you who've just joined the show and don't know my background. My book, Healing Children Naturally, was published in 1982. I republished it last year. | 7/21 |
| 13. Savage mentions that UK doctors do not screen for autism because screening tools have not been fully validated. | SAVAGE: Again, I want to reiterate a few points. The United Kingdom, the doctors in the UK National Screening Committee do not screen for autism in the general child population. Why? Because they say "screening tools have not been fully validated." And "interventions", that is, treatments, "lack sufficient evidence for effectiveness". So, be careful. | 7/21 |
| 14. Savage says real autism is devastating, but that it's difficult to diagnose, such that the [sic] do not screen for it in the UK. Savage says that over diagnosis occurs because of the "autistic spectrum" and this is insulting to the truly ill. | SAVAGE: We know that autism, by itself in a true case is devastating. Its causes are unknown. [...] In the United Kingdom, in Britain, the UK National Screening Committee recommends against, I repeat, against screening for autism in the general child population because "screening tools have not been fully validated, and interventions lack sufficient evidence for effectiveness." Are you aware of any of this? [...] Are you aware of the fact that there is a category now called the autistic spectrum? | 7/21 |
| 15. Caller Victoria has an autistic child and says it is too easy to get a child diagnosed as autistic. Savage says resources for autism must be reserved for children like hers. | SAVAGE: Virginia, Victoria, you're on The Savage Nation. Go ahead, please. | 7/22 |
| 16. Savage says he has devoted his life to helping children and gives the context for his remarks. | SAVAGE: What is ironic is that I, Michael Savage, who have, well I have personally devoted most of my life to the defense of defenseless children, to helping children stay off drugs, to helping parents understand that there's a very evil empire of pharmaceutical firms and corrupt doctors, who wish to drug your children. The issue of autism came up because last week in the context of talking about welfare fraud, talking about fraudulent diagnoses in order to sell children medications, I raised the issue of autism. | 7/21 |
| 17. Savage criticizes doctors for recommending cholesterol drugs on children as young as two. | SAVAGE: Did you know that just a few weeks ago, quack doctors recommended dangerous anti-cholesterol drugs for children as young as two years of age? That's right, you heard me. | 7/21 |
| 18. Savage says that though people are making money from false diagnosis, real cases of autism deserve our sympathy and out [sic] support. | SAVAGE: Be very mindful of the fact that there are fortunes being made in the medical and educational communities. Now having said that, I'll repeat what I said yesterday. The real cases of autism deserve our sympathy and our financial support. It is the phonies, and the misdiagnosed and falsely diagnosed that we are addressing on The Savage Nation. | 7/22 |
| 19. Savage says many experts say that many children are falsely diagnosed. | SAVAGE: Now how do I know that there are phonies, and misdiagnosed and falsely diagnosed cases? Well, the experts tell me so. Some experts say that over 58 percent are falsely or misdiagnosed. That's professor Stephen Camarata of Vanderbilt University who treats authentic autism. He has done so for 30 years. That's his data. | 7/22 |
| 20. Savage says that real autism is tragic, and that a false diagnosis is a crime against the child. | SAVAGE: Autism in its true form is a tragedy for the child and the parents. But to throw every child who evidences these characteristics into this category of autism is a crime against the child. | 7/21 |
His comments were viewed in context. They were deplorable comments.
Trying to squirm his way out later doesn't change the context of what he said before.
What would you expect from a worm, but squirm? That's what they DO. Some of you are lucky (?) enough to have radio access to DR. Mick's insane ravings. Here in New Orleans, the nearest station is in Baton Rouge, outside of our range. I have to go to his web site. It's like going to a neighborhood where the street lights don't work, ominous footsteps behind you, crack-heads demanding change, and the smell of rotting garbage overpowers you. I have to take a shower after visiting the place. Personally, I'm glad he has the airwaves. Makes me think I'm not the only crazy bastard out there.
If he were a real man he would be saying all of this AFTER saying something like: "Last week I went off, as I am prone to do, and says some stupid things about about Autism. Understandably, these upset rather a few people, and I think it's importnat to clarify exactly what I was trying to say." Then this retroactive context might be worth something.
If he were a real man.
