[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Happy fourth of july

The Empire Has Accidentally Caused The Rebirth Of Real Counterculture In The West

Workers install 'Alligator Alcatraz' sign for Florida immigration detention center

The Biggest Financial Collapse in China’s History Is Here, More Terrifying Than Evergrande!

Lightning

Cash Jordan NYC Courthouse EMPTIED... ICE Deports 'Entire Building

Trump Sparks Domestic Labor Renaissance: Native-Born Workers Surge To Record High As Foreign-Born Plunge

Mister Roberts (1965)

WE BROKE HIM!! [Early weekend BS/nonsense thread]

I'm going to send DOGE after Elon." -Trump

This is the America I grew up in. We need to bring it back

MD State Employee may get Arrested by Sheriff for reporting an Illegal Alien to ICE

RFK Jr: DTaP vaccine was found to have link to Autism

FBI Agents found that the Chinese manufactured fake driver’s licenses and shipped them to the U.S. to help Biden...

Love & Real Estate: China’s new romance scam

Huge Democrat shift against Israel stuns CNN

McCarthy Was Right. They Lied About Everything.

How Romans Built Domes

My 7 day suspension on X was lifted today.

They Just Revealed EVERYTHING... [Project 2029]

Trump ACCUSED Of MASS EXECUTING Illegals By DUMPING Them In The Ocean

The Siege (1998)

Trump Admin To BAN Pride Rainbow Crosswalks, DoT Orders ALL Distractions REMOVED

Elon Musk Backing Thomas Massie Against Trump-AIPAC Challenger

Skateboarding Dog

Israel's Plans for Jordan

Daily Vitamin D Supplementation Slows Cellular Aging:

Hepatitis E Virus in Pork

Hospital Executives Arrested After Nurse Convicted of Killing Seven Newborns, Trying to Kill Eight More

The Explosion of Jewish Fatigue Syndrome


Editorial
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: 3065
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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-19) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#20. To: Mekons4 (#18)

I've seen the fairness doctrine in operation and it doesn't hurt anyone. If someone like Rush spent an hour slamming someone, the station would give the target person a "reasonable time" to rebut. Usually five minutes or so. It's this objectivity that scares the shit out of the propagandists. They know it wouldn't take much more than this to destroy them.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-12   16:28:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: ... (#19)

Judging by the number of Spanish stations, one would have to say "That assessment appears to be in error."

Press 1 to proceed in English. Press 2 for Deportation.

mirage  posted on  2007-04-12   16:29:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: mirage (#17)

Are you saying that right-wingers should be denied the same rights that everyone else has?

No, but I am saying the other people should have the same rights as the right wingers have.

Maybe not to buy up the spectrum the way the Bush family and Clear Channey has and then boot off all non-conforming opinion, but everyone should have equal access to the public airwaves.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-12   16:30:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: mirage (#17)

Anyone can start up a radio station or buy one.

Tell that to the small stations kicked off the air when a larger one wanted to expand its reach. Or the pirate station owners arrested. Or the low-power FM stations disenfranchised by larger stations (including the so-called liberal NPR).

Radio stations don't "own" anything. They are granted a license to broadcast, in the public interest, on a certain band of the AM or FM dial.

Why do you object to fact-checking? You don't get the right to lie just because you bought up someone's license to broadcast.

Mekons4  posted on  2007-04-12   16:31:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: mirage (#21)

Judging by the number of Spanish stations, one would have to say "That assessment appears to be in error."

Red Herring? Since when did the fairness doctrine ever, ever, ever apply to the music format or the language used in the broadcast?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-12   16:31:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Destro (#2)

Boo-rtz has zero credibility.

Yep, only people of low intelligence give him the time of day.

God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]

RickyJ  posted on  2007-04-12   16:32:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: mirage (#21)

Recall that the GOP now controlls the FCC. Putting Powells kid on the four member board cinched the deal. That has allowed Bush's buddies and largest campaign contributors at Clear Channel to basically take over the spectrum and enforce orthodoxy. You say this one sided propganda enforced by the state is a good thing. Why is that?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-12   16:34:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Mekons4 (#18)

Nothning has to be done. The "reichwing" is imploding. Lies catch up with the spewers eventually. Fox, even among reichwingers, isn't considered a serious "news" source. It's a 24/7 celebrity gossip channel that manages to fill the gaps with crude reichwinger propaganda. It will fall on its own.

