See other Editorial Articles
Title: BLOOD IN THE WATER; Right-wing talk shows next...
Source:
Neal Boortz
URL Source: http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
Published: Apr 12, 2007
Author: Neal Boortz
Post Date: 2007-04-12 13:59:49 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 3084
Comments: 338
Liberals see this whole Imus situation as a way to rid themselves of the problem of talk radio. Now that they've succeeded in getting MSNBC to pull Imus' program, they'll concentrate on CBS .. trying to get the radio show cancelled. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if they succeed. Then they will turn their attention to the rest of us. The tape recorders will be running. There is not one single significant right-of-center radio talk show out there that is not going to come under fire. Liberals know -- they've proven it to themselves -- that they simply cannot succeed in talk radio. So, it's all very simple. If they can't succeed, destroy the genre. Their original plan was to wait until Democrats control the congress and the White House and then murder talk radio with the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." Now that they're on the verge of having a talk radio scalp on their belts as retribution for a bad and mean-spirited joke, they see that they may not have to wait for the electorate to give them the power. In the meantime... while the race industry is calling for the head of Don Imus, we have Crystal Gail Mangum of North Carolina. Who is she? She is the woman who falsely accused three members of the Duke lacrosse team of rape. Her unsubstantiated charges resulted in a media firestorm against Duke University and these lacrosse players. Would you like to spend a few moments comparing the effect of Mangum's charges on the Duke lacrosse team and Imus' words on the Rutgers woman's basketball team? Sure! Why not! Now, let's see ...... The remainder of the Duke lacrosse season was cancelled. They were nationally ranked, and had to forfeit the rest of their games. The coach, Mike Pressler, resigned. "Mug shots" of the lacrosse players were posted on campus. Mark Anthony Neal, an African Studies professor on the campus said that this was "a case of racialized sexual violence." A Durham, N.C. resident called it "racial terrorism." In the middle of all of this we had a district attorney, Michael Nifong, who was running for reelection in a majority-black jurisdiction. There were suggestions that he wanted to be the mayor one day. Jesse Jackson had plenty to say about this case also. In his column on http://Blacknews.com Jackson said "Predictably, the right-wing media machine has kicked in, prompting mean-spirited attacks upon the accuser's character." Later he offered to pay Mangum's tuition for a college education if her story proved true. Later he amended his promise. In January he said that the Rainbow/Push Coalition would pay her college tuition even if it turns out she completely fabricated her story! Now isn't that special? Hey sisters! How would you like to get a college scholarship from Jesse Jackson? Apparently all you have to do is lodge a false rape accusation against an all-white college sports team! Get out your checkbook, Jesse. Now we have learned that it was a hoax. No truth. The North Carolina Attorney General's office has declared the accused players to be innocent. A State Bar investigation of Nifong continues. And thus far Jesse Jackson has not come forward to offer any comfort to the lacrosse players falsely accused by Ms. Mangum. Now ... why even bring all of this up? Well, we have two college teams in the mix. A Rutgers women's basketball team that is largely black, and a Duke men's lacrosse team that is almost (save for one player) exclusively white. A white man insulted the Rutgers team with a mean-spirited quip. No season cancelled. No coach fired. No arrests. Nobody on the basketball team had to spend tens of thousands of dollars on defense attorneys. They were insulted. The were the targets of a stupid racially charged remark ... but that's pretty much it. But how about Duke? The Duke team members were accused of a crime. Attorneys were hired. Coaches fired. Seasons cancelled. Reputations damaged. DNA swabs were taken. Charges were filed. The district attorney was out there saying that a rape most definitely had occurred. Now we find that they were completely innocent. In the meantime the white man who made the stupid remark about the Rutgers basketball team is being attacked and vilified as if he was a mass murderer. The black woman who made the false charges of rape against the lacrosse team is going to walk. In fact, you can fully expect the civil rights establishment --- the same civil rights establishment that is united in their efforts to destroy Don Imus -- circle the wagons around Crystal Gail Mangum and protect her at all costs. Oprah is going to have the Rutgers woman's basketball team on her show. How many of you would like to make book on when Oprah invites the Duke lacrosse team to be on her show? When pigs