[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: 3064
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 (1-39) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#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  


#61. To: ... (#56) (Edited)

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.

Ah, sigh, ok- I see we are playing dumb now. When it gets to this point I generally stop. I don't engage BAC clones.

Burkeman1  posted on  2007-04-12   17:43:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: Burkeman1 (#55)

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.

Yes, and I don't understand why you think this is a good thing, or why divergent viewpoints should not be given equal air time.

I know government control of the media seems fair when you agree with the message, but you will not always agree with the message. Eventually, you will be sorry you fought for government control of the media. The government might tell you this is a good thing, but it isn't. You always want to give the divergent viewpoints equal access.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-12   17:44:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: ... (#62)

Eventually, you will be sorry you fought for government control of the media.

I'm not the one calling for government enforced "Fairness" that will limit debate to the narrow range of debate the gubmint picks- you are.

But you know that. Now- you are just making a fool of yourself by childishly misrepresenting my views. I am turning red for you. Sad.

Burkeman1  posted on  2007-04-12   17:47:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: Burkeman1 (#59)

Radio host X says "Bush is Liar." He, or his chosen mouthpieces, gets to rebut that with some shit mist spin?

Yes, and what is wrong with that?

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?

I suppose they would handle it in the same way that they did for the first fifty years of radio. The various liberal organizations would apply for air time and if there were too many to go on, they would have to settle upon a spokesman and a viewpoint to present. If they coundn't do that, then they don't go on.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-12   17:47:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: Burkeman1 (#63)

I'm not the one calling for government enforced "Fairness" that will limit debate to the narrow range of debate the gubmint picks- you are.

By keeping off dissenting views?

By refusing to allow rebuttal of unfair attacks?

Doing this on the airwaves that I own? On a "Public" license?

So that a corporation allied with the government, i.e., Clear Channel, can decide what viewpoints I hear and don't hear?

I say if they want to do this sort of thing, let them stand on their own two feet to do it. Cut off their government subsidy. Let them go onto cable or satellite.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-12   17:50:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: Burkeman1 (#63) (Edited)

Now- you are just making a fool of yourself by childishly misrepresenting my views.

This habit of repeadly going personal like this doesn't help your position. When you do this time and time again in a predictable fashion -- and you do this -- it just looks like pouting. Go take a deep breath and re-read what is posted above and try to make a rational come back.

You already tried silly name calling further up on the thread and I ignored it. Reference your BAC comment above. They second time you tried it, here, I called you on it.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-12   17:51:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: Burkeman1 (#44)

It may be censorship.......my concern is finding a leftie that I could enjoy listening to.

I AM NOT A LEFTIE....just wanted to make the point that they're every bit as boring and disgusting as the righties.

I live in the boondocks of the Rocky Mountains and have been able to get wafting radio waves on occasion. I've tried listening to the lefties out of los angeles and san fran.....and simply can't hack them. And if I had to listen to more than 45 seconds of mario como, I'd be throwing up.

I've virtually given up talk radio........hopefully someone can recommend someone legit.

rowdee  posted on  2007-04-12   17:55:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: ... (#64)

Yes, and what is wrong with that?

What is wrong with that is that nothing will ever be true. What is wrong with that is that a host will have to re-invent the wheel every time he says something. What is wrong with that is that it will destroy debate, chill people from expressing any opinion that could even remotely be challenged. People will confine themselves to a very narrow range of opinion.

A host who says Bush is a liar - is goig to have to defend that every time he says it? He can't go further and or in depth with his views. Can't explore and talk about things that take his assumptions as true. It is STIFLING. Period. People are adults. They don't need the state to tell them what is fair. You may not like it- but there it is.

Oh- and then your "application" process to rebut. LOL. I love that. And I am for stifling free speech! What is to stop the state gatekeeper to picking the liberal opinion that he thinks is the dumbest? Or the most idiotic? Or the most similiar to the reichwinger?

What else should the state make "Fair" for us? Cause we are to stupid to decide what is fair ourselves.

Burkeman1  posted on  2007-04-12   17:57:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: ... (#65)

BAC CLONE, I am tiring of this

By keeping off dissenting views?

I am not keeping off views. Not for that at all. I am just not for the state determing what is a lie, slander, and basically true and then mandating that an opinion show- give "equal time" to whom they determine was attacked and what needs rebutting. You are essentially for the State determining what is truth.

By refusing to allow rebuttal of unfair attacks?

