Heh. Indeed.

My Answer to Paul's claim that progressives are calling for "censorship" of conservative radio below - -as crossposted from the original here.
-----------------

1) What was the article about?
Decreasing the domination of conservative talk radio.

2) What did they want accomplished?
Increased diversity of radio ownership.

3) How did they want to do it?
Ordering the army to march into radio stations and threatening the radio station manager with jail if they didn't take Rush Limbaugh off the air.

Oh wait, that's the wingnut version of #3. Here's what the article says:

Ultimately, these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more choices for listeners, and more owners who are responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest."

"Along with other ideas, the report recommends that national radio ownership not be allowed to exceed 5 percent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations, and local ownership should not exceed more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations in a given market."

Now, nowhere does that say that the government would dictate what goes on the radio, nor does it suggest that government would tell radio station owners that they have to take Rush Limpbaugh off the air.

Paul's statement that progressives are calling for government censorship of conservative talk radio is false.

Yes, they are calling for more diversity in ownership and, they presume, more women and minority owners of radio stations will result in an increase in progressive radio carriage and a commensurate (sorry to use the big words here guys) decrease in hate-talk conservative radio domination as a result.

No one is talking about reducing the number of radio stations that carry Rush Limpbaugh. If, as in Paul's worst nightmare, there are fewer fat, sweaty white men owning radio stations that might mean that a radio station which used to air be owned by a conservative would be sold - somehow -- to a black woman, and now a black woman owns the radio station -- lets call that radio station "WXYZ-AM" in "Anytown, USA."

First off, no one is telling the black woman what to air - she can air whatever she wants. The government is not telling her she cannot air Limpbaugh on WXYZ - so Paul's "censorship" claim is still false.

But let's assume that she decides to take Limpbaugh off the air and put the Wizbang Blue radio hour on instead. That still isn't government censorship, but the result is what Paul fears, and Limpbaugh is no longer aired on WXYZ.

IN an instant, if not sooner, another radio station in "Anytown" is going to snap up Limbaugh's radio show that was airing on WXYZ and air it on their station.

Conservative talk radio is hugely profitable, and even if radio ownership diversity was accomplished, more minorities and women owned radio stations, and those new owners choose to air progressive instead of conservative talk radio, the net result would be an increase in progressive talk shows, while the number of conservative radio stations airing Limpbaugh's shows would not decrease.

In "Anytown" Limpbaugh might air on WABC instead of WXYZ, but it would still air - and there is still no government censorship.

BUT the stated goal of a reduction in conservative talk show domination might occur as a result, and that's why the conservatives on Wizbang and elsewhere in the conservative blogosphere are willing to stoop as low as you see above in order to try to convince Americans that those damned progressives are calling for the "censorship" of conservative radio.

Increased ownership diversity would result in potentially an increase in progressive radio show carriage, but the profitable economics of conservative talk radio means that in no markets whatsoever would conservative radio be taken off the air - at worst it might move to a different station.

The concept that Limpbaugh would no longer air in Anytown USA as a result of the stated policy is bullshit.

Lee,

You are a total asshole.

Asshole.

And yes, I'm a fundamental Christian.

And if you'd like to try again to show how the proposed policy that you call an attempt at "government censorship" really is exactly what you claim it to be -- feel free, Paul. My answer to your three questions appears above, and it's a brand new thread, fire away.

And I'll admit that my choice of the word "censorship" with regards to the Dixie Chicks boycott was a poor choice of words. I should have said an attempt to "silence" the Dixie Chicks instead of "censor" them. An economic boycott is a way to attempt to "censor" someone figuratively, but you don't have the education or experience to understand that concept, so "my bad".

OK Lee since you lied in the answer let's go true false.. That way you can't lie.

True or false

1) The progressive are trying to get more liberals and less conservatives on the radio.

2) They want to use the government to do that.

It's simple True or False.

So they aren't calling for censorship, they're just calling for something that looks exactly like censorship, and will have results that are indistinguishable from censorship, but isn't really censorship because you don't want it to be called that?

Hm...

WOW. Paul nailed Lee's butt to the wall and plastered it in....