fly. Back to talk radio. The mainstream media in this country doesn't merely dislike talk radio, they hate it. Hate it with a blinding passion. How dare these "disc jockeys" get on those radio stations and spout opinions on matters of governance and public policy? Don't they know that this is a job to be left to the professionals at the New York Times and the Washington Post plus the major broadcast TV networks? What's worse, how dare the great unwashed of the general population get on these radio shows, especially the syndicated ones, and spout their ill-advised and uneducated opinions? Think about this. You have a liberal columnist like Maureen Dowd or the insipid Tom Teepen write a column spouting some leftist dogma. That column gets published in newspapers across the country. Then you have some mechanic from Memphis get on the air with Limbaugh or Hannity to offer a differing point of view. The column may be read by a million people -- at the most. The Memphis mechanic is heard by perhaps five times that many. It just ain't right! For years now the left has employed various tactics to marginalize talk radio. The favorite tactic is the tired "hate radio" accusation. The general idea here is that anything said on a talk radio show that is at variance with liberal dogma is "hate speech." This tactic hasn't worked ... and talk radio continues to grow. Well .. now there's a new game plan. Use the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of this world to attack these hosts on the basis of race. That's right .. this whole Imus affair isn't really about race! The TV networks and the liberal mainstream media haven't been hammering this Imus thing day after day after day because they really care about the racial aspects of the story. If they were that concerned about the racial angle they would be playing up the Duke case to a similar extent. Race is the means, not the reason. Right now the mainstream press sees race as the key to destroying talk radio. Focus on the hosts ... wait until they say something that can be racially exploited, and then launch the relentless attack. Go after networks, stations and advertisers. Concentrate on them -- one at a time -- like hyenas looking for a meal. Select prey that looks vulnerable. Isolate that prey and go in for the kill. I don't know how many hosts there are out there who have not made comments about black politicians, celebrities or culture that could be used as the basis for a full force attack. I know I have. Have I gone overboard? You bet! Hell .. 37 years in the business, how can you not have screwed up from time to time? I've apologized in the past -- and probably will one day say something else that merits an apology. Apologies aren't enough, however. The Christian concept of forgiveness and tolerance means nothing to the "reverends" Jackson and Sharpton. They're sharks .. and there's blood in the water. By the way ... my guess? Now that MSNBC has dumped Imus, CBS is sure to follow. Look at it this way .... NBC has canned him. How in the hell can CBS stand up to the this racially charged onslaught? "Hey, CBS! NBC did the right thing? How about you?"
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-99) not displayed.
.
.
.
#100. To: SmokinOPs (#97)
There is very little political radio now. About all I see on FM is GOP propaganda. Do you think Hannity, Limbaugh and Savage or good sources of information? I mean, other than to see what the GOP wants to goobers to believe at any given moment?
.
I own an I-Pod just like I OWN a portion of the public airwaves that is held in trust in my name as well as that of every citizen. A corporation does not own the airwaves - they utilize them on a privileged basis only.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
You are so blinded by your stereo typing of people into your GOP/Dem pigeon holed slots it's impossible to have a open debate with you. Applying anti-trust laws properly, as I have suggested, to break up media cross owning monopolies does not mean letting "Roger Ails, Bush's best friend highest campaign contributor decide who gets on" You are being irrational. As for what is happening now, did you bother to read any of the material I linked to regarding how the monoplies came about. This situation did not come about as a result of GWB's election. It started long before and Fair Doctrine did not prevent it. The problem comes from a combination of successful Supreme Court challenges, Congressional ineffective action or inaction, and mis-application of the anti-trust laws on the books. How did the Fairness Doctrine help America be better informed since its inception in 1949 to the time it was side-lined under Reagan in the late '80's? In that time span we sailed through the McCarthy Commie witch hunts, the Kennedys' and Martin Luther King assassinations, the white wash of the Warren Commission, the faux Tonkin Incident, the MIC fueled Vietnam War, conscription for a war of lies, Israel's attack on the USS Liberty, the secret bombing of Cambodia, Carter starting the CIA support