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: 3031
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 (1-132) not displayed.
.
.
.
#133. To: Destro (#125)
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.
.
Fuck off. I've shown the non-state solution. You want to pretend it doesn't exist.
1st personal attack called out in post 115 1st Strawman called out in post 118 Already rebutted soundly.
Yes, you want to keep the public airways in the hands of the government shills. And O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity and Mays are government shills. Make no mistake about it.
.
Property rights flow from self-ownership. No positive rights involved.
No, never answered at all save for one blanket denial. Read the thread.
.
No, actually I was trying to show you how to put a private radio station in your hands for cheap. You want to go the mommy gubmint route. It's so much easier I know.
Nope. Read your house title. It's a grant from the soveriegn. That's what a fee is. It might be something different in fantasy land, but lets not go there. Its a waste of time.
.
Great job on this thread. You know you have pretty much won when your opponents start to misreprent your statements on purpose, play dumb, and attack arguments you are not making. They have no respect for the lurkers whom they assume are as dumb as a bag of rocks.
So now the government has rights?
Childish personal attack number two noted. Unsupported strawman number three noted. Why don't you tell me why the Supreme Court cases don't apply and how the public airways are not a public trust? You should also inform the Supreme Court that their rulings now have no effect. I am sure they would like to know.
.
So now the government has rights? Do you deny that they have the right to put you in jail for a crime? If so, why don't you go rob a bank. It beats working. But your fantasy land is so silly and tiring. Lets get back to reality.
.
Now you get it, B! It took a while. I understand why you would not understand what I and Scrapper were talking about because - no offense and I respect your views very much - you come from a school of thought that discounts that corporations can do no wrong from the Republican Right. I also don't like govt being involved in such BS issues as fairness, etc. But there is solution - a market solution which only gives the govt an oversight role but not much else - break up media consolidation. You can't have one company owning more than one or two or maybe three max radio stations and limit any cross ownership of media in the same market like television stations and billboards and newspapers. FOX was once barred from owning TV stations in New York City because they owned the NY Post as well. They had to get special permission from the FCC to get the privilege to buy a broadcast station here. Having many owners of media would increase business competition, would increase artistic and political diversity and the market would benefit from more local ownership and return local flavor to television and radio and newspapers. Why do libertarians hate a centralized federal govt in favor of local power but when it comes to corporations they support the impersonal cross border corporations over smaller local businesses?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Ooooh boogie booogie. Divine Right Monarchs and SUPREME Courts. Voodooo statist witchdoctors. Call me unimpressed.
You're confusing power with rights.
You just transfer the statist worship on to corporations. The BS you shoveled on how easy it is to buy a radio station is one such example, obscuring the fact that is of a small low power station that operates in a limited capacity. That is your market solution to the issue at hand? Break up consolidation and you get a true and better result and no govt involvement beyond this regulation.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Ooooh boogie booogie. Divine Right Monarchs and SUPREME Courts. Voodooo statist witchdoctors. Call me unimpressed. Don't feel bad. That sort of stuff only matters in the real world. In your fantasy land you are the ultimate authority.
.
Unsupported strawman number three noted. Just because you say "strawman" over and over it won't make it so. Have you not asked for mommy gubmint to provide a solution to a problem that you state has roots within government? Yes or no.
You're confusing power with rights. No, you are playing word games here. But you know that. If the government doesn't have the right to lock up criminals, then they are misusing their power and the government should be stopped from locking up criminals. Or they shold be granted the right to do it. Agree? By the way, you are going back to fantasy land here.
.
Actually it only matters if you care about it. It only matters if you believe in imaginary lines on maps and that wearing a black robe gives weight to an argument.
No And you are putting words in my mouth. That is why I called you on your third Strawman attack.
.
Only individuals have rights.
You really rule in fantasy land. No wonder you spend so much time there. But that is probably where you and I differ. I care about what is. You seem to care about the fantasy world you've cooked up in your brain. I actually have no interest in that.
.
No, you are playing word games here. But you know that. If the government doesn't have the right to lock up criminals, then they are misusing their power and the government should be stopped from locking up criminals. Or they shold be granted the right to do it. Agree? By the way, you are going back to fantasy land here. Only individuals have rights. Very silly word games. Does the government have the right to lock up criminals or not? Hint: Try to play games with the definition of "right". That will get you through one more post before you get hammered.
.
No I'm not. Right here you said the government was the problem: They should serve the public and not mearly function as a vehicle for pro government propaganda outlet. And here you said government can be the solution: 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. Are you done lying yet?