If I was Lee, I'd be SOOOOO embarrassed....

Before you answer Lee...

=====================
Require commercial owners
who fail to abide by enforceable
public interest obligations
to pay a fee to support public
broadcasting
If commercial radio broadcasters are
unwilling to abide by these regulatory
standards or the FCC is unable to effectively
regulate in the public interest,
a spectrum use fee should be levied on
owners to directly support local, regional,
and national public broadcasting.
A fee based on a sliding scale (1 percent
for small markets, 5 percent for the largest
markets) would be distributed directly
to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
with clear mandates to support local
news and public affairs programming
and to cover controversial and political
issues in a fair and balanced manner.
We estimate that such a fee would net
between $100 million and $250 million
and would not overly burden commercial
radio broadcasters.
=====================

A quarter of a Billion dollar fine wouldn't be a burden...

2 simple questions - but it'll take Lee hours on how to respond because the truth comes REAL hard for him.

How 'bout just telling it like it is Lee? Why, a GRADE school student could answer quicker....

First rule of holes...When you are in one, stop digging.

Touché Paul

And lets all remember Lee is one of the first to defend the [Dim]ocrats policy of boycotting FoxNews.

1) The progressive are trying to get more liberals and less conservatives on the radio.

False. They are trying to get more progressives on the radio through more diversity in radio station ownership. The number of conservatives on the radio would not change one bit, as I've explained above.

My reading of the proposal says that the government is not involved in telling any radio station owners - anywhere in this proposal -- what they can or cannot air.

You've yet to prove your claim that they have, despite hours and hours to do so.

2) They want to use the government to do that.

False, They do not want to use the government to reduce the number of conservative radio shows, or at least - you've yet to show where they have. I keep waiting and hoping you will at least try, instead of name-calling and changing the subject instead.

The progressives you cited are proposing making changes which would increase minority and women ownership of radio - which they assume will mean more progressives on the radio -- but due to the enormous profitability of conservative radio there will be no reduction in conservative talk show programming -- the radio shows if they move will just move to another station in the same town and you haven't shown anywhere in the proposal where there is is a call for government censorship of conservative talk shows.

Changing this into a personal attack on me hasn't strengthened your argument on this topic at all, Paul - but rock on, Dood.

Now, questions for you Paul.

1) How would the proposal reduce the popularity and and radio station carriage of conservative talk radio?

2) How would the government be involved in facilitating this so called censorship? What would be the mechanism the government would use under this proposal to dictate what radio programs were on the air and which radio shows were not aired?

You made the claim of government censorship, now prove it.

"A quarter of a Billion dollar fine wouldn't be a burden... "

Would they be fined for airing Rush Limbaugh?

No.

Would a station that was otherwise about to be fined be able to avoid the fine by dropping Limbaugh from their radio lineup?

No.

Is there any correlation between these radio stations airing conservative radio shows and the fines they'd receive?

No.

I have another question Lee, why does the government have to get involved at all? How about letting the market decide. And if someone wants to buy a radio station, raise the money. ww

lee, i think you meant true instead of false on your first answer above. If you look at what you said, you should have answered true. "diversity of ownership" means either add more stations, which no one is stopping anyone from doing, or remove current owners with liberal ones. The way your ilk proposes doing this is through fines. essentially no liberal would ever be fined, but conservatives would, thus placing a form of economic sanction on conservative stations. This is where the censorship comes in. conservatism isn't exactly going to be censored per se, but it will be put at a huge disadvantage economically. Have you ever thought that maybe liberals are too slow to listen to something for longer than 5 minutes? they need flashy stuff on tv and that is why they dominate that medium.

and you are flat out lying on your point that "They do not want to use the government to reduce the number of conservative radio shows". The government would be monitoring and leveling the "fees" or "fines" and essentially putting an economic sanction on certain kinds of speech. Whatever happened to the first amendment Lee? Don't you think people shgould be able to say ANYTHING?

A cross in a jar of piss is protected by free speech, but Rush Limbaugh (who speaks over the radio.. literally, he speaks Lee!) shouldn't be protected by the first amendment? Leveling fines on certain kinds of speech infringes and in an aspect censors speech plain and simple.