Burkeman1  posted on  2007-04-12   16:34:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Mekons4, mirage, bluedogtxn, burkeman1 (#8) (Edited)

They're operatives for one political party, but never disclose their affiliations.

They get their talking points directly from the Rove office - because the White House taking points are mirrored exactly by the talk show operatives. We also have evidence of payments made to talk show hosts and opinion reporters to push White House approved spin on stories. That story went away when it should not have.

So these talk show hosts are more than likely operatives and should be exposed. There is no way that all these people can sound alike and say things in ways to bolster White House Spin unless they were operatives.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-12   16:35:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Burkeman1 (#27)

Fox, even among reichwingers, isn't considered a serious "news" source. It's a 24/7 celebrity gossip channel that manages to fill the gaps with crude reichwinger propaganda.

It's fine if offered on cable or satellite channels, but government propaganda outlets should not be allowed exclusive control of the public airwaves.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-12   16:35:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Mekons4 (#23)

Why do you object to fact-checking?

I don't object to fact-checking. If you want to do that, then go right ahead.

I have an issue with people wanting to bring down Government Regulation in violation of the First Amendment and obliterate people's freedom of choice.

If you don't want to read a particular newspaper, don't do it.

If you don't want to listen to a particular radio show, don't do it.

But don't deny people the right to publish or the right to offer their opinions.

I'll ask the question again: Why do you hate freedom so much?

Press 1 to proceed in English. Press 2 for Deportation.

mirage  posted on  2007-04-12   16:37:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: mirage (#30)

If you don't want to listen to a particular radio show, don't do it.

How about if the President's best friend uses political connections to buy up all the bandwidth and then tells you what you can and cannot hear?

What if the programming, such and Limbaugh and Hannity, is offered free of charge to the member stations show the market forces are taken out of the equation?

That is what is happening here today.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-12   16:40:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: mirage (#30)

You approve of GOP ownership of the AM radio band, evidently. Just TRY finding a fair, balanced talk show on AM radio. You can't.

The airwaves belong to ME, not to Rush Limbaugh. If he abuses them, he should either be forced to submit to instant rebuttal or he should be kicked off the air or stations carrying his show should lose their licenses.

The reason the airwaves are a public trust is to defend against exactly what is happening, a news monopoly operated by one political party. If you really love one-party government, well, there's not much I can say.

Mekons4  posted on  2007-04-12   16:43:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: mirage (#30)

But don't deny people the right to publish or the right to offer their opinions.

Let Bush's best friend buy up all the bandwidth for Clear Channel and then let HIM deny people the right to publish their opinions. Is that what you are advocating here? That is the situation we are fast approaching.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-12   16:43:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: mirage, Mekons4, bluedogtxn (#30)

But don't deny people the right to publish or the right to offer their opinions.

No one has a right of speech via the airwaves per say - that is the basis for censorship by the FCC - Any type of fairness doctrine would not restrict speech rights via airwave because there is none. The fairness doctrine was eliminated for business reasons not free speech ones when deregulation of the broadcast business went into effect in the 80s.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-12   16:43:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: mirage (#30)

Why do you hate freedom so much?

You obviously define freedom as allowing the state, through Bush and Clear Channel Corporation, to determine what you hear over the media.

I define it differently.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-12   16:45:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Destro (#28)

I have no doubt they work closely with this administration and government to push a standard proganda line day by day. But that isn't illegal but there is a question of limited airwave space that gov has the power to license over which can't be ignored. I generally am oppossed to any government interference IN ANY FORM with the media.

Now- if it can be proved that tax payer money is being used to pay off journalists to push reichwinger spew- that, in my mind- is a jailable offense and impeachable.

Being a shill catches up with you eventually- people catch on that you are a mouthpiece. O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh? Do they have a 10nth of broad credibility that they enjoyed in 2000? No. They don't. Their ratings have flatlined or fallen- and all they have left are their hardcore dopes who can't think for themselves anyway. Limbaugh isn't considered a serious commentator of the American political scene. He is seen as mouthpiece for the GOP. He isn't even the center of villification among "liberals" anymore because he isn't worth it. He has no influence outside his hardcorp 20 million.

Fox may not die tomorrow. But it will NEVER have respectibility or be considered a REAL news service.