"MM is definitely doing its job staying on this. Good work, ladies and gents, keep up the pressure. Make this lunatic disappear from OUR airwaves."
I have to give Media Matters their props for their coverage on the "Savage Autism (Crisis? Incident? Comments?)" as they rightfully criticized his declaration that "autism is a fraud" - I don't know how they can take that out of context, much like someone has a difficult time taking "God Damn America" out of context. While I'm in full agreement with his assessment of the pharmaceutical industries profit-oriented goals, the bottom line was that he still called autism and ADHD figments of the imagination that can be fixed with a little bit of disciplinary action.
Another thing that I find disturbing is Michael Savage's decision to retaliate against Media Matters by running a smear war against a news watchdog organization, calling them obscentities and former governments that opposed United States and asking his callers to request Media Matters' tax records. While I may have some disagreements with Media Matters, I would try to provide criticism as opposed to condemnation.
I also understand that the First Amendment guarantees the American people such things as the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, and the fact that it is there to protect people like me as well as people like him, and institutions such as Media Matters. People such as Michael Savage understand the power and the importance of those God-given rights, as their actions demonstrate their knowlege of that importance. Also, certain expressions or statements will lead to certain reactions and consequences, but at the end of the day, both parties still retain the right to the Freedom of Speech. Censorship does favors to only the advocates behind the popular speech, as unpopular speech is the only form of speech that is subject to censorship.
Personally I'm divided on this issue. I don't think he should be silenced due to our First Amendment rights, but I also don't think his comments should be condoned or tolerated. Maybe I'm still young and dumb and impressionable (20)...
OK - Got it.
Egg-zackly.
THANK YOU!
Getting Savage booted from the airwaves is NOT censorship. He is still free to express his views just about anywhere he can find a venue (perhaps a street corner and a sandwich-bard would be better suited). He can shout his ignorant comments from the rooftops.
OUR right is to not have him expressing this nonsense on federally-controlled airwaves if it is deemed unsuitable by the folks who pay the bills.
Wuss-
Savage's speech is still protected by the First Amendment. However, radio stations also have the choice whether or not to carry his show. The flip side of your coin, forcing radio stations to continue broadcasting his show against their (and the free market's) will is tantamount to fascism.
"The flip side of your coin, forcing radio stations to continue broadcasting his show against their (and the free market's) will is tantamount to fascism."
So, if a government passed a 'fairness doctrine' which forced a radio station to play Michael Savage, a conservative, to counter a controversial subject aired by another personality who is liberal, would that be considered fascism? Since forcing the station to air Savage against the owner's (and the free market's) will would be considered fascism. According to you, anyway.
And, the opposite would be true also? If a liberal was forced onto a privately owned station against the owner's will, that would be considered fascism, too?
And, the opposite would be true also? If a liberal was forced onto a privately owned station against the owner's will, that would be considered fascism, too?
And if Philib had an original thought, that would be considered a first.
"Savage's speech is still protected by the First Amendment"
This does not preclude accountability or consequences.
Perhaps we, the people, should reinstate a strong Fairness Doctrine.
It would not be fascism to induce honest discourse in this country.
just dittoing ( please excuse the term) the numerous comments about and around MMFA bring real fairness (not to mention, sanity) to our airwaves
I hadn't heard Savage request his listeners to request MMfA tax records. Can you document this from any of the transcripts posted here or elsewhere on the internet?
Is this even legal? Are tax records public info? If yes, would Savage Nation's business tax records similarly be public info?
Savage was off Wednesday and today but was very much on yesterday. He seemed very agitated, like he’d just come out of an intense meeting with his boss. Either MMFA is really getting to him or maybe he is just using them as his whipping boy while having worse problems.
I occasionally listen, but I’m having a hard time reading him on this. So much depends on behind the scenes stuff we’re not privy to. Like what feedback his company’s account reps are getting from advertisers and station outlets and what his own syndicator is privately saying to him. I wouldn’t bet on it, but it’s also possible that Savage is so secure in his job that he’s playing this all up in the interests of putting on a compelling show and to garner publicity by raising his visibility in the media, including through repeated mentions of and allusions to this site.