Again BAC CLONE. Where have I ever said that? Anyone who is the victim of "unfair" attacks (the "Unfair" part being determined- again- by the state or whatever org you deem is qualified) is free to rebut all he wants. He just doesn't have a right to demand time on an opinion show for him, or a lacky, to rebut it. He can call a press conference and call Rush a liar.

And as for Clear Channel being allied with the government- if so- if they are being given public funds- they should be prosecuted and shut down and the government lackies involved sent to jail. I frankly suspect such aid myself. I just don't think reichwinger radio is that popular. But that is beside the point. I am not going to give the power to limit debate in the hands of the government to fight Clear Channel. Your "fairness doctrine" is, again, an invitation to narrow debate than it already is.

By the way- if Rush allowed to do satire of public officials? Is he allowed to mock them? Or does that also require "rebuttal" and "equal time". People who tune in to Rush do so because they generally share his opinion and like his humor. What would his show be if he had to watch over his shoulder what would be subject to "rebuttal"? Half his show would be rebuttals.

Burkeman1  posted on  2007-04-12   18:11:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: rowdee (#67)

See- why does it have to be "leftie"? This "fairness" doctine would limit debate in this country to this "right/left" false dichotomy. I am sick of it. It is already firmly entrenched. I don't want to hear the "liberal" rebuttal to Rush. I want to hear the libertarian rebuttal or the anarchist rebuttal or the paleo conservative rebuttal. Those opinions might as well not exist right now anyway as far as our media is concerned. With a "Fairness doctrine" they woud never see the light of the day.

With a "Fairness doctrine" there would be no Rush Limbaugh show. There would be no political opinion shows at all. Every political show - on TV and Radio- would resemble "Meet The Press". With A GOPER LIAR and a DEM LIAR "debating" how many angels fit atop a pin point. That is what a "Fainess" doctrine would enshrine.

Burkeman1  posted on  2007-04-12   18:18:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: Burkeman1, mirage, Mekons4, bluedogtxn, ... (#36) (Edited)

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

Depends on if you think payola is illegal as well (paying DJs to play a groups song).

I am against censorship but these conglomerates who own these radio stations are in it for the money not for speech rights - anything that threatens their bottom dollar they will ditch.

Maybe we should have a law where one station on AM in a market - the low band end that few commercial companies want - gets designated as public space and with no or limited censorship but more speech freedom than a commercial station (the rubes, PC lefty nuts, religious nuts and or Jews might get upset so I can't see no censorship taking hold) like the public access cable channels.

I am against censorship in any form.

But the REAL CENSORSHIP has been the fucking right wing backing the deregulatio n/media consolidation of media ownership that monopolized the air waves.

Used to be if you fired a controversial radio guy he could go down the dial to an independent radio station - now where will Imus go to? There are only 3.5 radio owing companies out there and all of them have matching interests and tastes.

Satellite radio (if it does not go bankrupt) and web radio are the last bastions of free speech.

You want free speech? Or freer speech? Break up the media. A company can only own 2 or 3 radio stations in a market and no television station or newspaper cross ownership - they can't own billboards and they can't own entertainment venues either (like theaters).

I am not a libertarian - unfettered market forces will kill you for the right price.

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

Destro  posted on  2007-04-12   18:27:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: Burkeman1, ..., Mekons4, bluedogtxn, Destro, rowdee (#68) (Edited)

I agree with you, Burke. The Fairness Docterine is useless - it doesn't address the problem in our media - which is limited and cross ownership of media by a handful of fatcat family/corporations - and yes, Fairness Docterine would stifle free speech because it would add yet another bureaucracy of well paid pencil pushing obnoxious gov't silly servant news-balance-checker-nazis.

It's not the application of the "Fairness Docterine" that this country needs. It's the application of the anti-trust laws to break up the monopoly that exists today with a small cabal of owners controlling all aspects of our print, television, and radio media.

http://www.info rmationclearinghouse.info/article13713.htm

"It's time to break up the Media"

scrapper2  posted on  2007-04-12   18:32:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: scrapper2, Burkeman1, ..., Mekons4, bluedogtxn, rowdee (#72)

I agree with you, Burke. The Fairness Docterine is useless -

The REAL CENSORSHIP has been the fucking right wing backing the deregulatio n/media consolidation of media ownership that monopolized the air waves.

See my above about breaking up the media crossownership.

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

Destro  posted on  2007-04-12   18:35:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: Destro (#71)

Any government subsidy to media at all- in any form- is an assualt on free speech. Government shouldn't even be running public radio= as witness what NPR has become- a faux "balanced" warmonger channel that purports to be the model of the "Fairness doctrine" and yet it is just gubmint propaganda and lies with "Dems" and "GOPERS" debating over minutia and trivia.