Burkeman1  posted on  2007-04-12   16:51:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Mekons4 (#32)

Who determines who gets to "rebut" Rush? Who determines when he is lying? Who determines what is "Fair"? The "fairness doctrine" is itself censorship. "Liberals" need to start up their own radio programs. From what I have heard - they did- and it failed. Too bad. I am sorry there is no audience for the Dem version of the two party fraud. But there it is.

I despise Rush Limbaugh. I can't stand the sound of his voice. But you know what? I used to effing LOVE HIM. I, changed my mind- because he is a liar and a fraud and an all around disgusting man. I didn't need some behind the scenes power selecting who gets to "rebut" Rush and on what to change my mind.

Imagine a Liberal talk show host- who says something like "Bush lied us into war." Does that merit a "rebuttal" from a reichwinger spin meister? So he can come on and say - No- he didn't lie- he was "mis-informed"? Do you not see the power a "Fairness doctrine" has to limit or stifle free speech?

Burkeman1  posted on  2007-04-12   16:59:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Mekons4, Destro, bluedogtxn, ... (#32)

Just TRY finding a fair, balanced talk show on AM radio. You can't.

620AM here in Portland, OR is "progressive talk" - so I found a balance without even having to resort to a directory. Care to try again?

Here is the problem with what you propose.

The "fairness doctrine" will have to apply to ALL broadcasting as I understand it.

Since CBS "broadcasts" - each time Letterman bashes Bush, then CBS will have to put Ann Coulter on to rebut.

Every time Garrison Keillor says "I'm a Democrat" on NPR, they bring on Bill O'Reilly.

You will EXPAND the "reichwinger" reach instead of limiting them to Fox News (which, being cable, would not be touched) and AM talk radio.

This is the Law of Unintended Consequences at work. Congratulations. You just had half the newsrooms in America fired and replaced with GOP operatives in the name of "fairness."

That will be the result of supporting such a thing. That is where your advocacy will take us. The reach of the "reichwingers" will be expanded as opposed to contracted.

Press 1 to proceed in English. Press 2 for Deportation.

mirage  posted on  2007-04-12   17:01:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Burkeman1 (#37)

"Liberals" need to start up their own radio programs. From what I have heard - they did- and it failed.

They need GOP sponsored programming like Rush and Hannity. The advantage conservative radio has is that it is free from market forces. The programming is distributed free of charge. Nobody really knows who pays the multi-million dollar bills at EIB, but there is a suspicion that it is a partisan connection.

You say that allowing someone who is attacked on the public airwaves equal time to respond is censorship. How so?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-12   17:03:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: mirage (#38)

Since CBS "broadcasts" - each time Letterman bashes Bush, then CBS will have to put Ann Coulter on to rebut.

Over the top spin.

That didn't happen in the past and I don't see why it has to happen now. The person or organization who is attacked is allowed equal time to rebut and may appear in person or may designate a spokesman.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-12   17:05:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: ... (#40)

Over the top spin.

Not in the slightest.

When the doors are opened to "challenge fairness" do you really think that Ms. Coulter will give up the opportunity to put her voice everywhere she can?

There are consequences to every action. When one fixes one defect, one always introduces another. That is just how things work.

Press 1 to proceed in English. Press 2 for Deportation.

mirage  posted on  2007-04-12   17:09:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: mirage (#38)

That will be the result of supporting such a thing. That is where your advocacy will take us. The reach of the "reichwingers" will be expanded as opposed to contracted.

The AM Radio propaganda only survives in a very protected environment. Facts are the enemy. These people arn't anxious to face educated pundits in a situation where they can't turn off the mike - and where everyone gets a fair chance to present their views. How often do you see Rush on Nightline or Brit Hume on a major network? They don't leave the reservation now, why should they do it when there is a fairness doctrine in place?

How many freepers do you see off FR?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-12   17:10:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: mirage (#41) (Edited)

When the doors are opened to "challenge fairness" do you really think that Ms. Coulter will give up the opportunity to put her voice everywhere she can?

Yes, because with an open exchange, propagandists like her are dead. They will just be roasted point by point in public.

People like her can only survive when the government tightly controls the media in the model you advocate. When she and the other propagandists can be rebutted, they become buffoons. That is why these types didn't exist when the fairness doctrine wa in place and that is why the government is so terrified of it now.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-12   17:11:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: ... (#39)

It's censorship. Pure and simple. So, if I say Bush lied us into war- what I consider an OBVIOUS truth- some GOPER liar is to be given "equal time" to "rebut" that with some nonsense illogical glop that merely confuses and defuses my point?

