[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: 3069
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

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 98.

#1. To: Brian S (#0)

Neil has a rather full closet. He's right to sweat. Hatemongering on the public airwaves is not a nice thing. Imus was just making a joke; these asshats are dead serious.

Boortz Issues apology over McKinney smears

Summary: Neal Boortz issued an apology for his remarks that Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) looks like "a ghetto slut," saying, "I've known Cynthia McKinney for a long time, and there is no way in the world that that word should be used to describe her or her hairdo or any woman."

On the April 3 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Neal Boortz issued an apology for his remarks about Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), stating, "I've known Cynthia McKinney for a long time, and there is no way in the world that that word should be used to describe her or her hairdo or any woman." As Media Matters for America noted, Boortz said that McKinney, "looks like a ghetto slut" during the March 31 broadcast of his radio program, and later added that he didn't "blame them [Capitol police] for stopping" McKinney during a March 29 incident at the Capitol because she had a "ghetto trash" haircut and "looked like a welfare drag queen [that] was trying to sneak into the Longworth House Office Building." In issuing the apology, Boortz added that it "won't mean anything to people who consider any negative comment or criticism of any type at any time about anybody who is not white to be racism."

Mekons4  posted on  2007-04-12   14:16:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Mekons4 (#1)

Boo-rtz has zero credibility.

Destro  posted on  2007-04-12   14:56:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Destro (#2)

Boo-rtz has zero credibility.

Regardless, Boortz is correct in pointing out the Modern Inquisition and issuing a warning.

mirage  posted on  2007-04-12   15:27:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: mirage (#5)

Regardless, Boortz is correct in pointing out the Modern Inquisition and issuing a warning.

There's no reason Boortz and his ilk should not be held to the same standard as a newspaper or magazine. They slander and libel people all the time and get away with it. They're operatives for one political party, but never disclose their affiliations.

I love how afraid of giving equal time he is. If you're going to take one position all the time, call your opponents traitors, fulminate for stupid, murderous wars, and rant and rave dishonestly, there should be some mechanism to show your audience you're a liar.

Talk radio has not added a single positive thing to this country, unlike newspapers and the Internet, where opposing opinions are readily available.

These disinformationists always want to hide behind "I'm just an entertainer." If so, they won't mind having someone fact-check what they say. There's no linkage between entertainment and lying.

Mekons4  posted on  2007-04-12   15:38:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   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.

Destro  posted on  2007-04-12   16:35:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   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   Untrace   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.

Destro  posted on  2007-04-12   18:27:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   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   Untrace   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.

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


#86. To: Destro, Burkeman1, rowdee, Mekons4 (#79)

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

It sure needs to be done. Check out this chart of limited and cross ownership of our media - it will make you positively gag:

http://www.mediachannel .org/ownership/chart.shtml

Here's an activist site giving info on what the issues are regarding media ownership monopoly and what we as consumers, voters can do.

http://www.freepress.net/issues/

I think for starters anti-trust laws need to be applied properly to this media ownership cabal that has developed over time. From the above-mentioned site:

"Antitrust prosecution is potentially a powerful recourse in the fight against media consolidation."

Antitrust prosecution is potentially a powerful recourse in the fight against media consolidation. Antitrust might be a way to break up the largest firms, shift control from corporations to consumers, and create a more democratic media system. Yet antitrust has yet to be employed to stop a major media deal.

The very foundation of antitrust law is the idea that concentrated private power threatens democratic government – which is exactly what’s happening to the media. Yet Washington currently considers antitrust as merely a way to manage price-fixing and minor market failures. Under the current system, each merger is dealt with separately. Thus if one large company is allowed to get bigger, all of its competitors must be allowed to do the same. A more productive approach would be to look broadly at how a merger (or the likelihood of successive mergers) may affect the entire media landscape.

A market that seems competitive from the prevailing antitrust perspective may be extremely concentrated from a democratic perspective – which suggests the need for a broader definition of antitrust in the media realm. Antitrust regulation should focus on vertical integration and cross-ownership – not just traditional horizontal integration. While one company doesn’t own all the TV networks, cable systems or radio stations, when just a handful each own 20 percent of these industries, much greater scrutiny is needed."

scrapper2  posted on  2007-04-12   20:48:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: scrapper2 (#86) (Edited)

Here's an activist site giving info on what the issues are regarding media ownership monopoly and what we as consumers, voters can do.

How can you claim "monopoly" when you just posted a criticism of said monopoly on a website that isn't corporate owned and linked to two websites that also were free to criticize the "monopoly"? The word has a specific meaning.

It's not that people can't hear or read alternative messages, they just don't want to or don't agree with them. I mean most of us can't even open our own family members' eyes or change their minds and we have 24/7 access to them. We're the 5 percenters. Have been throughout history and probably always will be.

Honestly, do you really think if you bought Clear Channel tomorrow and ended Rush's syndication and put on someone more in tune with the 4um view of the world, that they could pull his ratings?

SmokinOPs  posted on  2007-04-12   21:01:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: SmokinOPs (#87)

How can you claim "monopoly" when you just posted a criticism of said monopoly on a website that isn't corporate owned and linked to two websites that also were free to criticize the "monopoly"? The word has a specific meaning.

b. It's not that people can't hear or read alternative messages, they just don't want to or don't agree with them. I mean most of us can't even open our own family members' eyes or change their minds and we have 24/7 access to them. We're the 5 percenters. Have been throughout history and probably always will be.

c. Honestly, do you really think if you bought Disney tomorrow and ended Rush's syndication and put on someone more in tune with the 4um view of the world, that they could pull his ratings?

a. You are right. Monopoly in the context of media ownership has a specific meaning - it applies to print, audio, and visual media media industries.

The internet is not owned by the media moguls and that's why I can post on Christine's site and that's why an activist site can exist on the net.

b. It's easier for people to get their news from print or radio or TV and that's not going to change for a while - not everyone is comfortable with or adept at or can afford the luxury of surfing the net to get news and or read diverse opinions. Therefore I think the media monopolies of "traditional" media need to be broken up for modern day America to have a chance at a less corporate manipulated general public.

c. It's not a matter of new ownership for Disney. It's a matter of the DOJ using anti-trust laws to force Disney to sell off its ownership of subsidiaries across the film, TV, newspaper, radio spectrum. Disney would need to choose to concentrate on one of the 4. And if an independent buyer like me could afford to buy the Disney radio channel, perhaps I'd keep Rush on. But the following hour I might have a liberal talk show host on like Rachel Maddox. Who knows? It would be all up to me and not up to a bunch of corporate suits in LA who attend cocktail parties with the Viacom CEO and political insiders who together decide albeit informally what message the elites want to promote on any given day or week or month as I suspect happens now.

scrapper2  posted on  2007-04-12   21:48:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: scrapper2 (#90) (Edited)

It's easier for people to get their news from print or radio or TV and that's not going to change for a while...

Here you go. Grab your pocket book.

http://www.buysellradio.com/

http://www.radiobroker.com/

http://broadcaststations4sale.com/sale.html

http://lite.globalbx.com/Newspapers%5Clitecatlistings.html

http://www.businessnation.com/Businesses_for_Sale/Media-Publishing/Publishing/

http://www.mergernetwork.com/c/newspaper-publishers-for-sale/

SmokinOPs  posted on  2007-04-12   23:32:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 98.

        There are no replies to Comment # 98.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 98.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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