« "Presidential" Crisis Management | Main | Stupid Stupid Stupid House Republicans »

Liberals Call for Censorship of Conservative Talk Shows

It amazes me how vapid so called "progressives" are intellectually. A "progressive" for those of you not hip to the liberal chic is what a liberal calls himself when he's too embarrassed by liberalism to be called a liberal.

Like the grown adults who are too embarrassed to admit they read comic book so the call them "graphical novels." -- But I digress...

A bunch of idiot "progressives" -er I mean liberals have decided that freedom of speech is overrated and that the government should step in and take Conservative talk show hosts off the air and replace them with liberal talk show hosts.

In other words, Censorship.

Contrary to what the "progressives" claim, private citizens smashing Dixie Chicks CDs is not censorship. Having the government regulate political speech is. To the wacky brain of a liberal, silencing your political opponent is "Progressive" you see. Just look what it's done for China.

The kicker is they have proven why talk radio is conservative. Because nobody can stand to listen to liberals whine 8 hours a day. Remember Air America which was supposed to save us all from Rush Limbaugh? They failed because they could not get people to listen to them. Period.

If the liberals want more people to listen to them they should simply say something more people want to hear. I wonder how their grand plan to regulate talk radio would go over as a talk show topic?


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Liberals Call for Censorship of Conservative Talk Shows:

» Adam's Blog linked with Socialized Talk Radio

Comments (216)

If the liberals gave up a l... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

If the liberals gave up a little more TV realestate (new & other media), the conservatives would probably end up giving up Radio realestate.

Its the imbalance in TV that plays a large part in the imbalance in Radio. Its a Zen thing.

Just tell them they can hav... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Just tell them they can have "Fairness Doctrine II" as long as they give up PBS.

And half of the "alternative" papers.

And fire 40% of the reporters in TV and "mainstream" papers, replacing them with Republicans.


Let's see... Right wing ta... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

Let's see... Right wing talk radio or hip-hop music. That's a really tough choice... One consists of thumping and yelling and a torrent of vile language, and the other is black music. :)

Paul Hamilton, You... (Below threshold)
pgg:

Paul Hamilton,

You misspelled "Left wing."

Shutting down the talk show... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

Shutting down the talk shows is one way for them to try to climb higher than 14% approval (where the Democratic Congress is at).

They are now trying to use totalitarian tactics. It's pure desperation, and we need to be on guard, as they know they need to cheat to win in 08'.

I am surprised the liberals... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

I am surprised the liberals would like greater air time for voicing their own agenda because 1) it would mean they'd have to come up with one of their own, and..... Oops, I guess that about covers it. I thought it was a pretty cushy existence for them just to sit on the sidelines and critcize the Republicans. But, hey, if they want to get back in the game after AirAmerica then more power to them. You know, I love golf but pretty much suck at it so the handicap system helps me out against the more stronger and talented folks I usually play with. Kind of the help the libs will need getting back into this talk radio thing.

This is coming up now becau... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

This is coming up now because radio played a part in killing the Amnesty Bill. And it wasn't just Rush. The "conservative radio talk show host who shall not be named" played a big part.

Rush has been a figure for a long time. The Left has felt they have trivialized him by ridicule and vilification. For the "conservative radio talk show host who shall not be named" they want to silence him without indirectly giving him additional publicity. He is over the top. But so is MoveOn.org and they've been effective in moving the political scene.

Paul says that liberals are... (Below threshold)

Paul says that liberals are calling for the government to "step in and take Conservative talk show hosts off the air and replace them with liberal talk show hosts" but that assertion isn't supported by anything in the article he's linked,as far as I can tell.

Maybe I missed that part when I read the article he linked to -- can anyone else find it?

You know, I love g... (Below threshold)
John in CA:
You know, I love golf but pretty much suck at it so the handicap system helps me out against the more stronger and talented folks I usually play with.

Which is why you, like me, play for fun, don't expect to make money at it and know no one would pay to watch us play.

Now, if the leftists could understand that. They may enjoy doing radio (not so sure about that, they sound miserable) but suck at it, they shouldn't expect to make much money because no one really wants to pay to listen to them.

Maybe I missed tha... (Below threshold)
John in CA:
Maybe I missed that part when I read the article he linked to -- can anyone else find it?

Posted by: Lee Ward at June 21, 2007 02:33 PM

Okay, you've had your fun. Now listen, your Mommy is calling, so go back and play in your sandbox.

This has been argued for so... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

This has been argued for some time now and the funny thing is whenever you say to a leftist: "I have no problem with applying the fairness doctrine to talk radio, as long as we apply it equally to the broadcast network news..." (A sentiment I wholehartedly agree with btw)

They say: "But there is no bias in network news so there is no need to apply the fairness doctrine to that."

So the real question is are the lefitsts just liars or are they mentally deficient?

So the real questi... (Below threshold)
John in CA:
So the real question is are the lefitsts just liars or are they mentally deficient?

Ummmm, both. Mentally deficient liars.

>but that assertion isn't s... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>but that assertion isn't supported by anything in the article he's linked,as far as I can tell.

Lee, try here.

"thumping and yelling an... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"thumping and yelling and a torrent of vile language"

It is true that these things are heard on right-wing talk radio. But that's because the hosts interview leftists and take calls from leftists.

Had Paul ever actually listened to right-wing talk radio he would realize its his comrades who are doing all the yelling and spewing the torrents of vile language.

Of course, Paul probably considers anything that contradicts the leftists dogma to be "vile language".

First, to answer P Bunyan -... (Below threshold)
GeminiChuck:

First, to answer P Bunyan - they're bold-faced liars. They arent about "fairness". They know the Fairness Doctrine will end conservative talk radio, because no radio station will take the chance of being judged "unfair" and have their license yanked.
Second - the Fairness Doctrine will be the death of AM radio. Before Rush, the car companies were starting to install FM-only radios. There will be no balance or "fairness" - there will be no talk, and subsequently, AM radio will fade away. This is the actual goal of the Lying Left (DBA Progressives). gc

LOL @ Paul's 2:48 post!... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

LOL @ Paul's 2:48 post!

Right on the money!

P Bunyan:All conse... (Below threshold)
JFO:

P Bunyan:

All conservatives are thieves or murderers.

{You say something stupid, I'll reply with something almost as stupid.]

So no one else found a quot... (Below threshold)

So no one else found a quote in that article that supports Paul's statement either?

Yep, there's nothing there ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Yep, there's nothing there that supports Paul's overblown statement of censorship. That's why he responded with the "Reading is Fundamental" link - one wonders if he's spent enough time there himself.

Lee, refer to the last thre... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Lee, refer to the last three para's. You have to use your brain a little and understand what they're arguing, and the effect of the changes they argue for. I know it's hard for you.

Now, get out of your Mommy's lingerie drawer and get back to the Disney channel.

That's odd JFO, I've yet t... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

That's odd JFO, I've yet to read a post from you that wasn't stupid.

What exactly are you trying to add to the conversation?

Do you want the fairness doctrine re-instated?

Do you believe it should apply to the broadcast network news?

(This is a test to see if JFO can actually post something that is not stupid.)

So no one else fou... (Below threshold)
John in CA:
So no one else found a quote in that article that supports Paul's statement either?

Posted by: Lee Ward at June 21, 2007 03:06 PM

You're out of your sandbox again. You need to get back over to Wizbang Blues, you're running behind on the typical 1.5 comments average for each of the 20 posts on the frontpage. Paul Hamilton is waiting on your response to his response to your response to anothe Wizbang Blues contributor.

Hey Lee, perhaps if you rea... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Hey Lee, perhaps if you read the title of the article you might have an idea.

It never ceases to amaze me, lefty nitwits like Lee will sit there and act all obtuse when it suits them and yet, they will whine that Bush implied that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 even though they can't find a quote to prove that.

They're all about penumbras and emanations when it fits their, braindead, agenda, but when it proves them to be braindead totalitarians? Nope, not there, can't see it.

Since I answered your question Lee, perhaps you could answer one for me.

When you stick your fingers in your ears to ignore facts you don't like, do you say, "LALALALALALALALALA" or "Ican'thearyouIcan'thearyouIcan'thearyou"?

P. Bunyan, my very first "b... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

P. Bunyan, my very first "blog" on the internet -- and this was way before the term was even coined -- was an assignment on a right wing chat board where I watched the Rush Limbaugh tv show (remember that?) every day and posted comments about it so all the folks on there would have somebody to yell at.

So yeah, I've listened to that drivel before. I don't like it and I don't pay any attention unless there's some pressing need, but I know how it works.

From the 'American Progress... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

From the 'American Progress' piece:
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.

If the problem is a lack of racial/ethnic and gender diversity of ownership as the piece claims, why did the 'Liberal' talk show "Air America" fail ? The founders were certainly 'Liberal'. It had a HUGE amount of media hype surrounding it. It was broadcast in the some of the largest markets.... but the authors of the piece think that maybe if the owners were of a different race/ethnicity and/or gender then it would have succeeded ? How utterly absurd.

How do wardie and paulie h.... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

How do wardie and paulie h. have time to be here? They are just "covered" up with comments over at bluie. snicker snort

Lee, you're supposed to rea... (Below threshold)

Lee, you're supposed to read between the lines and assume that this:

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.

is tantamount to the title of this post:

Liberals Call for Censorship of Conservative Talk Shows

Which is a pretty big stretch but it's good enough to get the blood boiling over here at Wizbang.

The radio business has undergone so much consolidation that it's pretty much ruined anyway. If I'm not mistaken listenership continues to fall. Who needs talk radio now that we have the Internet? It's much more interesting and you get a lot more diverging viewpoints. People only listen to talk radio when they're trapped in their cars commuting. With satellite radio and other options coming online that will accelerate the decline of talk radio.

So, as a progressive, I wouldn't put amending the constitution so we can censor Rush at the top of my list. It didn't prevent us from getting control of Congress. Rush is harmless; I actually find him entertaining.

I just commented at Wizbang... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

I just commented at Wizbang Blue.
In the story about how giving the Pentagon carte blanche is bad, I noted that the gay bomb story was from 1994. It seems that their reading comprehension is worse than I thought and not just some purposeful obtusity.

I guess Lee can't see that ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

I guess Lee can't see that while the article doesn't specifically say "sensorship", by recommending that the government control who owns radio stations (like they would in a socialist/communist/leftist country) they are implying that the govenment should act to control what is broadcast which is definitely a form of censorship (and communism).

And Paul Hamilton, I don't listen to Rush, but I do listen to Bill Bennett (my favorite), Laura Ingram, Bill O'Reily, Mike Ghalleger, and Sean Hannity and 97% of the "yelling and vile language" comes from the leftist guests and callers.

I don't listen to leftist radio, but I'm curious, do they air right-thinging callers or interview right thinking guests as the right-wing radio shows do?

Veeshir:You note t... (Below threshold)
Rance:

Veeshir:

You note the title of the post which is "The Right Wing Domination Of Talk Radio And How To End It". I got to agree with Lee. The article may talk about ending the domination of The Right, but it doesn't advocate doing it by censoring anyone. I does make the point that 5 owners own 257 stations and control the content they provide their listeners. Concentration of media ownership should worry everyone, left or right.

It will be interesting to see what happens to coverage of Michael Bloomberg by the news service he owns. Oh, that's right, no need to worry about Bloomberg news' coverage of Hiz Honor, he's not running for president (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

"Hey Lee, perhaps if you... (Below threshold)

"Hey Lee, perhaps if you read the title of the article you might have an idea."

I read it, and there wasn't anything there to suggest that anyone was trying to get conservative talk shows hosts "censored".

"Lee, refer to the last three para's. You have to use your brain a little and understand what they're arguing, and the effect of the changes they argue for. I know it's hard for you."

You are talking about the news article Paul linked to, right? Here are the last three paragraphs:

Two common myths are frequently offered to explain the imbalance of talk radio: 1) the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine (which required broadcasters to devote airtime to contrasting views), and 2) simple consumer demand. Each of these fails to adequately explain the root cause of the problem. The report explains:

Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management. [...]

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.

Nothing there says anything about taking anyone off the air.

Now that we have the relevant section of the article (according to Mitchell) can anyone point out how this supports Pauls post that "liberals have decided that freedom of speech is overrated and that the government should step in and take Conservative talk show hosts off the air and replace them with liberal talk show hosts." ???

Thank you, Rance. There are... (Below threshold)

Thank you, Rance. There aren't many left around here who are willing to speak up when they disagree with the mob - I appreciate it.

I'm against gov't censorshi... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

I'm against gov't censorship (of topics), but the media conglomerates monopolizing the public airwaves with their "synergy" should be busted up.

Ingraham and Boortz on the right seem to retain some dignity by not fluffing Product. Of course, they're rabidly pro-war (but, hey!). Pro-war equals Conservative in Bizarro World.

But the FOX radio shows: (I kinda like Gibson, and Brian and The Judge, but) MY GAWD! Always harping on firing this person, that person, fainting over this, farting about that. And it's almost always for a queer politically correct reason made up on the fly. (Inverse BDS; no Bush, no foul!)

Dixie Chicks, Rosie, Imus. (Of course, Rev. Al Sharpton is asked for expert commentary. Tawana Brawley references are strictly off limits. Risk-averse white men hosting; safety first!)

"conservative" media tries to rile the peasantry for the same ends as you mention here, all the time. Just in a more flaccid and dweebish manner. As if they have Groung-Up pull. Another conceit of media inbreeding.

So, as a progressive, I... (Below threshold)
Jo:

So, as a progressive, I wouldn't put amending the....

Ha! I love how the liberals can't even call themselves liberals anymore. Yet conservatives still relish their name.

Love it, love it, love it. Tells you all you need to know.

It doesn't say to censor an... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

It doesn't say to censor anybody? That's funny. They are trying to get the gov't to fix the imbalance, but no censorship.

My comment about penumbras and emanations stands.

And for the record, I probably mostly agree with Lee on talk radio, I don't listen to it and I don't really like it. Neil Boortz is okay, but Hannity and Rush bother me like nothing. Rush because he only seems to preach to the choir, Hannity because he's a nitwit and possibly the only person on TV who can make Alan Colmes look intelligent.