and training of the muhjadeen in Afghanistan, the Iran Contra deal taking place. The Fairness Doctrine instead of ensuring both sides of a controversial issue was heard on radio with the threat of fines or licenses being yanked did nothing of the kind. Instead it ushered in a time of quiet acquiescence non controversial lame news reporting that did not help one bit in giving us both sides of issues. In fact you know why a guy like Rush became so popular with initially liberals ( I hate to break it to you) and conservatives alike? It was because Rush was COLORFUL, CONTROVERSIAL, OPINIONATED and Americans - even if they did not agree with Rush - were STARVED for outside the box take it or leave it controversial opinions news analysis, instead of boring bland packaged pablum. In other words 40 years of Fairness Docterine made a guy like Rush a star and it gave rise to a TV market who swooned over Fox News, because as unbalanced as it was, FOX served up glitz and controversy and "the other side." You want Fairness Doctrine - go for it - the 2003 FCC regs have been thrown out by courts - press your Dem controlled Congressmen to bring back Fair Doctrine - and then you'll have to listen to guys like BAC presenting their schtick on Air America. Be my guest. Maybe it'll keep BAC occupied so he has no time to post his newsmax here. Here's the problem we have in this nation regarding the media and Fairness Doctrine has zero to do in serving as an antidote to the problem at hand. Look beyond your left/right pigeon holes.
You do? How much can you sell it for? How many shares do you own? Maybe you don't know what ownership is.
And it looks to me like you want even less. Are you going to make all those mom and pop stations follow the fairness doctrine too? So when they criticize the city council or the local garbage service they have to allow a rebuttal? How long do you think it will be before they switch to automated Golden Oldies?
Are you now claiming that the airwaves have become private property? What aspect of public property do you not understand?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
What would be wrong with that? It worked for fifty years, first as the Mayflower Doctrine and then as the Fairness Doctrine. If they criticize a person on the air, that person should be allowed time to reubut. The Fairness Doctrine never mandated absolutely equal time, it mandated a reasonable opportunity to rebut. The GOP fear mongering is saying "absolutely equal time" - and it is understandable why they are terrified of this. So you think that non-stop single sided propaganda parroting government issued talking points is preferable to golden oldies? You think that's political discourse? It isn't even close.
.
5kw isn't a low power transmitter. It's a Class B and a pretty good radius. This station right here will get you coverage of atleast 1.5 million during the daytime in the capital of the most populous state in the country. That's 33 cents per potential listener. "NORTHERN CALIFORNIA... right off major interstate near the State Capital. Daytime with very good coverage, 1560 on dial, nice equipment. Lease both studio and tower site on very long term lease, now in place. Asking $600,000 with $250,000 down. Balance to be paid over 5 years. Call or email Ted Gray at (336) 570-9133 for more details." Are you going to call the bank about a loan or keep bitching about how you can't get your message out. Hell, in a few years every major city will probably have total wi-fi coverage and you'll be able to broadcast at home for free in your underwear.
I understand it's an oxymoron.
This station right here will get you coverage of atleast 1.5 million during the daytime in the capital of the most populous state in the country. That's 33 cents per potential listener. Nice Red Herring and you are doing a good job of pumping it. But why should I have to buy a radio station to get back the public airways? This was decided back in the 1940s. They are the public domain. They should serve the public and not mearly function as a vehicle for pro government propaganda outlet.
.
They can. Letters to the editor, web page, pamphlets, buy their own station, internet broadcasting, billboard, etc.
1560 kHz with 1 kW/Daytime-only power? They use those frequencies to broadcast local high school games and ethnic programs to small communities. Don't piss down his back and tell him it's raining. The 1500s kHz and up is AM radio’s version of the boondocks – the top of the dial where AM signals are weakest.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Sure, or let them stand in their bathroom and scream. It all has the silly effect of sidestepping the issue. Why not give them a chance to use THEIR public airwaves to answer the charge with equal dignity. Is the Republican party so weak and corrupt that it has to use these underhanded mike cutting tactics to keep its propganda viable? I guess you don't need to answer that. Where would Fox News be if it couldn't turn off the mike? Where would the GOP be if facts entered the debate?