Paul, having the government regulate media is not, in and of itself, censorship.

My apologies Lee... I underesitmated you.

You can lie on a true false test. I didn't think it was possible. Cheers.

at the very least i give the liberals who came up with this idea some credit for being creative. Even though it is the most sneaky backhanded way to restict speech. Since Lee says it isn't censorship, i say we call it "restriction of speech", or "fines based on level of conservatism".

Typical liberal idea though to propose a tax and restrict free speech and then say it is "opening the door to diversity and allowing new ideas to enter the marketplace".

Lets not forget that talk radio IS the balance. talk radio IS equal time. All the major networks lean left and thats no doubt. Most newspapers. So why can't you libs just leave my radio alone?

Why does the government get involved? It's the FCC's job to recommend policy and enforce radio, WeeWillie, because the public owns the airwaves -- really, no kidding -- look it up.

"How about letting the market decide. And if someone wants to buy a radio station, raise the money. Good point Willie, and that's actually a goegent argument against regulation - but Paul has made the claim that progressives want the government to censor radio stations owners by (Paul's words) "Having the government decide who gets to be on talk radio based on their political belief isn't." So I'd really like to give him a chance to prove that point.

Notice that rather than Paul proving where he's right, he's instead turned this into an attempt to prove me wrong?

It's your post, Paul - I'm finished answering your repeated questions -- it's time for you to prove your point.

>Paul, having the government regulate media is not, in and of itself, censorship.

No... But when it is based on political ideology it is.

What's the name of that story again?

OH YEAH: "The Right Wing Domination Of Talk Radio And How To End It"

Game. Set. Match.

"Paul, having the government regulate media is not, in and of itself, censorship."

Jim,
I concede that point, and thats why the dems can say it isn't blatant censorship. BUT, it is indirect censorship. It places a government penalty on certain ideas or speech. The way a radio station slants, or how many hours of conservatives they play vs liberals etc...

Last i checked there wasn't a huge groundswell of liberals wanting their own talk radio stations. Thats why most liberal shows fail. radio just isn't a liberal medium.

>Notice that rather than Paul proving where he's right, he's instead turned this into an attempt to prove me wrong?

No, I proved myself right in the very first post.

The "progressives" want to get conservatives off the air and they want to use government to do it.

You're just sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" at the top of your lungs.

I just proved you're a hypocrite and a hack for bonus points.

"True or false

1) The progressive are trying to get more liberals and less conservatives on the radio."

It;s a compound question, Paul. It can be partly true andpartly false.

Nes, progressives are trying to get more liberals on the air...

No, the result will not be fewer conservatives on the air.

but now you're ducking the question -- Where is the "Call for government censorship", Paul?

I guess I need to repeat the questions, since you seem to be overlooking them.

1) How would the proposal reduce the popularity and and radio station carriage of conservative talk radio?

2) How would the government be involved in facilitating this so called censorship? What would be the mechanism the government would use under this proposal to dictate what radio programs were on the air and which radio shows were not aired?

I've spent a lot fotime answering your questions, Paul. Why are you replying with little one line snipes instead of continuing the debate?

"OH YEAH: "The Right Wing Domination Of Talk Radio And How To End It""

Ending domination does not mean reducing conservative radio shows or censoring radio stations.

Are you really so simple that you can't see that increasing progressive radio show coverage will reduce conservative talk show domination without any censorship or reduction of conservative talk show carriage?

and why aren't you answering my questions, Paul? Giving up so soon? Come on, I can spend another 30 minutes or so on this - let's keep it going here.... please answer my questions so we can proceed with the debate.

Ugh - bad typing -- should be

It's a compound question, Paul. It can be partly true and partly false.

Yes, progressives are trying to get more liberals on the air...

No, the result will not be fewer conservatives on the air.

Okay, I'll go slowly. The Progressives want to somehow change the ownership statistics of privately-owned radio stations, because it is the ownership that sets the content. As opposed to the Marketplace driving the content.
Would the goverment use Kelo vs New London as a precedent?