And one comment from Neil B... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

And one comment from Neil Boortz (whose website I read but whose radio show I've only heard (part of) once)
Talk radio is conservative because that's what the listeners want. Don't give me this "corporate ownership" nonsense. WSB radio in Atlanta, my flagship station, is owned by Cox Radio, Inc. Cox Radio, in turn, is owned by Cox Enterprises which, in turned, is majority owned by people who have been stalwart Democrats since day one. In fact, Cox Enterprises was formed by James Cox, the Democrat candidate for president in the 1920 presidential election. (Defeated by Warren G. Harding) Interestingly enough, Cox's running mate was someone named Franklin D. Roosevelt. Does Cox Radio put me on their talk radio stations because I reflect the political ideology of the principals? Hardly. It's because I get ratings! And that means I make money for them. They've tried liberal hosts .... and they don't get ratings and they don't make money for the company. Simple as that.

Like the grown adults wh... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Like the grown adults who are too embarrassed to admit they read comic book so the call them "graphical novels."

They're graphic novels, American Idol boy, not graphical. And people who read them aren't at all embarrassed to say they read comic books; they just know the difference between the two. Anyway, tell it to Art Spiegelman.

"I see no intrinsic reason why a doubly talented artist might not arise and create a comic-strip novel masterpiece," - John Updike, 1969

Speaking of talk radio and ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Speaking of talk radio and how it exposes the Left, you know it's bad when even the MSM is picking up on the democrats and their lies:

http://newsbusters.org/node/13603

Sweet.

Lee since reading is so har... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Lee since reading is so hard for you, I clipped just one part of the pdf.

You did read the pdf didn't you.

This analysis suggests that any effort to encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming will first require steps to increase localism and diversify radio station ownership to better meet local and community needs. We suggest three ways to accomplish this:

Restore local and national caps on the
ownership of commercial radio stations.

Ensure greater local accountability
over radio licensing.

Require commercial owners who fail
to abide by enforceable public interest
obligations to pay a fee to support
public broadcasting.

In other words anyone who doesn't broadcast what we like we will tax out of existence and replace them with state run media.

Hello Pravda.

first the guns, now the wor... (Below threshold)
steak111111:

first the guns, now the word.

Maybe the soviets DID win us....

Besides Lee you dimwit, the... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Besides Lee you dimwit, the whole article is about the imbalance of talk radio and how to use the government to change it.

So they want to use government to take conservatives off the air...

Did ya miss that part?

Lee to prove what an idioti... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Lee to prove what an idiotic moron you are once and for all... please answer 3 basic reading comprehension questions...

1) What was the article about?

2) What did they want accomplished?

3) How did they want to do it?

===============

Just because I'm a nice guy -even to morons- I'll give you a few hints....


1) What was the article about?
HINT: The first clause of the subject of the post was "The Right Wing Domination Of Talk Radio"


2) What did they want accomplished?
HINT: The second clause of the subject of the post was, "And How To End It"

3) How did they want to do it?
HINT: It sure as hell wasn't the free market and the private sector.

They want government to enact policy specifically aimed at censoring one political group.

If you're too stupid to understand this, that's fine but quit wasting my time asking me to explain it.

"Lee to prove what an idiot... (Below threshold)
steak111111:

"Lee to prove what an idiotic moron you are once and for all..."

Sorry, but that's been done a million times....

Can we call liberals "progg... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Can we call liberals "proggs" instead of progressives? (It is easier to type.)

Better yet--how about "Priggs"? Example: "Lee is the biggest Prigg around these parts....."

>Sorry, but that's been don... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>Sorry, but that's been done a million times....

You're right, but I'm going to play the jackass and make him answer the questions if he wants to keep commenting. This is dumb shit.

There's room for a legitima... (Below threshold)
mantis:

There's room for a legitimate discussion on this topic (though probably not in this forum), re: regulation and public interest standards in broadcast communications.

For some background, here's a good place to start: The Public Interest Standard in Television Broadcasting. See especially Broadcasting as a Force for Localism.

Rance:It will ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Rance:

It will be interesting to see what happens to coverage of Michael Bloomberg by the news service he owns. Oh, that's right, no need to worry about Bloomberg news' coverage of Hiz Honor, he's not running for president (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

And that means what? Bloomberg WAS a democrat, changed to Rep just to get elected mayor, now allegedly is an independent.

Lee if you argee with this, you're a moron

Well duh! We must remember the article doesn't spell it out in 50pt type, boldfaced and italics that they are for censorship or will attempt to make it happen.

Despite Lee's long standing love affair with Kerry he hasn't learned the um... well the nuances of nuance.

But he can lie his ass off, then run from the scene of the crime.

No onie is suggesting anybo... (Below threshold)

No onie is suggesting anybody gets censored anywher ein that article or in the report. That's now ben proving by the many hours that have passed where not one person has shown that any conservative talk show hosts would be taking off the air.

Paul's statement in his post "...liberals have decided that freedom of speech is overrated and that the government should step in and take Conservative talk show hosts off the air and replace them with liberal talk show hosts." is complete and utter bovine poop. There is nothing even remotely related to "censorship" going on here.

The dishonesty of the right wing blogosphere is staggering.

Larking pointed to this:

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.

All I see there is "more diversity". You have to be wearing tinfoil beanies to translate that into "taking conservative talk show hosts off the air".

Lee--gotta hand it to ya--y... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Lee--gotta hand it to ya--you wear your "Prigg" mantle proudly. You're certainly a world-class "Prigg".

Bunyan:Here... (Below threshold)
JFO:


Bunyan:

Here's your first stupid comment: "So the real question is are the lefitsts just liars or are they mentally deficient?"

Now here's your funny comment in reply to me: "What exactly are you trying to add to the conversation?"

Now that's a real conversation starter isn't it?

Umm, what I'm trying to add is to show what a funny guy you are - I don't think - no, I know you don't think - about what you write.

Ok Lee... "more diversity" ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Ok Lee... "more diversity" means what?

More Blacks.
More Hispanics.
More Asians.
How about more "undocumented aliens?

What percentage of all those groups would id themselves as liberal... oops sorry progressives?

I listen to right left wing... (Below threshold)
suhnami:

I listen to right left wing stations about the equal amount. I listed to more left wing in the past because I was dissatisfied with the Bush Administration and found guilty pleasures in the CONSTANT bashing of his leadership. Over time, though, it just grew old. Then it got so boring I wanted to punch my own face to wake up. Whine whine whine. It drove me nuts, so I started listening to right wing radio. While I didn't always agree the particular personality, I at least was able to listen to it without having to surrender to incessant crying. Sure, both sides bash the hell out of each other. Nothing new there. Now the liberals, or 'progressives' have have house senate majority and we were promised all kinds of bold new leadership and the like, but they have regressed,if possible, back into do nothings and whiners. So to really oversimplify, it seems the public was very upset with Republican majority and they didn't vote for a liberal as much as voted against the conservative. Now libs have shown to really dissapoint the public. Both parties seem to be sucking pretty bad here....

Paul, you are really reachi... (Below threshold)
jim:

Paul, you are really reaching to get censorship out of this article.

Tax a station out of existence, for support of Public Broadcasting? That's your interpretation of one sentence of one attached documentation, that says liberals are calling for censorship?

Come on, man. Seriously.

Lee answer the 3 questions.... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Lee answer the 3 questions.

>Paul, you are really reach... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>Paul, you are really reaching to get censorship out of this article.

Oh Jim, I'm sorry dude... My vocabulary isn't as good as yours...

Tell me a word that means "using government policy to silence a political group" and I'll use that word instead.

Just tell me the right word and I'll rewrite the whole post.

I don't see anywhere in the... (Below threshold)
tas:

I don't see anywhere in the Think Progress link where it says that the government should mandate that conservative radio talk show hosts are replaced with liberals. What the link does say is that ownership of radio stations is becoming concentrated in the hands of too few rich people; i.e., there's not enough diversity among radio station ownership. I can see where that is a cause for concern, because such a structure does muzzle voices -- on the left and right. One example of such muzzling In my area happened to a long time and popular radio host (who was previously an elected Republican state official), who fairly represented all sides of political arguments and ran a pretty balanced show. She was the only host in my area who would give every candidate running for major state/city offices a chance to speak, third party or otherwise. But she got yanked from the air and replaced with Sean Hannity. Why? Because another local host -- in the pocket of the RI Republican party -- got better ratings for being a bombastic screaming loon and Clear Channel just couldn't take it. So the fair, intelligent, non-screaming host gets canned in favor of Sean Hannity, who needs absolutely nothing to our conversations about local politics.

And while she wasn't the most popular host in her time slot, it's not like her show wasn't listened to at all. She was second in ratings, and the whole state was shocked when she was let go.

So there's one registered Republican host who got muzzled because of the paradigm that Think Progress discusses.

As far as radio and censorship goes, what about government regulations against small, neighborhood stations? Isn't that government censorship?

As far as censorship in general, isn't it a form of censorship to concentrate the ownership of a whole division of our media into the hands of a few, and have them pick who we'll be able to listen to?

Ending right wing dominatio... (Below threshold)

Ending right wing domination doesn't mean censoring and removing right wing talk show hosts. That's just the tin-foil talking.

tas you're simply a liar.</... (Below threshold)
Paul:

tas you're simply a liar.

>I don't see anywhere in the Think Progress link where it says that the government should mandate that conservative radio talk show hosts are replaced with liberals.

Answer the 3 questions above.

Require commercial ow... (Below threshold)
Eric:

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.

Any time you have the government dictating content it is censorship.

Posted by: bryanD ... (Below threshold)
John in CA:
Posted by: bryanD at June 21, 2007 03:46 PM

Did anyone understand what bryanD said in that post?

Ha! I love how the... (Below threshold)
John in CA:
Ha! I love how the liberals can't even call themselves liberals anymore. Yet conservatives still relish their name.

Calling themselves liberal or progressive doesn't cover up the fact that they are socialists at heart, in mind and theory.

A "progressive" for thos... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

A "progressive" for those of you not hip to the liberal chic is what a liberal calls himself when he's too embarrassed by liberalism to be called a liberal.

And here I thought that they called themselves progressives because they were ashamed to be called "Communists" and/or "Socialists."

@Eric -- A quarter of a bil... (Below threshold)
Paul:

@Eric -- A quarter of a billion dollars in government fines unless they put liberals on the air is NOT the same as censorship.

People not buying Dixie Chicks CDs now THAT'S censorship.

-shakes head-

"Both parties seem to be su... (Below threshold)
steak111111:

"Both parties seem to be sucking pretty bad here....
Posted by: suhnami at June 21, 2007 04:49 PM"

An understatement.

Lee, answer Paul's question (if you're not afraid to). I'll even admit to a mistake if you do....

Tas where your example fall... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Tas where your example falls apart is that the radio station made that decision not the government.

Read the PDF from Think Progress. It proposes having the government mandate content, if that content doesn't meet the government approved standard then the radio station is fined.

I repeat, anytime the government dictates content it is censorship, because the government is making the decision of what can and cannot be included on the air. In this case, TP specifically includes political content.

If you're too stup... (Below threshold)
John in CA:
If you're too stupid to understand this, that's fine but quit wasting my time asking me to explain it.

Just tell leeward that you are keeping your powder dry and will divulge the answers to his queries when the time is right.

That's what he was telling me last week when I asked him to identify the racists who were opposing the illegal immigrant amnesty bill.

He still hasn't identified them, and I'm still waiting.

Progressives...what oxymoro... (Below threshold)
BillyBob:

Progressives...what oxymorons...what MORONS.

They can't compete, so shut it down. Who wants to listen to socialist/commie whining all day every day?

I do predict more conservative talk radio online, on XM and Sirius Satellite radio.

Conservative Talk Radio will NEVER die. It's too late libs, there are too many other mediums to get the TRUTH out so we can call BULLSHIT on all your socialist/commie propaganda.

Nice try, but it won't works.

Paul, are you really surpri... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Paul, are you really surprised the liberal don't get this? Of course they do, but they are trying to be subtle and nuanced. It all depends on what "is" is. ww

Lee, I love you (as a broth... (Below threshold)

Lee, I love you (as a brother). May God bless you and keep you around for a long, long time.

Cause there's no one who can illustrate the absolute intellectual vacuity of the modern leftist quite like you do.

Bravo, man! Keep it up!

What I'd really like one of... (Below threshold)
John in CA:

What I'd really like one of these obtuse socialists to explain is why did AirAmerikaRadio v1.0 fail despite media publicity, ripping off $800,000 from a Boys and Girls club, constant infusions of cash and stations in major markets with large liberal communities?

After all, if there was such a demand for that format, surely they could have pulled the numbers that would have made it at least self sustaining, allowing them to continue broadcasting.

Let's say 5 years from now,... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Let's say 5 years from now, the vast majority of the political blogosphere is liberal. The Internet is a public medium too. Would it be in the public's interest to regulate that too? Should DKos and DU be required to offer fair and balanced views on their websites or face fines?

Liberals (like Lee) get los... (Below threshold)
steak111111:

Liberals (like Lee) get lost easy when you ask them questions that take them off their talking points....

Well first off, you have to... (Below threshold)

Well first off, you have to get a bunch of liberal talkers who don't do anything but denigrate this country, for starters. They also have to be funny and not the "inside-joke" way either.

The problem with the left is their intolerance for view points that conflict with their inherent cultural marxism. They never ever seem to be wrong and you're only right if you agree with them.

"After all, if there was su... (Below threshold)
Eric:

"After all, if there was such a demand for that format, surely they could have pulled the numbers that would have made it at least self sustaining, allowing them to continue broadcasting."

John, your question is accurate why did AirAmerica fail? However, after reading the report it has nothing to do with demand. Their whole purpose is to decrease the amount of Conservative radio time and increase Liberal radio time through government intervention. Demand has nothing to do with anything.

ThinkProgress doesn't like Conservative radio so they want the government to change that fact.