.
Not a red herring at all, but it has been a good excercise in getting you to show how lazy and cheap you are. I mean why spend your own money and drop your own sweat getting your message out when you can just have the government whip out its guns and make people listen to you.
And if the government wants to use its shills to blast one sided propaganda day and night, they can use cable, web radio or sirrius. They don't need to steal the public airwaves to do it. You shouldn't have to show political affiliation to use a road or a harbor and you shouldn't have to do it to use the airwaves that belong to the people.
.
Red Herring didn't work huh? Got news for you, the cheap personal attack didn't work either. Go think the matter over and come back when you have a rational argument. You simply cannot prove that the government has to right to use the public airways to blast out government controlled propaganda day and night. That is what you are trying to do and that is why you are frustrated and pissy about it.
.
What's your point? It will still reach a million POTENTIAL listeners in Sacramento. The key word is potential. If people are starving for your message,as you seem to believe they are, you'll have no problem reeling them in and making the big bucks. Your exactly like some young employees I've hired. They think they should be manager on the first day. Entitlement mentality.
O'Rielly, Hannity and Limbaugh are shilling for the government on the public airways. You think this is great and want to preserve it as it saves you from sweating to get your message out.
.
Let's get this straight, you think the government is both the problem and the solution to the same issue? Wow. And it wasn't a cheap personal attack. I'm just taking you at your word.
Actually, I think it's wrong for the government to appropriate a public trust for its own personal propaganda purposes. Exactly the same as if the government took over a harbor, a national forest or a road and only allowed card carrying party members to use it. If they want to do this, there is plenty of unlimited bandwidth they can buy and use on cable, internet, etc. They don't need to steal the public airways to for their propaganda purposes.
.
You know that bullshit. When have I ever praised the one party fraud shills on this forum. All I'm doing is pointing out a solution that doesn't require begging mommy gubmint to point guns at people. It used to be called freedom. Sometimes it requires risk and effort though and that scares some people. I understand that.
Nice strawman. You can really put words in people's mouths. Let's see. You tried red herring, personal attack and strawman discredit. The only wingnut tactic left for avoiding the issue is changing the subject. Better try that now.
.
It is my position Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly strongly favor Republicans. I don't think you are going to have a lot of luck denying this. These are the people you are fighting to keep in exclusive control of the public airways. These people literally front for the government. They don't make a peep without checking the talking points.
.
Well once you get over the myth of "public trust" and realize their is only private property, and government property, it becomes clearer what to do about it.
Not myth, supreme court ruling. In effect since the early 1940s. And it was an assumed part of the body of law prior to that. If you disagree, write the Supreme Court and live with it until they change it. It is the current law.
.
My point is you are a bull shit artist and what is worse you are making stuff up as you go along without a clue about any of this.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I've done none of those. You said the problem was government using the airwaves for propaganda was the problem and that the government's Fairness Doctrine was the solution. No strawman there. And you have repeatedly shown you are opposed to putting your money where your mouth is so how is it a personal attack when I merely reiterate it? There is no red herring. The radio stations exist and they cost less than the houses in some areas. Clear Channel is putting 480 of theirs on the auction block this year.
And there is not a single shred of doubt anywhere that the FCC has the right to regulate the use of the spectrum. Licenses are part of this regulation and there is not a shred of doubt anywhere that conditions can be put on the licenses - conditions must be put on the licnses or there would be chaos.
.
I've done none of those. Check the thread above. I noted each one when you did it.
.
Never heard of the term legal fiction?
More BS on your part. I metioned that we should return to more private ownership of media - restricting the number of stations one company can own and restricting how much individual cross ownership across media like newspapers, radios and television can occur - and you came out against it. The market still rules but you have diversity of ownership and as a bonus it will tend to be on a local level.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Srawman attack number two. You say I can't enforce my rights unless I buy a radio station. That's silly.
.
As I said, send it to the Supreme Court. Until then, live with the law of the land. In fantasy land I can flap my arms and fly to the moon. But so what?
.