Since when did the Supreme Court become a monarchist institution among the loopy libertarians? The broadband spectrum is public domain. For free, the govt grants licenses for its use in return for said license the broadcasters must also provide a service to the public for this trust. I want to see the libertarian argument stating that airwaves are now really private property of the corporations which broadcast on them. This is a new development in standard corpro-statist reasoning as far as I now - and I have been in Libertarian circles most of my adult life.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Huh? I have never expressed that opinion or anything like it ever. Corporations do wrong all the time. Not only do they do wrong but they can be genuinely evil. But, much of that wrong, and much of that evil is because of government inserting itself as the arbiter between prosperity and success and failure and loss. Are oil corps to blame for the Iraq war? Or would they just be stupid to not take advantage of government muscle since it exists? When did Microsoft become a scary secretive company? When they didn't have one lobbyist in DC and openly bragged about their lack of interest in politics? Or when they started buying up politicians and sending trucks loads of payola to DC every month because they were almost broken up by politicians out to destroy them on behalf of comapanies that were paying them off. Corps can be evil as any group or people or individual can. But, I happen to believe that in a true free market such evil wouldn't get them very far. But add a huge state into the mix- that grants favors, recieves favors, and is armed and has the "law" on its side- then corps are going to vie for those favors- seek anti market advantages- try to get the government to do their dirty work. It is only natural. Individuals seek to use and abuse government all the time. Corps the same way. Since we all MUST deal with the government which is basically an armed gang that claims monopoly on force of arms- it is only natural that we all try to gain its favor and seek to influence it.
And here you said government can be the solution: No, they can stop being the problem.
.
Chilish personal attack number three. Temper temper temper.
.
Even the statist Framers of the Constitution only stated governmet had powers. Never rights.
I caught you in a lie, called you on it and you call it a childish attack. Atleast you didn't call it a strawman again.
Yea and the Constitution is only apiece of paper with ink stains on it. At least you sort of admit you are an anarchist - an anarcho-capitalist. But this country and its constitution was not founded along anarcho-capitalist lines. Anarcho-capitalists have always been as delusional as communist ideologues - two sides of the extremist coin.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Nope. You put words in my mouth and then atacked why you said I said. Actually, I am very unimpressed.
.
Ahh but that's not what you said. You called for active measures not passive.
Comments (174 - 338) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestMy 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.
#141. To: Destro (#137)
He is a statist
#142. To: ... (#138)
1st Red Herring called out in post 109
#143. To: SmokinOPs (#141)
I've shown the non-state solution.
#144. To: ... (#140)
Then you have no right to own a gun or any sort of private property.
#145. To: SmokinOPs (#142)
Already rebutted soundly.
#146. To: ... (#143)
Yes, you want to keep the public airways in the hands of the government shills.
#147. To: SmokinOPs (#144)
Property rights flow from self-ownership. No positive rights involved.
#148. To: SmokinOPs (#141)
#149. To: ... (#127)
And there is not a single shred of doubt anywhere that the FCC has the right to regulate the use of the spectrum.
#150. To: SmokinOPs (#146)
No, actually I was trying to show you how to put a private radio station in your hands for cheap. You want to go the mommy gubmint route. It's so much easier I know.
#151. To: SmokinOPs (#149)
And there is not a single shred of doubt anywhere that the FCC has the right to regulate the use of the spectrum.
#152. To: Burkeman1, scrapper2 (#135)
(Edited)
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.
#153. To: ... (#150)
It's a grant from the soveriegn. Supreme Court
#154. To: ... (#151)
Do you deny that they have the right to put you in jail for a crime?
#155. To: SmokinOPs, Burkeman1, ... (#141)
(Edited)
I've shown the non-state solution. You want to pretend it doesn't exist.
#156. To: SmokinOPs (#153)
It's a grant from the soveriegn. Supreme Court
#157. To: ... (#150)
Childish personal attack number two noted.
#158. To: SmokinOPs (#154)
Do you deny that they have the right to put you in jail for a crime?
#159. To: ... (#156)
That sort of stuff only matters in the real world.
#160. To: SmokinOPs (#157)
Have you not asked for mommy gubmint to provide a solution to a problem that you state has roots within government? Yes or no.
#161. To: ... (#158)
#162. To: SmokinOPs (#159)
(Edited)
Actually it only matters if you care about it. It only matters if you believe in imaginary lines on maps and that wearing a black robe gives weight to an argument.
#163. To: SmokinOPs (#161)
You're confusing power with rights.
#164. To: ... (#160)
And you are putting words in my mouth.
#165. To: ..., SmokinOPs, burkeman1 (#156)
It's a grant from the soveriegn. Supreme Court Ooooh boogie booogie. Divine Right Monarchs and SUPREME Courts. Voodooo statist witchdoctors. Call me unimpressed.
#166. To: Destro (#152)
you come from a school of thought that discounts that corporations can do no wrong
#167. To: SmokinOPs (#164)
hey should serve the public and not mearly function as a vehicle for pro government propaganda outlet.
#168. To: SmokinOPs (#164)
Are you done lying yet?
#169. To: ... (#163)
Does the government have the right to lock up criminals or not?
#170. To: ... (#168)
Chilish personal attack number three.
#171. To: SmokinOPs, ... (#159)
(Edited)
It only matters if you believe in imaginary lines on maps and that wearing a black robe gives weight to an argument.
#172. To: SmokinOPs (#170)
I caught you in a lie, called you on it and you call it a childish attack. Atleast you didn't call it a strawman again.
#173. To: ... (#167)
No, they can stop being the problem.
.
.
.