Does anyone truly believe that ThinkProgress would issue this report if the roles were reversed and Liberals dominated talk radio?

1) What was the article abo... (Below threshold)

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 switch 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.

And the statement in Paul's... (Below threshold)

And the statement in Paul's post, that progressives are calling for government censorship of conservative talk radio, is total bullshit as well.

What I'd really like one... (Below threshold)
mantis:

What I'd really like one of these obtuse socialists to explain is why did AirAmerikaRadio v1.0 fail despite media publicity, ripping off $800,000 from a Boys and Girls club, constant infusions of cash and stations in major markets with large liberal communities?

I can only speculate, but considering that there are almost as many "progressive" content stations as "conservative" content stations here in Chicago (see the Think Progress map), my guess is dipshit management. They actually did pretty well for a new station in a bunch of markets, but they had financing problems from the beginning. Apparently they raised way less startup capital than originally thought, there were many contract disputes, the guys who started the station were gone within two months of the debut, shady deals, corrupt partnerships, etc.

If they had been run by people who knew the radio business, weren't shady businessmen, and tried to build an audience a little more humbly, they could have been successful (and might still be). Their ratings in smaller liberal cities like Portland, Madison, and Seattle were good.

My speculation as to why liberal radio doesn't do as well as conservative radio? Simple: liberals listen to NPR. I would sure as hell rather listen to NPR than talk radio, regardless of political leanings. Blowhards with fevered egos are not what I'm looking for when I commute. Of course, since I got satellite radio I can listen to C-SPAN radio for political news, and the rest of the time I listen to music.

Speaking of censorship, how... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Speaking of censorship, how did that attempt at censorship by Clinton and some democrat leaders in DC towards ABC go?

Are they still trying? *Snort*

Never forget that the ones who really want (and have attempted) true censorship are the ones who claim they hate it. Democrats.

Sorry, wasn't there a Reaga... (Below threshold)
jim:

Sorry, wasn't there a Reagan special that got kicked off the broadcast networks because of some conservative outroar?

That couldn't possibly be called censorship, though. After all, that outroar was raised by Republicans.

Our conclusion is tha... (Below threshold)

Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management. [...]

Who/what will determine who/what satisfies the "local participation" mandate? The "public trustee" concept is as ludicrous as a buggy whip inspector in a Toyota plant.

Bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine" will no doubt result in a dramatic restructuring of the radio industry....loss of more jobs, less choice as a result of fewer stations, and a more stratified audience. It will not accomplish what "progressives" want, which is to quiet conservative talk radio by giving artificially induced market advantage to "progessive" broadcast.

The market clearly shows that conservative talk radio sells ( that means revenue) and "progressive" (read:liberal) does not sell. The "progressive" talk radio does not sell for lack of opportunity but for lack of audience. Decide for yourself why there is no audience. Broadcast radio is one of the most opportunistic industries around. "Progressive " talk can't make it there.

But if the liberals mandate change via the Fairness Doctrine it will result in nothing more than a national wack a mole experiment with conservative talk. Where will conservative talk go? Nowhere. Where will Clear Channel, Citadel and other station owner profits go? Down. What will they do in response? They will open new venues to sell the conservative talk that they can't make room for on broadcast...internet, sat radio etc.

MantisI can ... (Below threshold)

Mantis

I can only speculate, but considering that there are almost as many "progressive" content stations as "conservative" content stations here in Chicago (see the Think Progress map), my guess is dipshit management. They actually did pretty well for a new station in a bunch of markets, but they had financing problems from the beginning.

Content and audience will cure a lot of problems like undercapitalization...even " dipshit management". But no amount of money will cure a product that won't sell. Throwing money at that type of problem is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Paul, just tell me where th... (Below threshold)
jim:

Paul, just tell me where the Think Progress article you posted said anything about "using government policy to silence a political group".

It's not that my vocabulary is better. It's that you're inserting entire words and entire ***concepts that don't even exist in article you're referencing.

I'm telling you those words aren't in there. You can interpret from your subjective world all you want - but they don't exist in the article.

OK Lee since you lied in th... (Below threshold)
Paul:

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.

>Paul, just tell me where t... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>Paul, just tell me where the Think Progress article you posted said anything about "using government policy to silence a political group".

heh- The devil is in the details my friend. That was a blog post about a pdf. Read the pdf my friend.
(Or it has been cut above a few times)

What Think Progress is talk... (Below threshold)
jim:

What Think Progress is talking about, is the notion that:

a) big corporations love conservatism, because it means less taxes and less restrictions on their corporate power

b) therefore, big corporations buying media saturation means that big corporations give conservatism a media saturation and "bully pulpit" it otherwise would not have, if it were just up to the local areas

c) therefore, restricting the amount of stations in a given area that can be owned by a big corporation will limit that amount of big-corporation sponsored voice, that drowns out *whatever** the legitimate voices of the local areas might be.

Note that the immigration debate hasn't been seriously treated by our mass corporate media. One of the many reasons for this is that the big corporations want and ***love*** that cheap illegal immigrant labor, and don't care what it does to America to keep it happening.

Also note, that if local areas have a market that supports conservative radio, then that conservative radio will remain. A corporation won't be able to maintain a voice in say Peoria that can't compete, because they're making enough extra money in Dallas to maintain the Peoria station at a loss, just to keep down the competition.

Jim, you're welcome to do t... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Jim, you're welcome to do the true false test also.

Well said, Paul. Reading c... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Well said, Paul. Reading comprehension problems have outed our slower-witted leftists.

You'd have to be ignorant of the operation and effect of the Fairness Doctrine not to understand how that would limit or possibly cause a replacement of conservative speakers, in favor of another, likely liberal, point of view.

I mean, Chrissakes, it's the whole point of the friggin' article.

Where did you lefties go to college, if you in fact did?????

Paul, I read it. Y... (Below threshold)
jim:

Paul, I read it.

Your statement isn't in it, and the interpretation you have doesn't follow, at least to the degree that you've overblown it as "using government policy to silence a political group".

It simply does not.

No... What think progress i... (Below threshold)
Paul:

No... What think progress is talking about is "The Right Wing Domination Of Talk Radio And How To End It"

The tool of choice is government.

Do you deny this?

>Paul, I read it.>... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>Paul, I read it.

>Your statement isn't in it

True false Jim... True false.

You'd have to be ignoran... (Below threshold)
jim:

You'd have to be ignorant of the operation and effect of the Fairness Doctrine not to understand how that would limit or possibly cause a replacement of conservative speakers, in favor of another, likely liberal, point of view.

Oh, please.

Does this mean that the Reagan era repeal of the Fairness Doctrine was intended to suppress liberal voices, then?

I'm expecting that your answer will somehow be no, because that might mean that conservatives would be in fault in some way.

Here is the problem Lee. T... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Here is the problem Lee. The goal is to decrease the domination of Conservative talk radio. That can only be done two ways, 1) reduce the number of hours that Conservative talk radio is on the air through government intervention, but that is NOT censorship, or 2) increase the amount of Liberal talk radio so that the difference is not so profound.

The article makes it sound like they are promoting option 2 by making it more diverse. But each market can support only a limited number of radio stations. So to get a more diverse market, they force companies to sell off their radio stations so that Lee's black woman can own her radio station.

How is that not the government forcing somebody off the air? I don't seem to understand how the government can say that a company must sell it's radio stations in a particular market and yet they are not taking somebody off the air.

For example, let's say Clear Channel owns two stations in Anytown USA, WXYZ-AM and WCON-AM. WCON has Hannity and WCON carries Hannity. Anytown only has 8 total stations. According to the report Clear Channel can only own 1 station in Anytown. So they have to sell one. Which one do they pick? WXYZ or WCON?

According to Lee they sell WXYZ-AM to some black woman who can put on anything she wants, so she decides on an Urban Contemporary format. What happened to Limbaugh? Where did he go? He's not on the air in Anytown anymore?

There are only 6 other stations in Anytown. What if none of them can afford Limbaugh, or Limbaugh doesn't fit into their format? Limbaugh is now off the air in Anytown. How is that not censorship when the government FORCES a radio station to be sold?

OK, Paul, here's your true/... (Below threshold)
jim:

OK, Paul, here's your true/false test. It has the missing statement that you're implying, out in the open.

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

True.

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

True.

And here's your third unconscious connection, out front now:

3) This is censorship.

FALSE.

Having the government restrict huge corporate ownership of stations, so that local areas can be served to a greater degree by local stations, is not censorship. It is the opposite - it is opening up of the public arena to smaller, local voices which otherwise will be drowned out by huge megacorporations.

Jima) big co... (Below threshold)

Jim

a) big corporations love conservatism, because it means less taxes and less restrictions on their corporate power

If that's true, how did the Democrats hold power for so long until 1994? How did the Democrats hold sway over tax policy and regulation for fifty years?
Here's a little secret for you....big corporations love POWER and WHOEVER holds it. Got to www.opensecrets.org and do some research.

c) therefore, restricting the amount of stations in a given area that can be owned by a big corporation will limit that amount of big-corporation sponsored voice, that drowns out areas might be*whatever** the legitimate voices of the local

That's laughable, Jim. Do you think Mr. and Mrs. Jones, who own WXYX in Anytown,USA are going to turn their nose up at higher ad rates paid by Proctor and Gamble than ad rates paid by Joe's Hardware Store? Mr. and Mrs. Jones SOLD OUT to Clear Channel and Cumulus with no government influence whatsoever. They SOLD OUT and didn't look back to monitor "legitamate local voices".


I mean, what are you guys a... (Below threshold)
jim:

I mean, what are you guys afraid of?

If more local media can speak, won't that mean more homegrown conservatives will get the chance to share their views in the marketplace?

What have you got to be afraid of?

I mean, it's almost like you think in some way that conservatives don't reflect the majority of Americans, and will continue to need big-corporations-provided bully pulpits in order to continue being heard.

Jim said, "Sorry, wasn't th... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Jim said, "Sorry, wasn't there a Reagan special that got kicked off the broadcast networks because of some conservative outroar?"

Jim don't be dense. Understand the differences here. The Reagan movie was removed because of public outrage not the government. The government had nothing to do with it. CBS made the decision on their own.

The report discusses having the government decide what radio stations are allowed in any given market, and what content is on the radio station. Read what the report says, a station that doesn't provide "Fair and Balanced" views will be fined. That is the government dictating to a radio station what it can have on the air.

Just because it doesn't say it in so many words doesn't make it false. For example, 1 inch cube of Jim weighs more than a 1 inch cube of lead.

Paul, I'm not sure what "th... (Below threshold)
tas:

Paul, I'm not sure what "three questions above" you are referring to. if they are part of the comments thread, you'll have to tell me which comment -- I haven't followed the whole thread. Hardly ever do with these things... Generally, I have the time to air my own points, run off and do other things I need to do then check back later.

Also, I don't think your attack of calling me a "liar" was necessary -- especially since I haven't attacked you. If anything, I think I've brought up some fair points which you haven't attempted to address. And I pointed out how the arguments of media ownership that Think Progress brought up influenced the dismissal of a neutral, registered Republican local host in my area.

If anything, Paul, you've brought up a definition of censorship that has more applications than what you've intended. You claim that Think Progress wants to censor rightwing talk radio by changing the structure of radio station ownership; thus if the government institutes new laws about who can own how many radio stations, then the government is censoring hosts. Conversely, if the government allows too few individuals to own too many radio stations, haven't they, by your very definition, censored other hosts? And in a similar vein, by the government making the operation of small, low watt neighborhood radio stations illegal (at the behast of large radio station owners, who lobby to make sure such small stations stay illegal), is the government not, by your very definition, partaking in censorship?

It's your argument that changes to ownership rules equals government censorship. I've applied that argument to other situations. How can censorship not exist in these cases, too?

I call BS Jim...OK... (Below threshold)
Paul:

I call BS Jim...

OK let's add a third true false....

The "progressive" want the government to decided who gets on the air based on political ideology.

True/false.

Do you think Mr. and Mr... (Below threshold)
jim:

Do you think Mr. and Mrs. Jones, who own WXYX in Anytown,USA are going to turn their nose up at higher ad rates paid by Proctor and Gamble than ad rates paid by Joe's Hardware Store?

Of course they won't, Hugh. That's the point. That's why the free market requires regulation to manage. An unrestricted free market always tends towards consolidation and eventual monopoly, which means an **end*** to competition, innovation, and having services and products oriented towards the customer's specific needs.

So the only solution to this, in this case, is to not permit huge corporations to buy out Mr. and Mrs. Jones.

That's the entire point.

...and tried to bu... (Below threshold)
John in CA:
...and tried to build an audience a little more humbly, they could have been successful (and might still be).

AirAmerika tried to start a top down operation. Instead of starting in a few markets and building their brand, they tried to start as a "mature" company. Of course, they couldn't start out small because they paid the talent too much money and they had absurd staff costs. I saw reported that Al Franken's executive producer made $600,000 per year! Do you think Rush's or Hannity's executive producers make that kind of coin? I doubt it.

My speculation as to why liberal radio doesn't do as well as conservative radio? Simple: liberals listen to NPR.

Every liberal talk show that tries to make it and fails should be pissed about NPR. It's hard to compete with a taxpayer subsidized radio network.

Of course, liberals think that news and reporting should be an altruistic pursuit and making money and profit should be secondary. Well, that is unless you are an AirAmerika employee, then you should get paid more than the industry norm for your weak ratings.

Personally, I don't care if NPR kills every attempt at liberal talk radio startups. I just want the federal government to stop subsidizing it. And PBS.

"And in a similar vein, by ... (Below threshold)
Eric:

"And in a similar vein, by the government making the operation of small, low watt neighborhood radio stations illegal (at the behast of large radio station owners, who lobby to make sure such small stations stay illegal), is the government not, by your very definition, partaking in censorship? "

But that is NOT what the CAP article argues in favor of. It doesn't argue in favor of adding more stations it argues in favor of changing the ownership of existing stations by government mandate and by having the government fine stations that do not neet an arbitrary definition of fair and balanced.

ok tas, you're probably rig... (Below threshold)
Paul:

ok tas, you're probably right.... but I will stand behind this....