He did on Thursday request his listeners to come here and to contact MMFA for their tax records as a 501(c)(3) organization. These are public records as I understand it, but his and his employers are not. He stated he wanted to create a nuisance and implied that he hoped one of his listeners might take some kind of legal action against MMFA.
He can have 'em, I say. He won't find anything.
EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE ALWAYS SAID ABOUT SAVAGE! One of his main goals is to get listeners to DO things that he thinks should be done. In the case here - go after MMFA.
Remember this when he decides that other things need to be "done." Like ridding the country of certain people he disapproves of. All the while he will sit back and say - "What? I was just exercising my right to free speech. I didn't go out and kill those _______, it was someone else."
Don't know if you are still checking this thread, but in case you are, thanks for getting back to me with this answer. And speaking of tax info, I heard Levin, on Thursday or Friday, requesting any of his fans who happen to work for the IRS to use their independent auditing power to *wink wink* do a little checking on MMfA. He mentioned he knew he was being taped, snarled a little extra for his fans, and threw out the usual "elitist marxist" banalities.
The main-stream hate-radio jocks seem uptighter than usual these days. I don't think it has anything to do with Obama because if he wins, they'll be in pig heaven for at least 4 years. No, I think they are rattled by the increasing potential that the Fairness Doctrine might be reinstated.
And speaking of tax info, I heard Levin, on Thursday or Friday, requesting any of his fans who happen to work for the IRS to use their independent auditing power to *wink wink* do a little checking on MMfA.
But first, those IRS folks should do a full audit of Levin's Landmark Legal Foundation, Savage's Paul Revere Society, and that scam outfit that fleeces the "Great Americans" who attend Sean Hannity's Freedom Concerts...
He is right that autism is being misdiagnosed in many cases.
The criteria for diagnosing autism have been expanded to include syptoms that may not actually point to autism.
Some studies show that this has resulted in a 52% misdiagnosis regarding autism.
That's a very well thought out post. You demonstrate a willingness to take a broad view of the issues here. However, I must concur with the oft posted sentiment that this is not a free speech issue. Free Speech (IOW - The Constitution) protects all people from punnishment BY THE U.S. GOVERMENT. Now while various Representatives have issued press released condemning those remarks, none have called for his liscence to be pulled, nor has the FCC fined him. And this is as it should be because (as you said) WE HAVE FREE SPEECH.
But the Constitutuion does not protect you from the wrath of the free market. It does not guarentee you a stage to speech from, let alone a radio show, salary and sponsors. If you're being paid to speak (as he is) then you can also be fired if people don't like what you're saying. Hey - you or I could be fired from our jobs if we said something really offensive in the office. Why should he be any different? If people don't want to buy from his sponsors, that's their right. If those sponsors choose to listen to those customers and advirtize elsewhere, that's their right. And, if in an effor to avoid losing more money & sponsors and mitigate some of the bad press he's generated for them, his employer fires him, that is also their right.
If the government/FCC were to try and push him out, or even fine him, I'd be first in line to defend his rights. As long as the action comes from boycotts and bad press, and the presuure is brought financially thorugh the free market (and not the gov't) then all is well, and the Constitution as well as all the principals of our great capitalist democracy are upheld.
"Hey - you or I could be fired from our jobs if we said something really offensive in the office."
That has always been one of my favorite examples of how employees don't have free speech. If you're turned down for a raise and you tell your boss his wife is a whore, you're fired. You can say you have free speech all you like, but you'll still be escorted out of the building.
The idea that "free speech" means that there are never any consequences for what you say is one of the most absurd notions ever floated.
This is BRILLIANT! We used to have just text, subtext and context. Now, thanks to the Talk Radio Network, we've got retrocontext: the projection of what would have been defensible context for otherwise indefensible remarks into the past.
Wingnut world seems to exist outside of the time & space constraints we normal humans experience.
Rush Limbaugh calling non-submissive troops "phony soldiers" was actually not what it seemed- when heard in the context of a completely unrelated conversation that took place on a previous day.
And Savage's remarks make perfect sense when put into their proper context-- the future!
Modern conservatism has really entered the world of science fiction.