Lee, please remember a basic tenet of economics: the law of supply and demand. We have a recent example of this in radio history - Air America Radio, featuring all of your favorite Progressives. There was a burgeoning supply of Progressive content, plenty of cash from advertisers and supporters, and a list of high-quality star talent.

Unfortunately for Air America Radio, there was no demand for their product. No listeners = no Advertisers = no revenue.

Lesson number two for you, Lee: Broadcasting content that there is no market for, and that no-one wants to hear, is not called "programming", it's called "propaganda".

Thank you for your time.

Lee:

False. They are trying to get more progressives on the radio through more diversity in radio station ownership. The number of conservatives on the radio would not change one bit, as I've explained above.

Okj Lee you're tired of answering Paul's questions, so take a break an answer this one:

If "diversity" means more latinos, blacks, women etc what has been the historical political affiliations of those in the "diverse" groups?

I guess that it is always allowed to stop Conservatives from speaking and always acceptable to promote lefty thought and speech. Natalie Maines blew me out from what was left of my Dixie Chick fan status. When Robin Macy and Laura Lynch were with the band, were fans. When the sisters decided to go "big time" and move to Nashville, that all but blew me out. They lost Robin Macy and I pretty much lost interest. We saw one more concert and that was it. When I heard about the Natalie Maines rant about President Bush, she finished the job. I was done with the Dixie Chicks.

"No, I proved myself right in the very first post."

No, Paul, you didn't prove anything. You made a declarative statement that progressives were calling for government censorship of conservative talk radio, and when I called you on it to back it up you put it it on me to prove my claim that they weren't.

Feel free to cross post whatever argument you feels "answers my questions" here Paul... Here's the questions again.

1) How would the proposal reduce the popularity and and radio station carriage of conservative talk radio?

2) How would the government be involved in facilitating this so called censorship? What would be the mechanism the government would use under this proposal to dictate what radio programs were on the air and which radio shows were not aired?

Lee:

Yes, progressives are trying to get more liberals on the air...

No, the result will not be fewer conservatives on the air.

Why not Lee? Will there be more hours (a 30 hour day maybe) in a day added so these progressives can be added to a stations lineup of shows?

Lee,

1) How would the proposal reduce the popularity and and radio station carriage of conservative talk radio?

Fining Conservatives takes money away from other things, like umm... advertising? Which is one way that stations get listeners. Fines also take away from the money available to pay the on-air talent, producers and the entire staff, thus degrading the quality of a radio station because of the ideas that station airs.

2) How would the government be involved in facilitating this so called censorship? What would be the mechanism the government would use under this proposal to dictate what radio programs were on the air and which radio shows were not aired?

If government isn't going to fine the stations who is? In the tradition of not answering a question with a question, i will say this. Regulating ideas through fines is unconstitutional and the government would have to be the one to levy a fine, as i don't think they contract that out at the current time. And the 2nd part, what would be the mechanism? Obviously the plan calls for beurecrats to monitor the content of each station and make some kind of rating and fine the stations accordingly. obviously since we do not currently institute the fines, there is not a mechanism in place. The center for american progress is merely citing what they think should be done.

You are saying they don't want to pull conservatives off the air. I would prefer that you don't lie to us Lee, that is EXACTLY what this is about. You and i both know that liberals would rejoice the moment Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, or even any local hosts get pulled off the air due to their conservatism costing a station too much in fines. The bottom line Lee is that you might think we are stupid, but you sure are making a poor case to "dazzle us" with your genius...

"If "diversity" means more latinos, blacks, women etc what has been the historical political affiliations of those in the "diverse" groups?"

Liberal. There would be more liberal talk radio shows under this proposal.

Does that mean there would be less conservative talks shows? no. A greater diversity of ownership might mean more progressive talks shows, but it does not mean there would me fewer conservative talk shows.

Liberal. There would be more liberal talk radio shows under this proposal.

And after 'Air America', I'm sure the investors are just beating the door down to finance that.

"Why not Lee? Will there be more hours (a 30 hour day maybe) in a day added so these progressives can be added to a stations lineup of shows?"