Anyone who reads this plan and say it is not an attempt at government censorship of talk radio will lie about other things too. ;-)

Jim says: "That's why the ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Jim says: "That's why the free market requires regulation to manage."

Tells you all you need to know.

You're definitely right in ... (Below threshold)
jim:

You're definitely right in that Big Business hearts the Democrats too, and will deal with anyone in power.

However, I think it's hard to deny that Big Business prefers the Republicans to Democrats.

If that's true, how did the Democrats hold power for so long until 1994? How did the Democrats hold sway over tax policy and regulation for fifty years?

Because the Democrats held the approval of the common voting public, to a higher degree. Then in 1994, allegations of corruption, and a sleeping bunch of Democratic voters who weren't paying attention to the midterms, got them out of power.

Don't get me wrong - Clinton was greatly beloved by Big Business, as well. Just saying that, of the two, Big Business prefers conservatives because it's more likely to be in their interest.

And if they own a media outlet, you'd better believe they'll be encouraging what's in their bottom-line interest.

Don't you agree?

JimI mean, wha... (Below threshold)

Jim
I mean, what are you guys afraid of?

Nothing. Their is nothing wrong with the current state of the broadcast industry.
Why do you want to change it?

If more local media can speak

Local media HAS SPOKEN. They sold to Clear Channel, Cumulus and Citadel.

Now, if you want to widen the broadcast spectrum so that there are more broadcast stations then I'm all for it. Come on in, the water is warm.

Put the shovel down, Jim.

Eric, don't you be dense. I... (Below threshold)
jim:

Eric, don't you be dense. In my comment on the Reagan miniseries, I'm responding to Jo's comment:

Speaking of censorship, how did that attempt at censorship by Clinton and some democrat leaders in DC towards ABC go?

Are they still trying? *Snort

The cases of the "Reagans" miniseries and the ABC anti-Clinton miniseries are clearly very similar.

From the article.I... (Below threshold)
Eric:

From the article.

In terms of local ownership, no one entity should control more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations in a given market, or
specifically, more than:
- Four commercial stations in large markets (a radio market with 45 or more commercial radio stations).
- Three stations in mid-markets (between 30 and 44 total commercial radio stations).
- Two stations in smaller markets (between 15 and 29 total commercial radio stations).
- One station in the smallest markets (14 or fewer total commercial radio stations).

The "progressive" want t... (Below threshold)
jim:

The "progressive" want the government to decided who gets on the air based on political ideology.

False!!!

Clearly, utterly false. Thank you for bringing this up.

The "progressive" ... (Below threshold)
Paul:
The "progressive" want the government to decided who gets on the air based on political ideology.

False!!!

Clearly, utterly false. Thank you for bringing this up.

No, thank YOU Jim. You have proven you're a hopeless hack who will lie for political points.

Your last reply ends it for me. You've said it all.

"Eric, don't you be dense. ... (Below threshold)
Eric:

"Eric, don't you be dense. In my comment on the Reagan miniseries, I'm responding to Jo's comment:"

Hey dummy, that wasn't clear in your post. You didn't reference her post at all. What am I a mind reader?

Hugh, you put down the shov... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hugh, you put down the shovel.

Eric, the essence of the Fairness Doctrine is that opposing viewpoints must be expressed as well, or the station will pay a fine, which will be used to fund public broadcasting.

This is not censorship. The station can still say whatever it wants. It just has to give some time to an opposing viewpoint as well.

Jim just so everyone knows ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Jim just so everyone knows where you stand, I'll use the space to remind everyone the title of the post....

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

Yeah, it has nothing to do with political ideology at all. Just ask Jim.

Hey Paul, doesn't it seem l... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Hey Paul, doesn't it seem like their entire argument is "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

Fine, Eric; I commented rig... (Below threshold)
jim:

Fine, Eric; I commented right after hers, but I should have quoted it in itals as I do usually.

Lee and the rest of the "re... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Lee and the rest of the "regressives". Do you understand commercial enterprise? I doubt it. If you want to hear the lies of the left over the airwaves, fund it yourselves. If there was a market for that message, the money people who fund your communist credo. If G. Soros wants to fund the message, let him do it. Problem with you people is you want to use my dollar against me. NPR is a perfect example. Let the effort stand on its own. If it is viable it will survive the market, if not, oh well. People like lee, jfo, lurkin, et al, claim to love freedom, yet they do not wish to extend it to others who disagree with them. One need only look at the source of this legislation to understand its purpose, and it is not free speech. If you are a right thinker, try to post and Kos.

Paul, the meat of your accu... (Below threshold)
jim:

Paul, the meat of your accusation is that this is **censorship**.

The meat of those arguing with you, is that this is ***not censorship***.

Having the government regulate a media that has become one-sided due to market consolidation and anti-competitive monopolistic forces, is not in and of itself censorship. Furthermore, increasing and protecting the power of locals over their own media markets ***without*** megacorp saturation, is increasing and aiding competition **and** increasing service to locals also.

As I said, if you're so sure conservatism is a better ideology, then you have nothing to fear, right? Conservatism will dominate even better if it's compared directly next to those awful Liberal arguments, isn't that correct?

JimBecause t... (Below threshold)

Jim

Because the Democrats held the approval of the common voting public, to a higher degree. Then in 1994, allegations of corruption, and a sleeping bunch of Democratic voters who weren't paying attention to the midterms, got them out of power.

ROFL...! "to a higher degree"? I swear, a conservative could not make this stuff up! Voters "who weren't paying attention"? "Allegations "....got them out of power?

Your entire viewpoint denigrates the individual, both conservative and liberal.

You can do better than "the dog ate my homework"!

"Eric, the essence of the F... (Below threshold)
Eric:

"Eric, the essence of the Fairness Doctrine is that opposing viewpoints must be expressed as well, or the station will pay a fine, which will be used to fund public broadcasting.

This is not censorship. The station can still say whatever it wants. It just has to give some time to an opposing viewpoint as well. "

Jim THAT is the point. Let's say a station is 24 hours of Conservative talk radio. The Fairness Doctrine says that the station must carry 12 hours of Conservative talk and 12 hours of Liberal talk. What happens to the other 12 hours of Conservative hosts who now have to be off the air?

That is an example of the government telling the radio station what it can and can't air. That is censorship.

I am opposed to it even when they are talking about liberal stations. WPTK-AM in Seattle is 18 hours of Progressive content with 0 hours of Conservative content. The Fairness Doctrine would apply to them as well. They'll have to put on at least 18 hours a day of Conservative content too. Wait a second, 18 + 18 = a 36 hour day. Hmmmm????

So Hugh, you're suggesting ... (Below threshold)
jim:

So Hugh, you're suggesting Democrats were in power because they held the voting public's respect to a ***lesser*** degree???

As for 1994, I'm telling you from personal experience. A lot of me and my friends, Democratic voters all, weren't paying attention, and didn't think they needed to vote. The loss of Congress took us by surprise.

I see you're at least backing away from your notion that Big Business hearts the Democrats more than it hearts the GOP.

Jim, do you really want to ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Jim, do you really want to open up the air waves to EVERYONE that has a differing point of view? Do you even know how chaotic that would be? Of course you do. Dems thrive in chaos.

The liberals cannot compete in the free market so they try tricks to get what they want. Just about everyone here understands what is up with this but you and Lee. Why is that? ww

What happens to the oth... (Below threshold)
jim:

What happens to the other 12 hours of Conservative hosts who now have to be off the air?

They'll now have to go to a Liberal station - because a liberal station will need to have them, or give a fee to public broadcasting.

Furthermore, I don't see anything requiring a 50/50 split.

Furthermore, I don't see anything about the fee to PBS being particularly crushing.

Finally, this is not censorship.

No, thank YOU Jim. You h... (Below threshold)
jim:

No, thank YOU Jim. You have proven you're a hopeless hack who will lie for political points.

So if I agree with you, then you're right.

And if I disagree with you, then I'm lying and you're still right.

Your last reply ends it for me. You've said it all.

Indeed.

Anyone who reads this pl... (Below threshold)
tas:

Anyone who reads this plan and say it is not an attempt at government censorship of talk radio will lie about other things too. ;-)

Heh. I'd say it's more of a gamble than anything else... It's a group esentially saying, "If the government rules on radio station ownership change to a structure that's more fair, more hosts that we like well get on the air." As it stands, groups like Think Progress think that the government rules are weighted against them. If these rules are revamped -- in this case, if big corporations aren't allowed to gobble up tons of radio stations -- then talk radio stands a chance of becoming more diverse. Diverse, in this case, means that more non-conservative voices will be allowed on the air.

But, by law, owners of radio stations are still allowed to put whomever they want on the air. If the market still clamors for conservative shows like Limbaugh, that's what it's going to get.

Looking beyond what Think Progress thinks about these laws, in general, I think it's better to rest the ownership of media in the hands of many rather than the hands of the few. I've always thought that. All opinions should be allowed, not just those of the Rush Limbuagh show.

Talk radio has become very homogenized. It's cheaper for a radio station to purchase a syndicated show than it is to pay a local host a salary with benefits and vacation time, and when a radio station is owned by a publicly traded corporation who answers to its stock holders first, it's easy to predict the outcome of what happens to many local shows. Maybe I'm a young guy who's old fashioned, but I do think that a local radio station should try to reflect the local flavor of a community, and we're seeing that less and less on the airwaves these days. That's a bit of a shame.

And with the flavor of the local community comes all sides in political conversations. If anything -- and maybe Think Progress doesn't predict this -- but I think if the government revamps radio station ownership rules, it would bring more conservative voices on the air. More liberal voices, too. Just more voices in general.

Jim, do you really want ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jim, do you really want to open up the air waves to EVERYONE that has a differing point of view?

No. Just the top 2 and occasionally 3 views will be fine. Furthermore, I doubt that people's opinions on non-political subjects, such as the current terrible state of rock music, will need more than 1 viewpoint.

Do you even know how chaotic that would be? Of course you do. Dems thrive in chaos.

Well, ww, life is chaos.

All those in favor of the F... (Below threshold)
Eric:

All those in favor of the Fairness Doctrine please explain how WPTK-AM in Seattle and KQKE-AM in San Francisco will be required to operate under the Fairness Doctrine.

Just to reiterate. WPTK-AM in Seattle features 18 hours of Progressive content and 0 hours of Conservative content.

KQKE-AM in SanFrancisco features 24 hours of Progressive content and 0 hours of Conservative content.

Should those stations be required to change their formats? Should those stations be required to include Conservative content? If they have to include Conservative content what progressive content gets reduced?

Clear Channel owns KQKE. Clear Channel owns the majority of the stations in San Francisco. In order to have ownership diversity shouldn't Clear channel sell one of their stations? What if the decision is to sell KQKE-AM to a black woman who wants to make it urban contemporary. Is that okay?

JimI see you... (Below threshold)

Jim

I see you're at least backing away from your notion that Big Business hearts the Democrats more than it hearts the GOP.

No needs to put words in my mouth. I'm backing away from nothing: in fact, specifically identify my retreat from any point I've made.

So Hugh, you're suggesting Democrats were in power because they held the voting public's respect to a ***lesser*** degree???

Read what you wrote; then understand irony.

Because the Democrats held the approval of the common voting public, to a higher degree.

The loss of Congress took us by surprise.

This is where you lose the intellectual honest argument. Mainstream Democratic voters were paying as much attention in 1994 as Republican voters were in 2006. The results are what they are. That's the really great things about elections, and for that matter, private markets: people vote their beliefs and pocketbooks, and the results COUNT.


>It's a group esentially sa... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>It's a group esentially saying, "If the government rules on radio station ownership change to a structure that's more fair, more hosts that we like well get on the air." As it stands, groups like Think Progress think that the government rules are weighted against them.

No read the whole thing... It goes beyond that. They want do decided who is "fair and balanced" and fine those who they deem are not.

This isn't about big coprorations, it is about ideology...

======

Let's pretend everything you say is true about syndication leading to less local radio (which I agree with but forget that for a moment)

Why can't national hosts be liberal? Many have tried (and failed) My local talk radio station hired [syndicated] some idiot who was one of the "liberal answers to Rush Limbaugh" back in the day.... He was horrible.

The station management literally had to apologize to the city for playing politics instead of hiring someone with talent.

The myth is that National media won't hire libs... Bull Shit. I can list 50 "Liberal answers to Rush Limbaugh" that stations crammed down listeners ears for a few months before they pulled the plug.

The "local radio" stuff is B.S. READ THE PDF...

They want to fine stations if they don't play hosts that meet their gaols of political ideology.

"Furthermore, I don't see a... (Below threshold)
Eric:

"Furthermore, I don't see anything requiring a 50/50 split."

"clear mandates to support local news and public affairs programming and to cover controversial and political issues in a fair and balanced manner."

If you have 24 hours of talk radio whether it is 24 hours of Progressive talk or Conservative talk how do you achieve BALANCE between the two? 20 hours of one and 4 hours of the other? No the only way to get BALANCE is to split the time 50/50. So a 24 hour talk station would have to be 12 hours of Progressive talk and 12 hours of Conservative talk to cover controversial and political topics in fair and balanced manner.

I'm backing away from no... (Below threshold)
jim:

I'm backing away from nothing: in fact, specifically identify my retreat from any point I've made.

OK, Hugh.

I stated:

big corporations love conservatism, because it means less taxes and less restrictions on their corporate power

You disagreed with me, stating:

If that's true, how did the Democrats hold power for so long until 1994? How did the Democrats hold sway over tax policy and regulation for fifty years?

Here you are saying I must be wrong that Big business loves conservatism, because the Dems were in power until 1994. (I answered specificaly why I thought the Dems held power and then lost it; that continues in a separate thread.)

hit post to early...to cont... (Below threshold)
jim:

hit post to early...to continue, Hugh, I then stated:

You're definitely right in that Big Business hearts the Democrats too, and will deal with anyone in power.

However, I think it's hard to deny that Big Business prefers the Republicans to Democrats....Don't you agree?