And Savage's remarks make perfect sense when put into their proper context-- the future! - Col. Harlan Sanders
Perfectly said. Do you think I could get away with stupidity at work by means of after-the-fact CYA aka Making Crap Up?
Savage also said that he would never attack defenseless children. I guess he forgot how he attacked Elizabeth Smart, the 14-year-old girl who was kidnapped, raped and held for 9 months. He called her a slut.
This free speech argument is really getting old. Savage has all the right in the world to stand on a street corner and spread his filth, but he has no Constitutionally protected right to have a nationally syndicated radio program to do it. If that were the case, we'd all be suing Clear Channel for our three-hour time slot.
Is it just me, or have all his callers on his show been in 100% agreement with him? I don't think I've heard one dissenting caller on his show for about a week now.
My next paycheck says it's just the same guy over and over.
And a beer says he's related to Savage.
If you don't like him, don't listen! Turn the radio off. How many of you actually listen to his show? If it wasn't for this site, none of you would know or care what he had to say. This is one man's opinion. Yes, he may have a large audience, but is he going to really influence the medical community on autism? Most of his audience is made up of like minded people. If a parent is really questioning whether their child may or may not have autism due to something Savage said, I do feel sorry for them.
"If you don't like him, don't listen! Turn the radio off. How many of you actually listen to his show? If it wasn't for this site, none of you would know or care what he had to say. This is one man's opinion. Yes, he may have a large audience, but is he going to really influence the medical community on autism? Most of his audience is made up of like minded people. If a parent is really questioning whether their child may or may not have autism due to something Savage said, I do feel sorry for them."
Let's apply this to a scenario where someone calls for all gay people to be systematically exterminated. Would you tell people to just not listen? Would it matter that it was just "one man's opinion"? And if his audience is made up of like-minded people, then those people clearly shouldn't have their bigoted opinions validated on the public airwaves. None of your arguments change the fact that reprehensible comments should be roundly condemned.
As for the current situation, it has nothing to do with influencing the medical community, it has to do with influencing listeners.
"Let's apply this to a scenario where someone calls for all gay people to be systematically exterminated. Would you tell people to just not listen? Would it matter that it was just "one man's opinion"? "
First off, I assume you're referring to Hitler, in which case, that is quite a stretch. Most people on here get after Savage for making so many Nazi comparisons, but this one is just as puzzling. For one thing, Savage is a radio commontator, with absolutly NO political power whatsoever. Also, there is a big difference between questioning the prevalence of autism to calling for the extermination of gays. If he did that, I would be right with you. Is he trying to influence his audience? Of course he is. But fortunetly we live in a society where all sides of an issue can be heard. If this were in fact Nazi Germany, we would only here Savage's take and nothing else. I appreiciate the fact that there is a site like this where people can object to an opinion and call Savage a moron himself. But I would not call for his firing just because people strongly dissagree with his opinion. I would never want to live in a society like that. All sides should have there say. If we're not carefull, tyrany will be replaced by tyrany. Read Animal Farm.
"First off, I assume you're referring to Hitler, in which case, that is quite a stretch."
Your assumption is faulty, which negates much of your post. It's an example of extremist hate speech, it didn't imply anything about him having political power at all.
"Also, there is a big difference between questioning the prevalence of autism to calling for the extermination of gays. If he did that, I would be right with you."
It's not just about "questioning the prevalence of autism", he called 99% of autistic children fakers and brats. That is atrocious. And of course there's a difference, but it's a matter of principle. Where is the dividing line between these two things? Where do you say "turn the radio off" and where do you say "he should be fired"? Reprehensible comments should be condemned, period. The difference is the level of reaction that is appropriate. "Turn the radio off" or any other form of "ignore it" is not an acceptable response.
Most importantly is the fact that we're not usually dealing with instances that are in themselves overwhelmingly, outrageously horrendous like the example I provided. It's generally smaller controversies that build up over time, and then there's a precipitating event that breaks the camel's back. See Imus, Don for an excellent example. If you brush off all the racist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic and other assorted inappropriate comments with "ignore it" then you never reach that breaking point. We should reach that point with people who habitually lower the public discourse.