No Destro, that's you. That's usually all you do. I've posted links to radio stations that actually exist for sale, right now. Dozens of them of varying powers and market sizes. You just don't like it so you stomp your feet and get emotional, as is the norm for you.
What does the cost of a radio station have to do with the regulation of the public airways? Oh, I got it. This is the "change the subject" post. So now you have covered all bases: Red Herring twice, personal attack, strawman and now change the subject. I guess you can go home now.
.
Great post. The "Fairness doctrine" merely gave two sides of the same coin a platform that excluded all others. And that was when the parties really did have at least SOME real differences on major questions. Now? They are clones only with different faux issues they flog at election time (which are uncompetitive for the most part and match Soviet "elections" for turnover) which appeal to different cultural bases. But in the end? What do they differ on? Nothing. Oh, ok- one party likes the "gays" more. I think that is the difference. Bringing back the "fairness doctrine" would indeed make shows like Limbaugh's impossible. No more reichwinger radio. It would be replaced with the Pravda like droning of David Gergen-esque middle of the road say nothings who would say NOTHING of even slight controversy and the "issues" would be the same tired old fraud Beltway setups. And you are spot on. The reason a Rush burst out on the scene and became the success he was - was precisely because the "fairness" doctrine was simply massively abused by unreconstructed Kennedy era liberals who misrepresented conservative opinion by claiming such as George Will- was a "Conservative"- about the most establishment owned bitch faux conservative that has ever come down the pike. Rush was the voice of real conservative thought in this country. He was funny, and entertaining, and called out the hypocrisy of what really once was a media wich favored the Dem "liberal" side of the spectrum. But Rush has sold out. He has become part of the Beltway and has distorted "conservatism" so that it resemble little more that fascism American style. And I have a bit more faith in people. Rush doesn't have the cache he once had. He no longer angers "liberals" that much. They are not obsessed with him like they used to be. Why? Because Rush is widely seen as a GOP rumpswabber and a bought compromised whore. He isn't a serious commentator. He is a cheerleader. He is like Free Republic- an activist and rah rah booster for what our MSM now calls "conservatism" - which is just state loving Liberalism that loves the military more. Free Republic doesn't have the cache it once had either. Its an embarassing site now. No one goes there for interesting conversations- and what is more- in their mission statement they don't even pretend to be a "Debate" site. People who want to find the truth will find it. People- when they pay attention- are not stupid. But some people want to be lied too- like Bushbot Limbaugh listeners and they will never ever be persuaded otherwise. You just have to accept that. I think what some on this thread are trying to grapple with is that they think the media is being consolidated and controlled by the government- that Clear Channel like media conglomerates in cahoots with the government are monopolizing the airwaves and that something needs to be done about that. Yes- something does- like break up the media companies and get government out of media regulation. A "Fairness Doctrine", however, is not the way to go. It would be worse.
The law of the land is there is currently no Fairness Doctrine. So what are you gonna do? But I won't hold that against you in the argument as I'm not a law idolizer.
Ideology vs realism. I called it - Smokin is under the delusion that the airwaves can be owned like private property. He is a corporation pimp. He is a statist but he substitutes his love of statisim not to a govt but to corporations - who can do no wrong - what is good for GM is good for America, etc.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I've done none of those. 1st Red Herring called out in post 109 1st personal attack called out in post 115 1st Strawman called out in post 118
.
No, I don't believe in positive rights. I'm trying to persuade you to solutions where you don't violate the negative rights of others. You want to take the violent route though.
Then you have no right to own a gun or any sort of private property. OK.
.
Comments (141 - 338) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestYeah, and there wasn't hardly any political radio.
#101. To: SmokinOPs (#95)
(Edited)
Buy an I-Pod.
#102. To: ..., Burkeman1, Smokin'OPS, Destro (#92)
(Edited)
Your idea is to let Roger Ails, Bush's best friend highest campaign contributor decide who gets on? That is what is happening now.
#103. To: Destro (#101)
I own an I-Pod just like I OWN a portion of the public airwaves...
#104. To: ... (#100)
There is very little political radio now.
#105. To: SmokinOPs (#103)
Maybe you don't know what ownership is.