Already- we have a media that is INCAPABLE of calling a spade a spade. The most obvious malfeasance and wrongdoing is flubbed over with spin that our media refuses to call it what it is- total shit and illogical nonsense. And you want to compound that already? You want every nonsensical argument to be given equal time with facts?

I'm don't like that Reichwinger liars are more popular than commentators I would rather listen too. But I don't want to see some state org mandating that every remotely contentious remark be given a rebuttal. Do you not see the power that puts in the hands of the state to limit debate to an even narrower range of opinion than we already have?

Burkeman1  posted on  2007-04-12   17:12:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: Burkeman1 (#44)

It's censorship. Pure and simple.

Allowing people equal time to rebut an unfair attack is censorship.

OK.

Good thing government now controls the AM spectrum huh?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-12   17:14:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: Burkeman1 (#44)

You should work to get the newspapers closed down. They are operating without government control, and presenting all sides of the issues, and that has to be censorship as well.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-12   17:15:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: mirage (#38)

No one said anything about PAYING people to fact-check.

The argument here has been that stations would be responsible. That's why they get licenses. Letting one party control the discourse, attack everyone they disagree with, slander, libel and vilify political opponents, etc. while the ruling party controls the FCC and spends its time fining Stern for saying poop...this is how fascism happens.

They are our airwaves, and if political operatives using deep-pocket donors willing to run stations at a loss to get the propaganda benefit, are taking them over, we have every right to revoke their licenses. Would you prefer that? It's perfectly legal, and if they don't start reining in their hatemongers, I will be very happy to spend time getting station licenses revoked.

So you found one low-power "progressive" station taking on the 50,000 watt right wing superpowers. Woop. And do you think even that option is available outside the big cities? Hardly.

The AM dial has turned into a monopoly. Clear Channel now owns something like a third of stations nationwide. How much of their income is coming from the GOP, directly or indirectly?

If the fascists fear the Fairness Doctrine so much, perhaps they should start being fair. That doesn't mean a 50/50 mix of opinion. It means shutting their damn mouths when they start getting to the slander, libel and flat-out lying edge.

Additionally, you're confusing issues. Keillor saying "I'm a Democrat" is both truthful and legitimate. No one is saying O'Reilly has to have a liberal sidekick. It's a matter of slandering the other side with no rebuttal allowed, a constant drumbeat of slander and hate. That is not what our airwaves are for.

And the mechanisms are there to take back those airwaves.

Mekons4  posted on  2007-04-12   17:17:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: Burkeman1 (#44)

You may get your wish. One thing Powell is now pushing is to allow Fox and Clear Channel to buy up the local newspapers. This would impose GOP control on all of the local news. It would all be like Clear Channel then, no dissenting views allowed at all. We could then rejoice at our freedom from censorship.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-12   17:18:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: ... (#42)

These people arn't anxious to face educated pundits in a situation where they can't turn off the mike - and where everyone gets a fair chance to present their views.

That's not what is going to happen? "Everyone" is not going to get a chance to to present their views. A few SELECT people will- people the state will pick- people with "Acceptable" opinions- safe state loving accetable opinions that will differ with Rush over style- not substance.

What would a mainstream "liberal" challange Rush on by the way? His tone? Cause it wouldn't be his support of the war or ANY major issue. They would challange him over his characterizations of Dems as "supporters of terrorism". Whoppeee. Now the Dem frauds would get to "rebut" the idiotic two party kabuki theater schtick of Rush. Wow- how fair- meanwhile- the Dems and GOPERS have a lock via the "fairness" doctrine on the range of opinion that is subject to such "Fairness".

Burkeman1  posted on  2007-04-12   17:21:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: Burkeman1 (#49)

What would a mainstream "liberal" challange Rush on by the way?

On his defense of torture? On his support for abridgement of habeas corpus?

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2007-04-12   17:23:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: Burkeman1 (#44)

But I don't want to see some state org mandating that every remotely contentious remark be given a rebuttal. Do you not see the power that puts in the hands of the state to limit debate to an even narrower range of opinion than we already have?

A valid point. But I am talking about people who have abused a public trust repeatedly, and have been allowed to get away with it. Meanwhile, Howard Stern got hounded off the air for merely being risque. By the Federal Government.

If someone can prove that they offer fair comment, and rebuttal when it goes over the edge and they attack someone unfairly, they're not going to have someone on there every 15 minutes.