I've read Animal Farm. I'm not convinced that Orwell would want extremists having credibility and influence with any significant number of people, but perhaps you can cite some passages from the book that will enlighten me in that regard.
Savage engages in radio-hate-rants that impact American politics, over the public airwaves. He, and you, should expect that his opponents, as well as his supporters, are listening. You should also recognize that his political rhetoric and social commentary is rightfully held up to public scrutiny by watchdog groups like MMfA, and he is rightfully held up to public outrage when he embarks on outrageous rants. And, more practically, many of us listen to keep tabs on his advertisers, so we can boycott them.
IMO, right-wing hate radio, disguised as entertainment (or as Hannity recently defined, as "opinion advocacy"), has been vastly harmful to our country, and it is patriotic for those of us who detest it, to fight it.
Why do you object? Do you disagree that MMfA supporters have the right to speak about our opinions openly?
I take it you disagree with MMFA's position? By your logic, shouldn't you just click to a different website? Nobody's forcing you to visit this webpage and read this, right?
Of course I welcome your comments and your expression of your position. But if you concede that you have a right to vigorously express your disagreement, doesn't the same hold true for people who find Savage's comments hurtful?
MMFA has no power to force Savage off the air. The only power that does is his employer. But MMFA has every right to try to convince Savage's employer and his sponsers that Savage's comments are hurtful and unworthy of support.
B^lls#!t! There is no reason that any of my hard earned money should go to the companies that sponsor his show and pay his salary. Turn if off? I already do. But I'll be dancing naked in the 9th circle of hell before I'll willingly and knowingly let any of my money go to pay that scumbag's salary. I already ignore it, but for some reason YOU still expect me to pay for it!
Seems only a basic courtesy to let those comapnies (his sponsors) know why we're not buying their products. You know, give a chance to recover our business and all.
Yep, it all continues to look correct to me...so what is the issue again?
Once again, people hate Savage because he doesn't agree with the way this country is run and is quick to point these things out...I may not agree with the names he continues to call people (putz, schmuck, idiot, etc) or all the points he makes (especially about the Lord) but this continuous hatred toward him is getting ridiculous. Please actually listen to what he stands for as a whole instead of the usual "he's a bigot, racist, homophobe, etc." crap that is constantly being said about him. He's a true American, and there aren't many of them anymore.
Personally, I thank people like Savage for feeding the hatred that spurred the actions of Jim D. Adkisson.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOAQKzY-aOBqDspFkEAV_ZO65vZAD926TU4G1
"KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Knoxville's police chief says the man accused of a shooting that killed two people at a Tennessee church targeted the congregation because of its liberal social stance."
He didn't simply claim that it was over-diagnosed though. He claimed that 99 out of 100 are mis-diagnosed. He claimed all kinds of inane, crazy things.
I hate Savage apologists. There's no reasonable way to defend what he said, but they still try. Sickos.
How come that wasn't addressed when it was republished in 2007? You would think that it would be logical to update dated information when republishing a book.
What? Huh? You thought? This bit? What's wrong with you?
Our free speech Rights, that we are born with and not given to us by the government, prohibits the government from putting any limitations on those Rights.
Having stated that, one can not threaten the life of the POTUS, for instance, or yelling "fire" in a public venue. Express an unpoular view in China and you go to jail. See the difference?
Savage, as an entertainer, serves one boss: the bottom line of his company. If his ratings tank he's just another shmendrick walking his pussy of a dog, Teddy the French Poodle, on Fisherman's Wharf.
I thought the First Amendment provided protection to all forms of communication. Where do I have this bit misinterpreted?
Question for the activists here:
Is there a next step? Getting the national autism organizations involved was crucial in getting this hate-speech the attention it deserved, but what about the lies by Talk Radio Network?
Shouldn't there be similar accountability on the part of Talk Radio Network for their lies regarding the "retrocontext"?
How can the retrocontext be brought to the national level, as his comments about disabled children were? Is there a media watchgroup that ranks talk show hosts for their dishonesty? Like a score of some sort? Savage would be near the top for lies.
Savage got carried away as he always does which is why people listen. MMFA is just a front for the liberal thought police- if you don't agree with us then your a threat. Its just bad "cliff's notes" for lazy kool-aid drinking liberals who are to scared to actually listen to a conservative talk show.