You didn't respond to this, so I took that as your backing away from the notion that Big Business hearts conservatism because they feel it means less restraint on them and their profits.

I mean, do you disagree with that? It just seems to be how it is, to me.

The ultimate goal is to dri... (Below threshold)
Eric:

The ultimate goal is to drive those Conservative stations out of business. If they don't play by the new rules and include opposing viewpoints, then the stations are fined = loss of revenue.

What happens if they play by the rules and put on opposing viewpoints but lose listeners. See the success of Air America, that = loss of revenues.

The goal here is to ultimately drive any profits out of talk radio. Since the majority of talk radio is Conservative they will gladly sacrifice the few Progressive stations to kill the Conservative dominance.

Eric, I think all of those ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Eric, I think all of those options are fine and fair. I'm not familiar on the exact way the Fairness Doctrine operates, but those stations can either do exactly the same that conservative stations do, or pay fines that fund PBS. So, sure.

Clearwater dominates the market too much, in a lot of ways. I'm sick of hearing generic music all over the country because it's bland enough to sell anywhere. I'd much more there were regional artists of all sorts. I don't listen to country, but I imagine Clearwater has had a watering-down impact on country that's about as bad as it's had on rock.

Jim, Lee any of the left wi... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Jim, Lee any of the left wingers on this thread I really would like to hear your opinion about how the Fairness Doctrine and the CAP article applies to the stations I listed above.

JimHowever, ... (Below threshold)

Jim

However, I think it's hard to deny that Big Business prefers the Republicans to Democrats....Don't you agree?

No, I don't agree with it. That's why I POINTED YOU to opensecrets.org

Jim, any serious opinion on where business places it's bets on politics can be found in opensecrets.org.

Go there now. Run, don't walk. See where Big Business puts its money where its mouth is. And no, I'm not going to give you the easy link for the same reason your high school English teacher made you research your first term paper. The best exercise in learning is to ferret it out yourself. Or, as one of the blogosphere's most famous said, read it all.

BTW JimEric,... (Below threshold)

BTW Jim

Eric, I think all of those options are fine and fair. I'm not familiar on the exact way the Fairness Doctrine operates, but those stations can either do exactly the same that conservative stations do, or pay fines that fund PBS. So, sure.

Clearwater dominates the market too much, in a lot of ways.

Who is Clearwater? If they're dominating a regional radio market, they're doing it under the radar, which is almost impossible...no, it is impossible.

Jim, why should any station pay a fine to a fund that subsidizes PBS? Tax payers already fund PBS operating deficits. Why should private industry do this?

JimWho is Cl... (Below threshold)

Jim

Who is Clearwater?

My bad. You mean John Fogarty? I confess I'll concede this point. CCR can dominate any market almost on the level as Sinatra.

The AM wake up song should be "Up Around the Bend" and the evening sign off "Lookin Out my Back Door"

Go there now. Run, don't... (Below threshold)
jim:

Go there now. Run, don't walk.

No, Hugh. When I am questioned on something, I go and find the research that supports it, and posts it. You can do the same.

And Hugh - pointing me to a... (Below threshold)
jim:

And Hugh - pointing me to an entire site to dig myself, doesn't count as supporting your argument.

CCR is indeed a group that ... (Below threshold)
jim:

CCR is indeed a group that deserves to saturate rock stations. More so than John Forgety, IMHO.

But I'm referring to Clearwater Media Group. which owns many stations in many markets across the US.

No, Hugh. When I am q... (Below threshold)

No, Hugh. When I am questioned on something, I go and find the research that supports it, and posts it. You can do the same
I go and find the research that supports it.
b>

Support what, your opinion?


Good enough Jim. After you have examined opensecrets.org you might want to look at EDGAR, the SEC reporting service. The confluence of business and politics is a crowded intersection. Or you can read the Wall Street Journal for several years.

My fellow Conservatives,</p... (Below threshold)

My fellow Conservatives,

It is clear that the lefty trolls here fall into one of two categories.

(a) Those that know what the Fairness Doctrine will do. These will refuse to admit it since it amounts to de facto government censorship, which they claim to oppose.

(b) Those that do not understand the Fairness Doctrine. These will continue to spew lefty talking points rather than consider the reality of what it will do; whether out of lack of capability to understand or willing blindness, I cannot specify.

Therefore, it is a waste of bandwidth to try and reason with these people, since neither group is capable of being reasoned with.

Clear Channel... (Below threshold)
Correction:

Clear Channel

>No, Hugh. When I am questi... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>No, Hugh. When I am questioned on something, I go and find the research that supports it, and posts it.

LOL man that was funny... you owe me a keyboard cuz the Coke came out my nose when I laughed and got all over it.

Tell ya what... Go get the evidence they don't want to pick who gets on the air by political ideology and post that would ya? -- Because they say they do.

Heh. I apologize. Totally m... (Below threshold)
jim:

Heh. I apologize. Totally my bad. I meant Clear Channel, of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_channel

Ooops - and wrong link! Tim... (Below threshold)
jim:

Ooops - and wrong link! Time to leave work...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Channel_Communications

Tell you what, Paul - go he... (Below threshold)
jim:

Tell you what, Paul - go here and find something that supports you and proves me wrong.

http://mediamatters.org

Otherwise, you're wrong because I say you are.

JimAnd Hugh ... (Below threshold)

Jim

And Hugh - pointing me to an entire site to dig myself, doesn't count as supporting your argument.

That's what is so bothersome about liberals Jim, you want a quick snappy little answer to a polemic when the volumn of evidence against your position has been studied and put into practice by your adversaries. Which is, in a nutshell, why liberals like you fear conservative media. Conservatives had no media voice all the way back to the 1950's until Buckley wrote
"God and Man at Yale"; then the National Review, which was a only a small print publication. Conservatives inherited NO media presence that is dominant today. Liberals inherited entire media empires, which are crumbling today. So the argument about the Fairness Doctrine sound a lot like spoied children demanding their inheritance from parents who squandered their intellectual wealth for decades just as the poor kid down the street pulled himself up by the intellectual bootstraps.

So, Hugh, you're really of ... (Below threshold)
jim:

So, Hugh, you're really of the opinion that big business overall prefers the Democrats to the GOP?

Just want to make sure that's what you're saying.

Tell you what, Paul - go he... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Tell you what, Paul - go here and find something that supports you and proves me wrong.

http://mediamatters.org

Otherwise, you're wrong because I say you are.
===============

You're a compliment to fuzzy headed liberals everywhere.

That's what is so bother... (Below threshold)
jim:

That's what is so bothersome about liberals Jim, you want a quick snappy little answer to a polemic when the volumn of evidence against your position has been studied and put into practice by your adversaries.

Sorry I demand evidence for your stated position, Hugh.

At least, though, you should have no trouble coming up with some evidence, snappy or no. Since the "volume of evidence" you mention supposedly supports you.

Thanks, Paul. :)... (Below threshold)
jim:

Thanks, Paul. :)

JimSo, Hugh,... (Below threshold)

Jim

So, Hugh, you're really of the opinion that big business overall prefers the Democrats to the GOP?

I told you once not to to put words in my mouth. You apparantly don't have an attention span sufficient to carry on this argument. Read the thread.

Sure, Hugh. Conservatives h... (Below threshold)
jim:

Sure, Hugh. Conservatives had no representation in the Media before the 1950's. That's how Hoover got elected, Unions were demonized, segregation was defended, teaching evolution was fought against...

Hugh, you apparently prefer... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hugh, you apparently prefer being insulting to making a clear statement about where you stand.

That's your choice.

However, don't blame your poor communication on my attention span. Simply state your position, or state the specific post you've made which answers my question.

By the way, Hugh, you'll no... (Below threshold)
jim:

By the way, Hugh, you'll notice I pointed out to you my source for the fact that Democratic voter turnout was down in 1994, which supports my contention that the Democratic voters weren't paying attention.

Just as a side note, of another argument you dropped after being very insultingly sure of your opinion, with no evidence supporting it.

Sorry I demand eviden... (Below threshold)

Sorry I demand evidence for your stated position, Hugh.

No Jim, go to the site and prove me wrong. Prove that Republicans are the primary servants of BIG BUSINESS. Prove that BIG BUSINESS defers to Republicans. Show me a trend that demonstrates such over decades...and don't disown your own Party during that term. OWN IT.

BTW, Jim, I can see why folks on this thread challenge your veracity. Read what you write.

JimSure... (Below threshold)

Jim

Sure, Hugh. Conservatives had no representation in the Media before the 1950's. That's how Hoover got elected, Unions were demonized, segregation was defended, teaching evolution was fought against...

Ummm, Jim, segregation was a Democratic Party Platform position until the Sixties and Wallace made it last until the late Sixties. Don't remember Goldwater, Nixon et al running on that.

Do you really want to argue about the predominating media influences in the latter half of the 20th century? For example, how "Hoover got elected"? Or the Scopes Trial? Or Communist infiltration of US unions?


Are you afraid of a modern day Randolph Hearst? He had a bully pulpit then; today you have CNNABCNBCCBSMSNBCNYTWP.

Hugh, it's not too much to ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hugh, it's not too much to ask that if you say I'm wrong, you at least go to the trouble to provide some evidence.

But, just because I have a little extra time here, fine. I'll do your own work for you.

Here, on your own site that you posted, are the facts that prove you wrong:

http://opensecrets.org/bigpicture/blio.asp?cycle=2004

2004 election:
Business - $672,278,568 to Dems, $832,497,466 to GOP.

This is a 45% Dem/ 55% GOP split.

2002 election:
Business - $429,221,128 to Dems, $576,882,248 to GOP.

This is a 43% Dem/ 57% GOP split.

2000 election:
Business - $513,466,271 to Dems, $705,068,823 to GOP

This is a 42% Dem/ 57% GOP split.
42%

Also notice that business funds are listed as being 70% of the total campaign funds. Which means that businesses have a larger say than anyone else as well - which is also freakin' obvious.

All of which shows business favors the Republican party. Which supports my argument that Big Business prefers conservatism because of conservatism's emphasis on deregulation and lower taxation - which is such a freakin' obvious statement that I'm still surprised you'd even challenge it.

But there you have it. I've refuted you. Now prove me wrong.

Umm, Hugh, just because seg... (Below threshold)
jim:

Umm, Hugh, just because segregation was a Democratic party issue, doesn't mean it wasn't a conservative issue. It was.

As a matter of fact, the pushing of integration was what made quite a few Democratic conservatives switch to the GOP, because they felt betrayed.

Are you seriously suggesting that preserving segregation was a liberal issue?

Do you really want to ar... (Below threshold)
jim:

Do you really want to argue about the predominating media influences in the latter half of the 20th century? For example, how "Hoover got elected"? Or the Scopes Trial? Or Communist infiltration of US unions?

Hey, we can argue whatever you want.

I'm just showing that your statement that there was no conservative representation in the *first* half of the 20th century, before Buckley in the 1950s, doesn't square up with history.

<a href="http://me... (Below threshold)
John in CA:
http://mediamatters.org

Otherwise, you're wrong because I say you are.

Posted by: jim at June 21, 2007 09:14 PM

You're using freakin' MediaMatters as a reference!? Bwaaaahahahaaaaa. That's hilarious. Another George Soros funded, Clintonista run, Hillary ASS covering, Hillary water carrying organization just like Center for American Progress is.

Hugh, taking rancor aside f... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hugh, taking rancor aside for a second: I think that a lot of conservatives view the mass media as liberal because of the socially liberal programming.

So if we make a distinction between social conservatism and fiscal conservatism, I think it becomes a little clearer.

Businesses like to make money. Sex sells. Therefore sexually titillating programs of all sorts, which conservatives would justifiably state are socially liberal, are on TV a lot.

For the same reason that businesses like to make money. Standard fiscal conservatism almost always tends towards less government regulation of businesses, less taxes on businesses, and more tax breaks to the rich via supply-side economics. These views are much more likely to be seen on mass media than otherwise, because they are the views the bosses would like to see prevalent in the media.

It is for these reasons that I personally feel the mass media really got behind the invasion and occupation of Iraq: they thought it would be great for their own self-interest. And no war ever occurs when the power elites of our countries think it's ***against*** their self-interest, regardless of any other factors.

Neither of these are conspiracies in any way. It's just a matter of people who work in companies, making products that their bosses approve of.

John CA, I think you're mis... (Below threshold)
jim:

John CA, I think you're missing the joke. I picked that website particularly because knew even being there would irritate Paul too much to research there...

Tell me a word that mean... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Tell me a word that means "using government policy to silence a political group" and I'll use that word instead.

How about "pogram"?--I mean, you'd have to stretch the meaning of "government policy" a bit, though...

Thanks Jim<a href=... (Below threshold)

Thanks Jim

http://opensecrets.org/bigpicture/blio.asp?cycle=2004

What a cynnical (and I'm being polite) ploy.Where did the money go in the year that Congress changed, 2006?

All of which shows business favors the Republican party.

All of which shows you ignore my point made in this thread that Congress deals with the party in power. That is an amateurish and disengenuous attempt to rebut my point.

I'm just showing that your statement that there was no conservative representation in the *first* half of the 20th century, before Buckley in the 1950s, doesn't square up with history.

Name five major Conservative media venues that competed on a level then with the NYT, CBS radio, or UPI. Or send me to a database and I'll look it up myself.

As a matter of fact, the pushing of integration was what made quite a few Democratic conservatives switch to the GOP

Name who and when.


Are you seriously suggesting that preserving segregation was a liberal issue?

It not only was but is today. Think about that Jim.

Sorry, wasn't there a Re... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Sorry, wasn't there a Reagan special that got kicked off the broadcast networks because of some conservative outroar?

The Republicans in Congress weren't hinting around at reviewing CBS's licenece.

What a cynnical (and I'm... (Below threshold)
jim:

What a cynnical (and I'm being polite) ploy.Where did the money go in the year that Congress changed, 2006?

Oh, come on! That's the site you referred to me!! I didn't see any 2006 overview figures there. You want 2006 figures, you find 'em!