80 percent of American media is in the hands of 8 large media conglomerates. What should be done about that? I don't know if anything should be done about it. I do know their "news" is a joke. It is full of lies and these companies rely greatly on the good favor and graces and government and thus toe a two party line. I don't read or watch them for the truth and increasingly fewer Americans do. NBC? CBS? CNN? New York Times? They are losing viewers and readers by the day. I don't think these media conlomerates are the future.

But I take your point. In the real world in which government is a reality- perhaps there should be some sort of breakup of big media companies. I generally disfavor such action on the part of government but since the reality is that media sucks up to government since it has regulatory power- it is more than a little dangerous to have the media is so few hands.

So if gubmint is going to be involved in media by way of regulations- it should have the power to break up the larger companies.

Burkeman1  posted on  2007-04-12   18:43:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: scrapper2 (#72)

A "Fairness Doctrine" would please liberal believers in the two party fraud in that all these silly reichwinger talk programs wouldn't exist. But- what would replace them? Basically more "civilized" and "serious" "Meet the Press" type programs that have your standard Beltway approved "Liberal" and standard beltway approved "conservative" "debating" nothing fraud issues. The "issue" on Iraq would be what it is today- body armor for the troops, who loves the troops more, who wants to take care of the troops, and who is for killing more dirty moslems? That is the "Debate" the "fairness Doctrine" would bring. Or- Rush wouldn't go off the air- he would just hire some limp wristed setup "liberal" to provide the "balance"- like Alan Colmes supposedly does on Hannity's program. LOL!

The problem with a "Fairness doctrine" is that it can so easily be abused and manipulated and used to control and stifle opinion to almost nothing- to fake absurd positions.

Now- I am not blind to the possibility that Clear Channel and the goobermint are in cahoots and that it is curious how this reichwinger radio stays on the air despite how effing sad it is- but a "Fairness doctrine"- while it may "feel good" to get to the likes of Rush off the air- would do nothing to address the lack of debate in this country and the freedom of the press. It would hand gubmint the tools to control the range of opinion.

Burkeman1  posted on  2007-04-12   18:52:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: Mekons4 (#51)

You know what a "Fairness Doctrine" would look like? Imagine a talk show host saying that Bush lied when he said that AQ and Iraq "worked together" then having to give "equal time" to the likes of a BAC to spew his Newsmax lies and silly juvenile illogical pettifogging nittery. It wouldn't matter if this host exposed this BAC's lies in the past- he would have to be given a platform to repeat his same tired old refuted 1000 times lies from his silly dopey reichwinger rag sheets every time the host said Bush lied about Iraq and AQ ties. Where could a host go with that? He could never get anywhere. He would eventually end up talking about moss growing - sounding like George Will or Tim Russert- contrived, staid, and utterly predictable = saying nothing controversial at all- not exploring anything - not even trying to connect the simplest of dots.

Burkeman1  posted on  2007-04-12   19:02:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: Burkeman1 (#70) (Edited)

See- why does it have to be "leftie"?

Yep. But that is where it would end under this so-called 'fairness' doctrine. [EDIT: Note that elections are virtually only lefties or righties--it is because they've made frigging election laws such that others have virtually no chance of success--and that is just the way they want it.] Other opinions, as you noted, would be lost, if ever initially found, in the shuffle of 'liar, liar pants afire' crap emanating from the righties or the lefties.

I want to listen to whoever I want to listen to--or to listen to no one. I can think for myself--I sure as hell don't need the pilldown man or a nutty rebuttal from a leftie.

Next thing you know, people will be demanding that laws be passed to make people be smarter/think smarter/do it 'their' way/blah blah blah.

The market will take care of it....IMO.

rowdee  posted on  2007-04-12   19:09:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: rowdee (#77)

The problem is that the media market in this country may be rigged. Thus I can see why people are groping about for "solutions". But a "fairness doctrine" would be a treatment worse than the disease.

It would merely have the effect of making our political discourse sound more Sovietesque and boring. Rush and Hannity and O'Reilly- put on a show- and dress up their beltway toadyism as somehow "popular."

Burkeman1  posted on  2007-04-12   19:13:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: Burkeman1 (#74)

Any government subsidy to media at all

We break up monopolies to foster competition. No govt subsidies - just have many PRIVATE owners who don't cross own other media companies.

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

Destro  posted on  2007-04-12   19:16:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: Destro (#79)

But...the people...they want a homogenous product that's easy to digest.

"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar

Dakmar  posted on  2007-04-12   19:18:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (81 - 338) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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