WTF? I heard the broadcast. It's on YouTube and others istes as well, so this has little to do with MMFA. He attacked my two children, insulted me and my family, and defmaed the teachers and therapists who taught my childeren to speak and gave them the ability ot learn. He's a lying, ignorant scumbag. You people have a sick sense of entertainment if THAT'S why you tune in. There's no thought police action here at all. HE attacked ME and MINE and WE attacked back. Don't fault us for making progress, and don't hold your head too high when defending the indefensible. Savage is the villain here, not basic decency.
Weiner said that 99% of autism is a fake, and that harsh discipline will take care of it.
What happens if somebody puts their autistic child in the hospital with injuries because they don't respond to discipline? Or in the graveyard?
It's horrible stupid, dangerous advice--and could do kids serious harm.
Right-wing talk radio has created a sytem with a bunch of people--with no special qualifications--are allowed a public place to say anything they damn well please. Lies, personal attacks, all are OK--and no similar space is given to the opponents.
You do that with ANYBODY, you're going to get a terrible degraded discourse.
You may agree with Michael Weiner's politics. I don't, and will try to argue with you on a rational basis about them.
However, if you think that Michael Weiner's politics makes him a medical expert, you're a dangerous fool.
The Whiny Hiney Weiner Savage is a slippery worm and a weasel with absolutely no backbone. He is a coward of the highest magnitude.
Just witness what he has put himself through these past two weeks. He grossly, capriciously and with abandon mischaracterized an ailment, autism, while, as he often does, speaking as a credentialed scientist.
This time, however, he gets some wickedly negative blowback for mouthing off about a subject way over his opinionated head.
What does this coward do? He, first, as he is want to do, blows off critics with his usual you people don’t get it, my show is all about “hyperbole” and “sarcasm” and “satire”. Then, things heat up with the gallant help of this very web site, MM, and then Savage runs. He runs to his bunker and hides. He puts some doctor on his show with the same opinions as himself but for the most part he spent the past week either off the air or sputtering in ridiculous fashion his weak attempts to defend against his nemesis, MM, for daring to “misquote” him by using direct quotes.
What this delusional Being does not comprehend is that the old saw: The truth will set you free” rarely applies to anything he spews on his one hour and fifty-two minute opus. If Savage spoke the truth, on anything, he would have continued on with his weekly show without losing a beat. If Savage had real data to back up his claims instead of being someone who, unfortunately, had a close relative suffering the effects of autism instead and reading a few books he would not be in the embarrassing position he finds himself in at this moment in time.
What I would like to see, PBG, is for his show’s sponsors to get cold feet and slowly slink away from his Michael Sewage Spew (yeah, go ahead, somebody rip that one off from me…let’s hear it repeated on the Golfer’s show…don’t give me credit for anything…) I would like to see this lonely self-hating Jew and un-funny clown fade away, as he should…in my humble opinion, of course.
I must have missed your comment to ANDY2020. You said it perfectly! I have often reminded posters at MMFA about the danger of just writing off the crazies on talk radio and television and suggesting we just "don't listen". We do not listen at our peril! We have to be aware of what trash is being sent out to millions of people, many of whom might be influenced by the likes of "Doctor" Savage.
And to VYSOTSKY-You don't post here often enough. You seem like a reasonable person with intelligent things to contribute. More, please.
Thanks very much!
What amuses me is that when people were discussing the merits of the war in Iraq in the media, war supporters complained because such talk "emboldened the enemy". We weren't presenting a united front, so that made us look weak, yada yada yada. So that made terrorists more resolute in their beliefs, supposedly (of course, questioning a war isn't really a terrorist view, and even if it did embolden them the need for debate over a war trumps those concerns). But when Savage is talking to people who already have a certain frame of mind, then that's no problem.
What the hell? Obviously having their views echoed on public radio validates those views. If what Savage was saying was so wrong, then why would he be allowed on the air, right? You could have a whole program dedicated to racist rhetoric, and that might get several million racist listeners. That emboldens those people, it gives them more confidence in expressing their views.