How lazy can you be?

But I'm referring to Cle... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

But I'm referring to Clearwater Media Group. which owns many stations in many markets across the US.

Ahem.

ClearCHANNEL...idiot.

All of which shows you i... (Below threshold)
jim:

All of which shows you ignore my point made in this thread that Congress deals with the party in power.

No, I didn't ignore that point, at all. I agreed with it - and when you didn't see it, I posted that agreement *again*. So this is now the 3rd time I'm posting it.

Go read this from my post at 7:20, and then at 8:14 .

You're definitely right in that Big Business hearts the Democrats too, and will deal with anyone in power.

However, I think it's hard to deny that Big Business prefers the Republicans to Democrats.

Hey, James Cloninger - get ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hey, James Cloninger - get caught up. I already took that correction for Clearchannel; and the "Reagans" thing I'm mentioning is in response to Jo's comment.

Oh, come on! T... (Below threshold)


Oh, come on! That's the site you referred to me!! I didn't see any 2006 overview figures there. You want 2006 figures, you find 'em! How lazy can you be?b>

You're the lazy one Jim. You said....


So, Hugh, you're really of the opinion that big business overall prefers the Democrats to the GOP?

That was your point: I referenced a source...are you relying on me to footnote your argument? If my reference doesn't support your point then defend it yourself. Look it up yourself. Own your opinion.

my post at 7:20,<... (Below threshold)

my post at 7:20,

It was the "to a higher degree' that I took exception to. I made the clear in a later post.

That siad, I'm tired of parsing phrases and reminding you of what you said. Let the thread speak.

As a matter of fact, the... (Below threshold)
jim:

As a matter of fact, the pushing of integration was what made quite a few Democratic conservatives switch to the GOP

I am really surprised to hear you dispute this point, as well.

Once again, are you seriously suggesting that segregation was a liberal issue? Do you really think that's the case?

You say:
Name who and when.

Ok. How about Strom Thurmond, 1964? Jesse Helms, 1972?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat

"The Dixiecrats were a segregationist, populist, socially conservative splinter-party of the Democratic Party in the mid-20th century who were determined to protect what they saw as the southern "way of life" against an oppressive United States federal government....

"Republican Presidential Candidate Barry Goldwater carried the Deep South in 1964, despite losing in a landslide in the rest of the nation to President Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas. Johnson surmised that his advocacy behind passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would lose the South for the Democratic party and it did. When the Democrats pushed for civil rights, the Republicans reaped the political benefits of a Southern white backlash. The only Democratic presidential candidate after 1956 to solidly carry the Deep South was President Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election."

It was the "to a higher ... (Below threshold)
jim:

It was the "to a higher degree' that I took exception to. I made the clear in a later post.

Right. And I finally disproved this, from the information I found on the site that you referred.

There's no parsing of words here - you were disproven with facts that you wouldn't look up yourself.

So there you have it.

If my reference doesn't ... (Below threshold)
jim:

If my reference doesn't support your point then defend it yourself. Look it up yourself. Own your opinion.

Aaagh!

Dude, your reference supports my point! I'm calling on you, now, to either prove me wrong or acknowledge that you have not!

Jeez.

However, I think it's... (Below threshold)

However, I think it's hard to deny that Big Business prefers the Republicans to Democrats.

Look it up , 1945 -1999, as a percentage of total election funding.

Alright. Perhaps in the hea... (Below threshold)
jim:

Alright. Perhaps in the heat of argument, I misinterpreted your last couple of posts. If so, I apologize for that. The dust settles....

Hugh, I still think that if you say someone is wrong, you have an obligation to show why they are wrong in some way. As opposed to saying, "you're wrong - go here and look up how you're wrong."

But whatever.

I accept the fun of discussing this, whatever else, and I feel that I've learned a bit on these subjects by researching them. In all sincerity, a good evening to you all.

Well, the local radio stuff... (Below threshold)
tas:

Well, the local radio stuff wasn't B.S. because that was all my opinion, not that of Think Progress. And I'd like to think that I'm not full of B.S. :)

I did as you suggested, Paul, and read the PDF. I do agree that the results of the study go farther than what Think Progress posted about it to their blog, and the discussion of the FCC enforcing more "community standard" regulations does seem scary. Partly because the way the study describes this is so vague, but also because I think the FCC can be used for political purposes depending upon the administration in the White House. If, for example, President X is ramping up for a war and they don't want the media talking about proof that, uhm, let's say "Kittens of Mass Destruction" don't exist in the country that President X wants to invade, then I don't want President X strong arming the FCC into enforcing "community standards."

Or if President Y gets a little kitten in the oval office and it becomes a scandal, I wouldn't want President Y to dictate new "community standards," either.

In this respect, though, i also think that the study proposes a gamble. It basically says that if the FCC enforcess community standards, then more progressive talk will be on the air. But it really depends on the administration in office enforcing the rules -- that's why I wouldn't go for such regulations. It doesn't seem like Think Progress put much thought into this, and that's pretty shortsighted of them.

The study also uses Portland's radio market as an example, saying that there's a successful progressive talk station there, yet the owners of it also owner 4 other stations that air conservative talk. The study wonders why. I think the "why" is simple: Conservatives have been doing talk radio for a couple decades now, and progressives -- who are new to the game -- don't have as many hosts. And the hosts they do have suck. I try listening to Randy Rhodes, too, and though I often agree with her I find myself annoyed with her show. I know there are good liberal talk show hosts out there (I never minded Sam Seder), but the fact is that there's more conservative hosts. Not to say that some of them don't suck... I don't know if you've ever heard the Dennis Miller show, but egads...

Sorry, Hugh. You're going t... (Below threshold)
jim:

Sorry, Hugh. You're going to have to look that one up, add it up, and post it.

DudeMy name is hugh ... (Below threshold)

Dude
My name is hugh and I now know how old you are, or at least how old you are not.

Ok. How about Strom Thurmond, 1964? Jesse Helms, 1972?

You forgot Robert Byrd, Former Senate Majority Leader and former Ku Klux Klan Leader. Present member and leader in the U S Senate.

John CA, I think y... (Below threshold)
John in CA:
John CA, I think you're missing the joke. I picked that website particularly because knew even being there would irritate Paul too much to research there...

Posted by: jim at June 21, 2007 10:19 PM

Oh, I get the joke. It's all the liberals here trying to defend government censorship of talk radio.

Nevertheless, the point remains that even the CAP report is nothing but a cover for Hillary and George Soros' agenda. In light of the headline on DRUDGE indicating Hillary is in league with Babs Boxer (the stupidest member of the United States Senator) to get a legislative fix for talk radio.

Right now I am listening to one of the people involved with the CAP report we've been discussing all day. He's on air with John Ziegler of KFI (the #1 talk station in the US) and the guy has no idea of the idealogical bent of all the hosts on the station. They counted 13 hours of conservative talk (it's 14 hours if you count it as they did) and yet, the guy couldn't accurately identify the positions the local hosts have on most issues.

So, what was his cop out response? Oh, KFI is just not happy because Bush is not conservative enough...

You forgot Robert Byrd, ... (Below threshold)
jim:

You forgot Robert Byrd, Former Senate Majority Leader and former Ku Klux Klan Leader. Present member and leader in the U S Senate.

Sure, Byrd stayed in the Democratic party. What's that prove?

George Orwell would ADORE t... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

George Orwell would ADORE the Democrats!

The "Fairness Doctrine" would eliminate fairness! The fairness of competition in an open marketplace.

The "Employee Free Choice Act" would eliminate FREE CHOICE! By eliminating the secret ballot, a cornerstone of our system. Thus your "choice" would be monitored, and the subject of intimidation.

The Democrats DO know how to name stuff...don't they? The know that if the Republicans vote AGAINST either or bothof these the MSM will print headlines reading: "Republicans against FAIRNESS!" or "Republicans against FREE CHOICE!"

1984?? The Democrats have almost got us there...almost.

Orwellian misnaming as a De... (Below threshold)
jim:

Orwellian misnaming as a Democratic trademark...sure.

the "Clear Skies Act"...that reduces regulation on pollution, so the skies get dirtier.

the "No Child Left Behind" Act...that leaves kids behind if they attend under-performing schools, by pulling their funding and screwing the kids. (Special award should go for the subtle implication of the "Left Behind" novels for Christian fanatics....)

the "Healthy Forests Initiative"...that increases logging on national land.

"Patriot Act" - which reduces liberty in the name of security, giving unprecedented power to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government with an unprecedented lack of oversight from other branches.

And there's the whole "War on Terror" thing...you know, the one where the actual people who attacked us escaped because Bush had to invade Iraq? Don't get me started...

Jim, you said...<i... (Below threshold)

Jim, you said...

Once again, are you seriously suggesting that segregation was a liberal issue? Do you really think that's the case?

You then served up two Republican examples and left out a glaring example that rebuts your own point....former Klansman Senator Byrd. So yes, I'm seriously stating that segregation is still a liberal problem

tas said>In this r... (Below threshold)
Paul:

tas said

>In this respect, though, i also think that the study proposes a gamble.

Well, frankly there is little gamble if you are on the left.

If you accept their 90/10 split (which is inflated but Ok) No administration could -if these rules where in place- get more than a 60/40 split and a 55/45 is more likely. AT BEST

IOW the liberals feel they can only make gains from where they are today.

Well Jim,It looks ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Well Jim,

It looks like you and Lee are the only two people on the planet who can't admit this is censorship.

Man, you're in intellectually high company there. Wear that with honor dude.

heh

P

I also think it's a gamble ... (Below threshold)
tas:

I also think it's a gamble because it's a matter of policy -- this isn't mentioned in the study, but that's reality. "Commnuity standards" enforced by the FCC would be decided by whoever is residing in the White House, that's why I wouldn't trust it.

Now if Think Progress made the rules and also instituted the policy, then it wouldn't be a gamble. But that's not going to happen.

Paul wrote:Well... (Below threshold)
BC:

Paul wrote:

Well Jim,

It looks like you and Lee are the only two people on the planet who can't admit this is censorship.

Man, you're in intellectually high company there. Wear that with honor dude.

Well, you can put me down as well. There is "censorship" but not in the way you're thinking -- the FCC under Bush has thoroughly trashed proven past policies keeping corporations from monopolizing the media. The end results of the media conglomerates we now have are: less investigative, responsible journalism; more concern with ratings and ad revenue, hence more dumbing down and tabloid-like "coverage"; greater conservatism of the worst kind -- insufficient monitoring and investigation of the actions of government and big business; excessive control of news content by an increasingly smaller group of corporate entities; and the overall marginalization of traditional news coverage and diligent, skeptical reporting, which is an inherently liberal pursuit.

The overall result of all this is a homogenized blend of conservatism and tabloidism exemplified by Rupert Murdoch's little properties like Fox News and The New York Post. Conservative talk radio basically caters to a least common denominator audience that doesn't want complicated, messy stories or things that make them feel bad about themselves, their choices, or their country. Things like Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction will get editorial outrage, while things like Bush lying his ass off will pass with little or even no comment.

I think Sumner Redstone, who considers himself a "liberal Democrat," inadvertantly sums up how much of a problem is corporate media control with this reasoning he used to justify supporting Bush in the last go round: I look at the election from what's good for Viacom. I vote for what's good for Viacom. I vote, today, Viacom.

-BC

while things like Bush l... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

while things like Bush lying his ass off
About what?

>Well, you can put me down ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>Well, you can put me down as well.

ok you're ugly and your momma dresses you funny. - Hey, you told me to put you down.


>There is "censorship" but not in the way you're thinking

I'm thinking that the government will get to decided based on political ideology. That's called censorship you moron. (I am still supposed to be putting you down right?)

===============
>The overall result of all this is a homogenized blend of conservatism and tabloidism exemplified by Rupert Murdoch's little properties like Fox News and The New York Post.

And here we have the sum total of your intelligence. You complain about right wing media dominance and you mention exactly 2 media companies. Forgetting the whole rest of the liberal media.

You stupid retard. (too many put downs?)

Meanwhile BC it amazes me y... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Meanwhile BC it amazes me you wear the "I'm a clueless idiot" sign so willingly.

You then served up two R... (Below threshold)
jim:

You then served up two Republican examples and left out a glaring example that rebuts your own point....former Klansman Senator Byrd. So yes, I'm seriously stating that segregation is still a liberal problem

Well, that's an amazing bit of logic there.

How does Robert Byrd refute my own point? Because he was once a Klansman? You'll also note that he's repudiated that prior philosophy, as part of staying in the Democratic party. You'll also notice that Strom Thurmond **never** repudiated that philosophy, and he moved to the Republican party.

You seem to be saying that Democrat automatically equals liberal; and therefore Byrd staying Democrat means that segregation is liberal.

Do you honestly, seriously believe this? Really? Come on. This is history. Your party's history, even. The Democratic party's pushing of Civil Rights legislation at the Federal level, caused some of the first Republicans to be elected to Congress since the Reconstruction.

I guess I have to be even more clear:

Are you seriously suggesting that being pro-segregation was something liberals ***stood behind***? And that conservatives were instead ***pro-integration****??

You want more examples? How about Trent Lott?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Lott#Political_biography

"Lott was raised as a Democrat....Lott's party switch was part of a growing trend in the South. During the 1960s, cracks had begun to appear in the Democrats' "Solid South", as most white segregationists became more willing to vote Republican after the national Democratic Party strongly endorsed racial integration. For example, Barry Goldwater carried Mississippi by winning an unheard-of 87 percent of the popular vote even as he was routed nationally."

Can't you just admit you were wrong already? You're in a ridiculous position.

"And there's the whole "War... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"And there's the whole "War on Terror" thing...you know, the one where the actual people who attacked us escaped because Bush had to invade Iraq?"

You stupid retard. The ones that attacked us , those who hijacked the planes are fricken dead.

"actual people who attacked us escaped because Bush had to invade Iraq?"


I wish I could say that Bush just had to put a bullet in your head to put you out of your misery.

JimYour part... (Below threshold)

Jim

Your party's history, even.