#106. To: SmokinOPs (#104)
So when they criticize the city council or the local garbage service they have to allow a rebuttal?
#107. To: ... (#99)
Just scanned your list and it looks like anything over 5kW goes up to at least a million bucks right away. You are not going to change the world with a low power transmitter covering a medium sized town in South Carolina.
#108. To: Destro (#105)
What aspect of public property do you not understand?
#109. To: SmokinOPs (#107)
5kw isn't a low power transmitter. It's a Class B and a pretty good radius.
#110. To: ... (#106)
If they criticize a person on the air, that person should be allowed time to reubut.
#111. To: SmokinOPs, ... (#107)
#112. To: SmokinOPs (#110)
They can. Letters to the editor, web page, pamphlets, buy their own station, internet broadcasting, billboard, etc.
#113. To: ... (#109)
Nice Red Herring and you are doing a good job of pumping it.
#114. To: SmokinOPs (#110)
They can. Letters to the editor, web page, pamphlets, buy their own station, internet broadcasting, billboard, etc.
#115. To: SmokinOPs (#113)
Not a red herring at all, but it has been a good excercise in getting you to show how lazy and cheap you are.
#116. To: Destro (#111)
1560 kHz with 1 kW/Daytime-only power? They use those frequencies to broadcast local high school games and ethnic programs to small communities.
#117. To: SmokinOPs (#113)
I mean why spend your own money and drop your own sweat getting your message out when you can just have the government whip out its guns and make people listen to you.
#118. To: ... (#115)
You simply cannot prove that the government has to right to use the public airways to blast out government controlled propaganda day and night.
#119. To: SmokinOPs (#113)
I mean why spend your own money and drop your own sweat getting your message out when you can just have the government whip out its guns and make people listen to you.
#120. To: ... (#117)
O'Rielly, Hannity and Limbaugh are shilling for the government on the public airways. You think this is great and want to preserve it as it saves you from sweating to get your message out.
#121. To: SmokinOPs (#118)
Let's get this straight, you think the government is both the problem and the solution to the same issue? Wow. And it wasn't a cheap personal attack. I'm just taking you at your word.
#122. To: SmokinOPs (#120)
(Edited)
You know that bullshit.
#123. To: ... (#119)
Actually, I think it's wrong for the government to appropriate a public trust for its own personal propaganda purposes.
#124. To: SmokinOPs (#123)
(Edited)
Well once you get over the myth of "public trust"
#125. To: SmokinOPs, ... (#116)
What's your point? It will still reach a million POTENTIAL listeners in Sacramento.
#126. To: ... (#121)
You tried red herring, personal attack and strawman discredit.
#127. To: SmokinOPs (#123)
Well once you get over the myth
#128. To: SmokinOPs (#126)
You tried red herring, personal attack and strawman discredit.
#129. To: ... (#124)
Not myth, supreme court ruling.
#130. To: SmokinOPs, ... (#120)
All I'm doing is pointing out a solution that doesn't require begging mommy gubmint to point guns at people.
#131. To: SmokinOPs (#126)
And you have repeatedly shown you are opposed to putting your money where your mouth is so how is it a personal attack when I merely reiterate it?
#132. To: SmokinOPs (#129)
Never heard of the term legal fiction?
#133. To: Destro (#125)
My point is you are a bull shit artist and what is worse you are making stuff up as you go along without a clue about any of this.
#134. To: SmokinOPs (#126)
There is no red herring. The radio stations exist and they cost less than the houses in some areas. Clear Channel is putting 480 of theirs on the auction block this year.
#135. To: scrapper2 (#102)
#136. To: ... (#132)
Until then, live with the law of the land.
#137. To: SmokinOPs, ... (#123)
Well once you get over the myth of "public trust" and realize their is only private property, and government property, it becomes clearer what to do about it.
#138. To: SmokinOPs (#126)
You tried red herring, personal attack and strawman discredit.
#139. To: ... (#131)
You say I can't enforce my rights unless I buy a radio station.
#140. To: SmokinOPs (#139)
No, I don't believe in positive rights. I'm trying to persuade you to solutions where you don't violate the negative rights of others.
.
.
.