Here is the best argument for why all sensible people should fight hate-radio. This is copied from:http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/25/cleveland-radio-station-drops-michael-savage-this-guys-a-knucklehead/
"
News on SAVAGE V CAIR: suit was dismissed yesterday
I honestly believed this case had already been decided, so I googled it and found that WND had so reported on March 11, 2008:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58691
Apparently the Judge had permitted the case to be refiled or something similar, and the final decision wasn't made until yesterday.
From the WND article:
""The clip used by CAIR from Savage's material included: "I'm not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I'm not getting' on my all-fours and braying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear any more about Islam. I don't wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I'm sick of you."
The Savage suit says comments like that are TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT.""
Poor Michael. He's having a bad week ...
I'm a little fuzzy on the whole freedom of speech thing, so maybe someone can help me.
I thought the purpose of the 1st Amendment was to protect speech you don't agree with, not speech you do?
What's to stop other groups-Christian's for example-from demanding that some of the hosts on Air America lose thier jobs for some of the things they say about Christianity?
Wouldn't that be considered wrong of them to do in America?
You may not agree with Savage, but there are many people who enjoy his show. Seeing that it is the #3 radio program in the country, I assume that there are more who enjoy his show than dislike it.
If you don't like him, don't listen. That's your right as an American. Calling for him to lose his job is a little over the top I think.
Actually I'm not "fuzzy" on the 1st Amendment, I just don't see how people can claim to support free speech and then call for a man to lose his job based on his opinions.
Free market you say, but it still seems to me to be no more than wanting to silence a person for speech you don't agree with.
Actually, even by your own admission, you are quite "fuzzy" on the 1st amendment and free speech rights. Neither apply here in any way, much as you'd like to say they do.
You have the right to call in and support Savage, send him money, call his sponsors and tell them you like what he said, about how autism is the parents fault and a scam, or even try and create a pro-Savage/anti-autism movement of your own. No-one can stop you. That's what free speech means. Go for it.
"What's to stop other groups-Christian's for example-from demanding that some of the hosts on Air America lose thier jobs for some of the things they say about Christianity?"
Absolutely nothing. If it's genuinely offensive, then it shouldn't be part of the national discourse. If it's not, then the Christians in question have still expressed their displeasure, which is their right. The fact that there's a significant difference between children suffering from a medical condition and adults who willingly follow a system of belief should be noted, as that would probably play a part in that evaluation.
MMFA quoted Savage's network as it referred to him as "Dr. Savage." I think that title should be disallowed, even if from a quote. Michael Alan Weiner has the Ph.D in ethnomedicine (he's an herbalist), not Savage. And, Weiner is the name under which he writes his books. "Michael Savage" is a stage name and no doctorate has ever been awarded to him. I guess he likes to pick and choose when he is to be called "Weiner."
Weiner is seeking a reputation enhancement he doesn't deserve when he calls himself a 'doctor.' Indeed, he's happy to confuse listeners as he refers to himself as a 'Dr. Savage,' not mentioning that his is not a degree in medicine. The stage name, like the 'doctor,' is designed to give himself a false gravitas. Sort of like Iosif Dzugashvili taking the name 'Stalin,' meaning Man of Steel, rather than using his nondescript birth name.
Savage should be regularly called out on the point. He's not expert on much of anything he talks about. In the future, MMFA should refer to him as "Mr. Michael Savage (real name Michael Alan Weiner) ('took the name Savage to show his mean-spiritedness)..."
Of course, Stalin could make it stick; Savage, not so much.
A lot of comments from Weiner defenders seem to center around free speech. However, speech isn't free when it affects millions of people. A CEO says they are filing for bankruptcy and their stocks plummet. A "black militant minister" says "G-- Damn America," and Americans are outraged. A lowly black man had a "dream",made a few speeches in the 60's and got America to change its conscience. I wonder about the ignorance some people live in when a man can be heard, verbatim, one day making horrendous statements, and attempt to sweep them under a rug days later saying, "I was taken out of context."