My Party's history is the Party of Lincoln

Don't be so quick to forget your Party's yellow dog past. And my point is this: there have been many many segregationists in the Democratic Party. Of course Republicans have a segregationist history, but so do Democrats.

Democrats, particularly liberal Democrats are too quick to play the race card as they ignore the skeletons in their own closet.

As for the "Solid South", Reagan broke it in 1982 with his landmark tax rollbacks that gained the votes of Boll Weevil Dems.

BTW JimWe were talki... (Below threshold)

BTW Jim
We were talking about big business/corporate interests and how they gave.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.asp?Order=A&View=P

Study on this list for a while. Compare the purely corporate giving (AT&T for example) versus organized labor and 501(c)3 donors.

Veeshir wrote:"... (Below threshold)
BC:

Veeshir wrote:

"while things like Bush lying his ass off"

About what?

I dunno, maybe like, oh say, everything regarding Iraq since even before the invasion. For starters.

Paul wrote:

Meanwhile BC it amazes me you wear the "I'm a clueless idiot" sign so willingly.

Let Paul's response be a lesson to the rest of you about what happens when you combine agenda driven, corporate media control with lazy ass ignorance and uncritical thinking. And then made even worse by a room temperature IQ.

-BC

Here's something you can si... (Below threshold)
kim:

Here's something you can simmer over, BC. Talk radio and the Dextrosphere are interactive and dynamic; the Mainstream Media is dogmatic structurally with only one ethic portrayed and the Sinestrosphere is dogmatic rhetorically with only one ethic allowed.
================

BC, do you even realize how... (Below threshold)
Beeblebrox:

BC, do you even realize how idiotic your post looks?:

Let me analogize for you:

"Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, and Kennedy are all black slave owners.'

"Do you have specific proof?"

"I dunno, maybe like, oh say, everything regarding all their slave owning ways since even before they were elected. For starters."

I love it when someone is asked for specifics (i.e. specific Bush "lies") and the response is "everything".

Do people like BC even realize they look like total morons when they attempt this?

I'm no fan of Bush but I have asked in thread after thread on multiple forums for specific examples of "Bush Lies" and have yet to see a SINGLE example.

Beeblebrox broxed and analo... (Below threshold)
BC:

Beeblebrox broxed and analogized:

BC, do you even realize how idiotic your post looks?:

Let me analogize for you:

"Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, and Kennedy are all black slave owners.'

"Do you have specific proof?"

"I dunno, maybe like, oh say, everything regarding all their slave owning ways since even before they were elected. For starters."

I love it when someone is asked for specifics (i.e. specific Bush "lies") and the response is "everything".

Do people like BC even realize they look like total morons when they attempt this?

I'm no fan of Bush but I have asked in thread after thread on multiple forums for specific examples of "Bush Lies" and have yet to see a SINGLE example.

Well, that was some pretty durn "analogizing" ya did there. I wasn't aware I was asked to come up with specifics -- someone had just asked "about what?" in regards to Bush lying his ass off. My short 'n' sweet answer was pretty dead on: take ANY statement or speech of Bush that mentions Iraq and you will find everything from disingenuous deceit to outright, utter Big Lie BS.

Obviously you don't know how to Google intelligently or ever asked me to list the lies, because there are enough specifics about Bush's Iraqi lies to fill up a weeks worth of Wizbang posts and comments. The main trick is to compare and contrast available records indicating what Bush and his people had to have known to what he and his people were publicly stating and claiming.

If you want me to supply a very detailed specific, instead of repeating myself, I'll just link to one my last debates on the matter in this Usenet
thread
.

You right wingers never get tired of bashing the "liberal MSM" over the question of bias. To those of us who look very closely at how US media covers important matters, the "liberal" tag is a sad ass joke. If the American public had been truly and accurately informed on Iraq and Bush's behavior and truthfulness, or lack thereof, in regards to Iraq, it's safe to say that even the most hardcore among you would have called for impeaching and booting Bush's sorry lying ass well before the last election. Seriously.

Blogs and talk radio are no more than a bunch of people of wildly disparate knowledgeability, credibility and neutrality chatting loudly, and are absolutely no substitute for serious journalism and responsible news reporting. Unfortunately, these days we're getting plenty of the former and less and less of the latter. Some of you know me from my little poking about the Killian memos "meme" -- the actual situation there turns out to be far removed from anything that was "covered" by the so-called MSM or "exposed" by the masses of would be sleuths of the blogosphere. And it makes for a perfect example of how the corporate media can make a complete botch of a news item just because it turns out to be too complicated and too political for them to expend much effort on, which then leaves the door wide open for dumbass theorizing and idiotic charges by the vulgar "mobile vulgus".

So much for the information age....

-BC

"Blogs and talk radio are n... (Below threshold)

"Blogs and talk radio are no more than a bunch of people of wildly disparate knowledgeability, credibility and neutrality chatting loudly, and are absolutely no substitute for serious journalism and responsible news reporting. Unfortunately, these days we're getting plenty of the former and less and less of the latter."

BC
We're getting plenty of the former from you, also. Seriously.
That was some pretty unctuous self absorption there feller.

BCPlease do share ... (Below threshold)

BC

Please do share with us your wisdom on the Killian Memo meme. Let me guess, it was a set up? Right?

As to right wingers doubting the objectivity of the MSM, you say:


You right wingers never get tired of bashing the "liberal MSM" over the question of bias. To those of us who look very closely at how US media covers important matters, the "liberal" tag is a sad ass joke.

I think Ben Bradlee and all those who emulated him later would say, follow the money.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/

BCI just read the ma... (Below threshold)

BC
I just read the magnum opus you linked for us above.

Here's an opinion of your theories from someone who has, thankfully for him, never had to slog his way through pompous views, but knows nonetheless what drives your "analysis" and view of the unwashed.

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000140.html

you right wingers never ... (Below threshold)

you right wingers never get tired of bashing the "liberal MSM" over the question of bias. To those of us who look very closely at how US media covers important matters, the "liberal" tag is a sad ass joke.

I can't believe we're still arguing this point. Work in journalism for five minutes and you'll figure it out immediately: most reporters, editors and TV ninnies self-report as liberal democrat, and when I say most I mean 80 percent or more. Using the Iraq War runup as proof of anything but the sad state of intel is fucking retarded.

"To those of us who look very carefully" my ass. You're so ridiculously biased you may never see the world clearly again.

To Uncle Mikey:Jou... (Below threshold)
BC:

To Uncle Mikey:

Journalism is an inherently liberal pursuit because of it involves -- in theory that is -- investigation, ferreting out truth from lies, and critical thinking along with good writing and presentation skills. These are not conservative traits almost by definition. However, no matter how "liberal" and eager a graduate fresh from journalism school may be, the tricky bit comes with he or she wants to do something with that degree in a big money, corporate media environment. How "liberal" can even CBS be when it's but one division of a media conglomerate headed by a guy who supported Bush just because he's Republican, and Republicans love big business and big money?

And as far as your truly retarded "sad state of intel" comment -- that's again proof of how terrible our news media has been ferreting out anything with the end result of fools like you being so easily suckered. What --that Usenet thread was too complicated for you to follow? Sorry, I'm not a journalist and it's not my style to dumb down complicated issues. Go turn on Fox News and suck a lollipop.

To: HughS:

I was asked to be specific, so, well....I was specific. That Usenet thread is long, but it is what it is -- a demonstration of the Bush administration lying its collective ass off, in this case in regards to linking Hussein to al-Qaeda and. by implication, to 9/11. There was no failure of intel involved here -- you put the all the available intel on the table and there is no f*cking way Hussein is having anything to do with bin Laden at the time of 9/11. So it was outright "Big Lie" propaganda, and it was so effective that at one point about 70% of the US public thought Hussein had something to do with 9/11 back in 2003. At least one more recent poll shows an appalling number of people still believing this.

And where was out much ballyhooed "free press" in all this? If Joe and Jane Public had been well served by diligent reporters and responsible journalists, do you really think they would they have been so confused and misinformed? While the quantity of news -- or to be more accurate, "news-like" -- sources has shot up, it's painfully obvious that it's been at the expense of quality. We now have this massive buffet of bits of news of wildly diverse credibility, allowing people to pick and choose what fits their tastes rather than reality, much like what Bush did with Iraq-related intel.

And Occam me no razor -- there are no "competing theories" when the vast bulk of data fits one given scenario very poorly and another one very well. This is the case for Bush lying -- the vast bulk of data shows that he and his people deliberately cherry picked and/or grossly misrepresented the data and intel they had in hand in regards to all things Iraq related. Just because the evidence for their lying is sometimes complex, that doesn't at all mean Occam's Razor can come into play. Not all things are simple and can phrased or described in 25 words or less.

The thing with the Killian memos is that weren't forged, and actually one of them could not have been forged under any circumstances. "Buckhead's" original Free Republic post regarding 70's tech was utterly factless. Charles Johnson's little animated overlay trick of a Word Times Roman recreation over of one of the memos fails rather (so to speak) badly on the other three that CBS had used. All the other claims made by would-be blogosphere sleuths were even more nonsensical. You want to invoke "Occam's Razor" appropriately? Invoke it here -- the memos are exactly what they appear to be: misc memos by Bush's one time commander regarding some issues that came up at the time. The forgery BS and confusion came about from people having not a friggin clue about the state of common office back in those days. In 1972 we were dune buggying on the moon, using scientific pocket calculators, playing home video games, and proportionally printing using both typewriters and word processing systems. Believe it or not, people were even actually saving documents to magnetic tapes and cards since the 60's. Google doesn't have a whole lot about this stuff because the equipment from that time had been long obsolete and scrapped a long time before there was even a web, and they were evidently not considered collector's items any more than an old Xerox machine would be. But a good library does have the info, and a place like the Charles Babbage Institute has even more. You may perhaps want to click on my URL link to get all the dirty, complicated but interesting details.

The situation with the memos is directly analogous to Iraq and anything else that's at all complicated or complex and needing serious investigation to sort out what's real and what isn't -- it doesn't get done now. Even while one of its own senior members, Dan Rather, was being pummeled and mocked mercilessly, the corporate media could only manage to fall down on its face and not get up in terms of figuring out what was the deal with the memos. The blogosphere....well, what can you say -- the dumb leading the dumber leading the dumbest. With the end result being that an awful lot of people thinking that the memos are proven forgeries that CBS and Dan Rather had attempted to foist on the American public to help Kerry and smear Bush.

Like I said, so much for the information age.....

-BC

BCI don't buy your... (Below threshold)

BC

I don't buy your argument on the Iraq War "Big Lie" for one simple reason. Too many political adversaries of the Bush administration signed off on it when it would have been much easier for them to object. Common sense.

On the Killian memos.....you are in denial. Again, too many people who would have gladly used those forged memos for political gain simply chose not to. Common sense

The underlying meme of your opinions here is that everyone else is wrong and you are right. While contrarian critical thinking is a good thing, sometimes the crowd runs in the same direction because they are right.

To HughS:Do you re... (Below threshold)
BC:

To HughS:

Do you remember how you felt right after 9/11 and for the weeks and months following? Any politician would have been commiting political suicide if he/she was seen as being even a little soft on terrorism. Also, a responsible politician should have given even his/her political adversary some benefit of the doubt, especially if he's the President, and even more so in times of war and concerns with national security.

With that said, there was still a LOT of inexcusable stupidity and timidity in letting Bush go to war against Iraq like that. The Ansar al-Islam BS by itself should have set off alarms that something was not quite right with the invasion reasoning, but Afghanistan had gone well (at the time -- who would have thought then that the Taliban would make a come back?) and Hussein had a history of being a troublemaker, so....

In regards to the Killian memos, you'd be very surprised at the people who know that the forgery thing is BS. The evidence is what it is and I think I did a fairly thorough job at collecting it all together. Because the core evidence is pretty involved, especially regarding that Feb. 2nd, 1972 memo, I recently added an animation page for those who wanted something more easily understandable although technically it isn't as decisive -- click here.

-BC

BCI won't question y... (Below threshold)

BC
I won't question your lack of effort on the Killian memos, I just don't agree with your conclusion. There are many experts who disagree, but where does that get us? My expert versus your expert. I'm not going there.

I rest my argument on the following premise:

CBS is an institutional heavyweight in the media business. They found themselves in a situation with Rathergate that was untennable and indefensible and getting worse by the day. They appointed a big name comittee to review the matter and that comittee, paid for by CBS, concluded, among other things, that the memo's were not genuine.

Set aside the voluminous technical data you have gathered and think about this: why would CBS, the Tiffany network, ignore exculpatory evidence of the kind you compiled and cave on this issue by throwing Rather and Mapes under the bus? CBS has been confronted with much more serious confrontations and never folded their hand( for example, General Westmoreland's suit against 60 Minutes).

Media institutions like CBS simply don't give in on these types of disputes without a serious fight. But in Rathergate, they caved within weeks.

If this was a matter that just came down to expert versus expert I'm confident Rather and Mapes would still be there today. But they aren't and that begs the question why?

The answer is that somebody, somewhere at CBS (or their law firm) decided not to fight this fight.

To HughS:The Rathe... (Below threshold)
BC:

To HughS:

The Rathergate scenario nicely illustrates what is so wrong with corporate controlled media. Mary Mapes and her crew initially screwed up in rushing the story to air without going through detailed enough authentication -- the story aired on Sept. 8th and they had only received the memos, in two groups, on Sept. 2nd and Sept. 5th, so there was not a lot of time in between receiving the memos and building up a story around them. But the AP's FOIA lawsuit resulted in a release of more of Bush's Guard records on Sept. 7th, making a Sept. 8th air date on the memos story very nicely timed. Mapes used partial authentication of the signature, some interviews of people like Bobby Hodges, the base commander then, and a "meshing" of the contents of the memos to those of official docs as forming the basis of overall authentication. So it was sort of a "this is good enough, all things considered" call.

To be fair, normally this probably would have been good enough since it was mostly a me-too-ish news piece in terms of the overall news investigation into Bush's Guard service, especially after the work by the Boston Globe and the Associated Press in particular.