Look at what happens at NPR. When they present the news, the offer views from both sides. They may take one side, but the other side gets to rebut.

Pigboy won't allow a single dissenting voice on without cutting them off in mid-word. True, you got turned off, but this is just feeding hate and getting the goobers all het up. If they want to keep doing it, they should be subjected to fact-checking. Then the audience can make up its mind as to what is true.

Mekons4  posted on  2007-04-12   17:26:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: ... (#45)

You keep avoiding the question? WHO gets to decide what needs rebutting? You? Who says what is a lie or slander? Some gubmint monkey sitting in every station and every newsroom? Some "compliance" guy these stations must hire to make sure? Is every obvious truth to be challenged by crackpot lies?

What newspapers are you talking about that present every viewpoint? I don't know of a single one. The New York Times? Let's take just one issue they cover. Iran and the nuke "crisis". The Dem position is to bomb Iran now. That it is the "Real threat". Meanwhile the GOP wants to bomb Iran too. Wow. Meanwhile- real valid opinion is ignored- like that of Iran's or just sane people.

The "fairness doctrine" was during a time when there were three nationwide television channels and the two parties were assumed. You want to enshrine the two party fraud across all media? All such "fairness" does is totally limit debate to "approved" opinions- like two. And any topic or issue that challenges that narrow range of opinion won't even see the light of day.

A fairness doctrine would all but make DC oligarchic opinion the only opinions in the country.

Burkeman1  posted on  2007-04-12   17:30:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: aristeides (#50)

Like who? What Mainstream liberal would challange that? So every opinion that isn't even an attack on someone is to be challanged also? So Rush can't say that waterboarding isn't torture without someone coming on sayin it is? Do you not see how effing bad this can be abused by the state? Do you not see the power you would be handing to the state to limit debate? To tailor it and narrow it down to almost nothing?

Burkeman1  posted on  2007-04-12   17:32:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: Burkeman1 (#52) (Edited)

You keep avoiding the question? WHO gets to decide what needs rebutting? You?

As I said twice before.

The person who was attacked decides.

Let me say it for a 4th time.

The person who was attacked and needs to rebut decides.

Let me know if you need to hear it for a 5th time.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-12   17:35:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: ... (#48)

This would impose GOP control on all of the local news.

That's already happened- it's called Gannett News. That holding company that owns hundreds of small town papers let the DOD distrubute a "letter" from the troops in support of the war and telling rosey stories about Iraq. It was the same letter in every paper- just "signed" by different soldiers.

I have no doubt that there is a massive (and illegal) government funded propaganda effort directed AT Americans. And your "Fairness doctrine" would make it easier.

Burkeman1  posted on  2007-04-12   17:39:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: Burkeman1 (#52)

What newspapers are you talking about that present every viewpoint?

NewsMax, NRO, the New York Times, Mother Jones, and the ten thousand other news papers in operation. They all present different viewpoints. You claim these divergent view points are censorship. I am saying that you might not have to endure them much longer if the FCC has its way and allows the government, through Clear Channel, to take control and eforce orthodoxy.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-12   17:39:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: Burkeman1 (#55)

And your "Fairness doctrine" would make it easier.

I heard your argument that allowing people to rebut attacks is censorship. I just don't understand it.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-12   17:40:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: ... (#26)

Recall that the GOP now controlls the FCC. Putting Powells kid on the four member board cinched the deal.

If you are talking about Michael Powell, it was Clinton that first appointed him to the FCC in 1997. Bush designated him as chairman after inauguration in 2001.

Powell resigned from the FCC in the spring of 2005.

Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!

Brian S  posted on  2007-04-12   17:41:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: ... (#54)

Oh- so like I said- Radio host X says "Bush is Liar." He, or his chosen mouthpieces, gets to rebut that with some shit mist spin? What if he doesn't attack anyone in particular- just "Liberals" in general- as RUSH does almost all the time. Who picks the "liberal" to rebut him?

Your "fainess" doctrine is an INVITATION to state control and managing of opinion.

Burkeman1  posted on  2007-04-12   17:41:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: Mekons4 (#51)

Pigboy won't allow a single dissenting voice on without cutting them off in mid-word.

Which kind of destroys the argument that right-wing talk radio is a populist forum which gives the common man a chance to express himself which he doesn't get from the elitist mainstream media gatekeepers like the New York Times.


I've already said too much.

MUDDOG  posted on  2007-04-12   17:42:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (61 - 338) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]