I don't listen to Weiner. Not a day in my life have I ever heard this man's radio show, but that doesn't matter. It is indecent for the FCC to allow these insensitive comments on air. Period. I don't care if Weiner has the #1 rated radio show in the country, this sort of "entertainment" under the guise of facts is harmful to every one of us. If Weiner had said HIV was a phony disease or 99 percent of diabetics were faking it, he'd be laughed off the radio instead of pressured by sponsors. The reason this isn't laughable is because his hatred is directed towards children specifically. What's most disturbing is Talk Radio Networks defending this man. That is scary. MSNBC had sense enough to buckle to public outrage with Imus, ABC had sense enough to heed public outrage towards Mahrer. What is Talk Radio Networks doing?!?
The constitution doesn't apply to this situation. Might wanna check up on the very document you're using as a defense.
Attack
So damn bothered by these strict constitutionalist I'm pressing tab I finish my post.
Attack on free speech my RED WHITE and BLUE ARSE!!! You defenders of this are hypocrites of the worst nature. Reverend Wright received so much scorn and hatred for his comments. Don't they fall under free speech? The bottom line is when certain insensitive remarks are made, public outcry will always trump individual liberties.
When Dr. Martin Luther King spoke out and rallied to have boycotts because of what was being done in the South, many said he was inciting violence and causing a stir over nothing. He had a right to free speech because what he spoke was the truth and enough people in this GREAT NATION saw through the racist bs many in the South were trying to pass as justice!! Similarly enough people see through the HATEFUL BS Weiner passes of as facts. Enough people see through his diversion tactics of blaming others for his own rhetoric and enough people are sick and tired of supporting advertisers who back this sort of dialogue on public airwaves. God bless them all!! He has his right to free speech, and we have our rights to free enterprise. I for one will not support those who support Weiner. Join the fight or continue supporting Weiner, but stop bit*hin about free speech!!
"Stalin would have had anybody shutdown that he didnt like what they were saying."
The difference between what's going on here and censorship is that censorship is the act of the government suppressing speech it doesn't like. Normally this would be for some political purpose. Stalin wanted to maintain power, so he controlled the message and the information.
This, on the other hand, is about common decency. It's just plain offensive. If you go into a nursing home and start mocking Alzheimer's patients, some nurse is going to literally throw you out. To say that nurse is like Stalin would be flat-out retarded.
Your effort to stuff all rationales for "I don't like what you're saying" into one tiny package has failed.
You just failed Constitutional Law 101 my friend. The Constitution protects from action by the GOVERNMENT and it AGENTS. Has he been jailed? Has he been fined? Has the GOV'T booted him from the air? NO.
When are you people going to understand? The Constituition does NOT protect from the actions of the MARKET. And while it's protects your right ot speak, it does NOT guarentee you a forum, let alone a Radio Show, Sponsors and a Salary!!! If people don't like what they hear (from a RADIO SHOW) then it show be taken off the air. This will happen when people tell his sponsors that will no longer by their products until the pull their support. The the Radio Stations drop the show to save revenue and avoid the bad press. That the ultimate freedom: the FREE MARKET.
FREE SPEECH never enters into it!
A lot of you people seem to have the idea of "Free Speech" ass backwards.
This applies in a "legal" sense of the word, as applied from our Government. Brab hits the nail on the head. Weiner is free to spout all the non-sense he wants. And people boycotting him, or calling his sponsors and saying they will not support them as long as they sponsor Weiner, is not taking away his freedom of speech.
Freedom of Speech as applied in the 1st Amendment, refers to being free from the government censoring your speech (with obvious limits, such as yelling "fire" in a theater). Being critical of someone's speech as a civilian, has nothing to do with taking away Weiner's freedom of speech. He is free to spout all the bullsh*t he wants, that doesn't mean his 1st Amendment rights guarantee him a public broadcasting platform to express his views.
If you disagree with something being said on the public airwaves (or anywhere for that matter) and it offends you enough, then by all means criticize the view. Being critical of someone's opinion isn't taking away their 1st Amendment rights, it's merely expressing your own right to free speech.
Talk Radio Network features a stable filled with intellectual duds. Besides Michael Weiner, they also syndicate programs for Tammy Bruce, Minoca Crowley, Jerry Doyle, Phil Hendrie, Rusty Humphreys, Jaura Ingraham, and Jackie Mason.
Source: http://www.talkradionetwork.com/hosts