But when the proportionally printing issue came up, that's when "good enough" was suddenly not good enough and things really went to pieces journalistically. If you were a major network news organization with a proud history, what should you do have done in this situation? Make use of your considereable resources to much more fully research and authenticate the memos? Look at and directly address the claims behind the forgery charges? Get all defensive and make a half-ass attempt of getting more support for the memos before turning tail and abandoning the whole thing because it had suddenly turned complicated and embarrassing?

And if you were a publicly-traded media conglomerate where that news organization was just one piece of your media empire, what should you have done in this situation? Perhaps what ended up being done: set up a supposedly independent panel to investigate what went wrong and place blame -- aka find some scapegoats to fire.

That Thornburgh-Boccardi panel was a joke in terms of actually investigating anything, including trying to use a typewriter expert for document forensics. They had a golden opportunity when they interviewed Bobby Hodges and Rufus Martin to clear up a lot of questions regarding discrepencies in the official records regarding Bush's service that both of those two had signed off on, and which would have explained a lot about the memos'contents, but no such thing was done. Hodges and Martin were allowed to claim that the verbal suspension order of the "commander" would have referred to Hodges, not Killian, even though that would have meant skipping over the chain of command. And then after that, Hodges laughably then claims to not actually remember suspending Bush! Bush's dad was a big shot then, and later ran for President, was Vice President for 8 years, with Bush Jr. himself following in his Dad's footsteps later on. Yeah, he wouldn't remember suspending a future President of the USA, especially with all these available dated memos to jog his memory. Ergo, he and Martin are liars.

The entire panel report could be used as a guide for corporate scapegoating: dig up some now obscure but supposedly one time well-known and reputable people for the masthead, but get nameless, incompetent toadies to do the actual gruntwork in placing blame. Pretend to investigate stuff by doing idiotic interviews, factless, vacant-minded analyses, and skipping over anything that doesn't fit the scapegoating outline. Then come up with a long-ass report that doesn't actually address the key question -- in this case, about whether the memos were forged or not -- but waxes long and longer about mistakes having been made, blah, blah, blah. Finally use the report to do some head-rolling and vow that things like this won't happen again in the future. End result -- embarrassing problem solved.

Granted that the memos stuff was fairly complicated in that explaining the appearance issue meant actually leaving the computer behind and doing genuine legwork, but I'm sure CBS could have mustered up an intern or two to do this given their resources.

But now, the forgery claim has taken such root that anyone claiming that the memos were not forged is at serious risk at being mocked mercilessly. I'm in the awkward situation of being about the only one who can since I've shown my homework all along and haven't been shy about taking it into hostile territory, where it has stood up extremely well. But I'm just some random dude on the Internet -- I shouldn't be doing this sort of stuff. T'ain't my job. I recently had a major battle on Wikipedia that I didn't ask for -- I had just wanted to update some old posts of mine in the discussion section of the Killian Documents wiki entry, pretty much a replica of some stuff I had done on Usenet. Some LGFers who were sort of guarding the wiki took issue, things escalated, and, well, I now have all this control of both Wikipedia articles on the Killian memos, which I have so far done pretty much squat with except to remove an overtly bogus entry or two, and to add some stuff to the discussion sections. Again, it ain't my job and I find the situation actually very uncomfortable.

But in theory, all of this is what journalism and investigative reporting should be all about -- so why isn't it being done?

-BC

BC so why is... (Below threshold)

BC

so why isn't it being done?

It's not being done for the same reason that CBS ended up being hoist on its own petard in the Rathergate affair.

You present a somewhat compelling circumstantial argument above, but it still requires a critical reader to buy into certain assumptions that may be entirely plausible but are nonetheless open to debate.

Here is why CBS stumbled so badly: They were immediately confronted by some aggressive litigators with their own cadre of experts. The response by this element was swift , precise and aggressive. You can liken it to going to trial unprepared, or attending a deposition on a complicated matter without having reviewed any relevant notes.

Rather and Mapes were unaccustomed,to put it politely, to such a response, particularly from a andversary well schooled in the rules of evidence.

One result of the Rathergate affair is that old school journalist don't stand a chance against well informed partisan attorneys that have a venue to make their opinions known.. The reason why is simple: attorneys live and die everyday on the strength of their argument, and they always face a foe that is similarly smart and well informed.

Old school journalists like Rather live in an intellectual bubble. That's how the guys at Powerline, Bainbridge and Vohlok ate him alive.

To answer you question above, it takes a lot of time and money to do it right. And it takes years of experience. Frankly, I don't think large corporate ownership of the media is the problem. The problem is the very poor level of talent that occupies the dinosaur media.

To HughS:One of th... (Below threshold)
BC:

To HughS:

One of the things I consider worrisome is that "the guys at Powerline, Bainbridge and Vohlok" shouldn't have been able to touch a supposedly mainsteam news anchor like Dan Rather at an organization like CBS news -- that's basically a barbarians at the gate scenario. If you want to call old school journalistic news the "dinosaur media," you might as well call corporate control the 7 mile long asteroid. People being people will flock together along similar beliefs and be distrustful, if not hostile of anything that doesn't support those beliefs, however crackpotty. A powerful, journalistically responsible free press is a unifying force in presenting a consistent and accurate depiction of current events and of reality in general.

What we're getting more and more now is a diffusion & dissipation of news at the upper levels and a fractionalization & fictionalization at the lower ones. The net result is that it's getting rather difficult to be well and accurately informed of what's really going on. Remember when it was easy to find relevant info on Google and on its predecessor, AltaVista? Searching now requires a very careful selection of key words lest you get a pile of worthless & bogus "hits". The same with the news -- there was a time when reading any normal newspaper in the morning, catching a half hour of local TV news and a half hour of national in the evening, and then spending a lazy morning with the Sunday Newspaper would be all you need to be reasonably well informed. Now....you can read the morning paper, listen to talk/news radio on the way to work, hit some blog sites during the day, listen to some more talk/news radio on the way home, watch 2 hours of TV news when you get home, and still know squat aside from random little factoids of info without proper context -- Trivial Pursuit is no longer just a game.

Have you noticed the expansion of your local news along with a dumbing down of it? Poor talent or good business? Longer local shows mean more ad time and hence greater profit. You do need to keep the audience so you fill it up with pleasant, friendly, and chatty people that you almost start to regard as friends. Throw in teasers, tabloidy stuff, lots of sports, exposes involving "ambush journalism" and there is your audience and hence a reason for companies to advertise with you . Good business, no? The national media takes it a step further with 24 hr cable news channels -- minimize operating costs, give the people what they want -- often blustering, opinionated talkig heads, sell lots of ads, and smile at your profit. More good business, no? But where is the journalism?

This video gives you an idea of what happens when Mr. and Mrs. Dinosaur meet Mr. Asteroid and Mr. Asteroid's attorneys.

Another thing I find worrisome is the state of alternative weekly newspapers -- they are sort of the canaries of the news media world. When bright, sharp, idealistic, and earnest people start off in journalism, it was often if not usually by initially working for what conservatives consider leftist weeklies. That's where you would find opinionated, smart, and highly insightful (if not inciteful) writing. I live by Cambridge, one of the liberal cornerstones of this county and it's disheartening to see what's been happening to not just the increasingly hollowed out Boston Globe, but with the weeklies as well, all of which seem to get more and more focussed of food, drink, looking nice, and buying nice things rather than questioning authority and corporate excess.

If you have one or more supposedly liberal weeklies in your area and you haven't picked up any one of them in a while, go take a read sometime. The canaries are not in good shape....

-BC

One of the things I c... (Below threshold)

One of the things I consider worrisome is that "the guys at Powerline, Bainbridge and Vohlok" shouldn't have been able to touch a supposedly mainsteam news anchor like Dan Rather at an organization like CBS news -- that's basically a barbarians at the gate scenario.

That's an extraordinary statement BC. I think in 1776 you would have been a Tory.
The guys at Powerline are real live attorneys. Why shouldn't they be considered the equal of a mainstream new anchor?
You should you read the book titled "Barbarians at the Gate"; it is instructive as to how corporations change, willingly or not.
What makes Rather so special, besides appearing on TV every night? The guys at Powerline are Ivy League educated, make a living at big time law firms (excepting Scott Johnson) and try important cases every year. The live in a world where you aet what you kill to earn a living, and have to defend your position every day when you are surrounded by PARTNERS whose job is to demolish your argument. Rather lived in a different universe.

To HughS:I did<... (Below threshold)
BC:

To HughS:

I did read "Barbarians at the Gate". It's been a while, but I do believe it was no more than a story about greed on a grand scale that also demonstrates a rather fundamental problem with such LBO's: you have a multi-multi billion dollar transaction involving a large company that makes lot of people engaged in the transaction very, very wealthy -- so where did all that money come from? The company is the same company that generated X amount of profit before and after, but that profit is utterly dwarfed by the transaction numbers -- so again where did that huge amount of "extra" money come from? It's mostly "funny money" that gets carried forward via imaginary stock value artificially enhanced by hollowing out -- aka slashing jobs and selling assets -- the company in question. It's just yet another form of the "Greater Fool Theory" . And the end result for the company and the people who actually make up the company? Well....

But my "Barbarians at the Gate" comment was in the traditional context regarding the fall of Rome -- a once mighty, advanced empire falling into decline to the point that it can no longer defend itself against the attacks of marauding, often savage tribes. Savages who in the past would have been dealt with perfunctorily.

You may not like the analogy, but the blogosphere in relationship to the "MSM" is like those old marauding tribes to Rome. CBS News on its worst day still has far more credibility than the average blog. I personally don't see anything good whatsoever coming out of the fall of our mainstream media because what's been bandied about as the "new media" is mostly just a Babel of tribal BS.

-BC

BCI'm glad you rea... (Below threshold)

BC

I'm glad you read Barbarians at the Gate. And yes it was years ago. I'll readily admit that there was a lot of questionable accounting then and what Buffett has always called "friction in the deals...that is investment banker fees.

The companies themselves, for the most part were better off. More accountability and more efficient operations...long before China force fed that on American industry. For what it's worth, my father's business, the meatpacking business, went through this process in gut wrenching fashion that saw good men with years of loyal experience loose th everything.

Unfortunately, I don't agree with this:

but the blogosphere in relationship to the "MSM" is like those old marauding tribes to Rome. CBS News on its worst day still has far more credibility than the average blog. I personally don't see anything good whatsoever coming out of the fall of our mainstream media


Frankly, I think the MSM as we know it is in permanent decline. I used to revere it, my schedule was arranged around it, and I picked up the local paper every morning. Today the only newspaper I read and pay for is the WSJ. I've come to conclude that the rest of the MSM has sold out. I think major MSM outlets show viewership and paid subscribers that reflect that trend.

To HughS:I complet... (Below threshold)
BC:

To HughS:

I completely agree that the mainstream media is in decline, very likely fatally. The main questions are "Why?" and "What, if anything, is going to replace it?" Take even your Wall Street Journal -- it once had the reputation for being about the only conservative newspaper with solid journalistic integrity. That reputation faded as it became more and more a standard Republican/Big Business mouthpiece. And if it ends up being added to Rupert Murdoch's media collection, it'll likely then start to transform into something akin to a print version of Neil Cavuto's "Your World".

I think it all goes back to, again, corporate control and the shift of "The News" from being a serious public service to just another product to be both marketed and to be used for marketing. Corporations these days care about stock value, market share, and upper level profit and things like "public service" is not a consideration unless it is a regulation they are legally forced to deal with.

If you had watched the video I had earlier linked to regarding what happened to those two reporters when they wanted to do a piece on Monsanto's bovine growth hormone product, the most disturbing thing was the appeals court ruling at the end: a jury had found WTVT guilty under the whistleblower law in firing the reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, who were then awarded $425,000 in damages -- but an appeals court overturned that verdict and essentially ruled that it is not technically against the law to lie or distort the news, hence there is no whistelblower protection regarding such matters. If you were a corporate media head like Rupert Murdoch, how do you suppose you would have reacted to that little bit of "press freedom"?

And what the alternatives we have to the mainstream media? Wizbang? Kos? LGF? Pandagon? Google? RSS feeds? Overheard conversations? Who is to sort out what credible or not? Should conservatives assume that if a news item bashes liberals and Democrats, it has to be true? Should liberals assume that if a news item shows how greedy and corrupt are conservatives and Republicans, it has to be true? Is the war in Iraq going well or badly? How many civilians there have been killed? Is US health care a mess? If so, why? How did the illegal alien issue become a crisis and who is really responsible? Will our children's children really be facing a world in environmental crisis along with chronic fuel shortages?

Who is to say?

-BC

BCThe WSJ news pages... (Below threshold)

BC
The WSJ news pages have always been left of center; their Editorial pages have always been conservative. The ownership of the paper has less to do with content than the determined and intellectual brilliance of the opinion editors...Vermont Royster and Robert Bartley.

If Murdoch buys the the Lournal, you will know if something is wrong by reading the opinion pages. I don't think the front page will change. That might sound strange, but the opinion pages have enjoyed an independence from the decidedly liberal Bancrofts for decades.

I can't express an opinion on th whistleblower incident other than usually the recognizes whistleblowers as former emplyees or contractors of a company accused of wrongdoing. I can see the court not giving protection to reporters.

As to Murdoch's intentions, I think he wants to sell news first and foremeost. A Tyco or or Enron would be irresistable to him.

As to where the news is going, I have a deep faith in the American public to discern truth and separate BS from fact. I just don't trust the MSM to be the primary intermediary in delivering that data. because they have been shown to have such a transparent agenda.

On the question of health care, the war, immigration etc, I believe in the deep resovoir of common sense in this country....that common sense is something I see every day in my life; however, I never see it on TV, in newspapers or coverage of politics. For example, the failure today of the immigration reform bill was no surprise to me. People I talk to everyday in my circle see it as a sell out. My circle includes bankers, professionals, wage earners, teachers and neighbors. It's a broad socio economic group, and they all smelled a rat.
Better go. I enjoy reading your comments.
Hugh




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy