But that is not the limit to Waxman's ambitions. Somehow, he'd also like to regulate content on the Internet.
Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine" without actually calling it such.The local advisory boards might sound benign in comparison with some sort of strict mandate about balanced coverage. But the inclusion of liberal groups in working with the staff in writing the bill indicates what would happen. They would be sure to get members on each local board and then inundate local radio and tv stations with complaints. Liberals used to complain when conservatives allowed conservative interest groups to help craft bills, but now the shoe is on the other foot and they're happy to invite their groups to the table to help write their bills.
Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. "It's all about diversity in media," says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them."
Copps will remain acting chairman of the FCC until President Obama's nominee, Julius Genachowski, is confirmed, and Copps has been told by the White House not create "problems" for the incoming chairman by committing to issues or policy development before the Obama pick arrives.
But Copps has been a supporter of putting in place policies that would allow the federal government to have greater oversight over the content that TV and radio stations broadcast to the public, and both the FCC and Waxman are looking to licensing and renewal of licensing as a means of enforcing "Fairness Doctrine" type policies without actually using the hot-button term "Fairness Doctrine."
One idea Waxman's committee staff is looking at is a congressionally mandated policy that would require all TV and radio stations to have in place "advisory boards" that would act as watchdogs to ensure "community needs and opinions" are given fair treatment. Reports from those advisory boards would be used for license renewals and summaries would be reviewed at least annually by FCC staff.
Waxman and the FCC staff are also said to be looking at ways to ease the "consumer complaint" process, which could also be used along with the advisory boards.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee is also looking at how it can put in place policies that would allow it greater oversight of the Internet. "Internet radio is becoming a big deal, and we're seeing that some web sites are able to control traffic and information, while other sites that may be of interest or use to citizens get limited traffic because of the way the people search and look for information," says on committee staffer. "We're at very early stages on this, but the chairman has made it clear that oversight of the Internet is one of his top priorities."
"This isn't just about Limbaugh or a local radio host most of us haven't heard about," says Democrat committee member. "The FCC and state and local governments also have oversight over the Internet lines and the cable and telecom companies that operate them. We want to get alternative views on radio and TV, but we also want to makes sure those alternative views are read, heard and seen online, which is becoming increasingly video and audio driven. Thanks to the stimulus package, we've established that broadband networks -- the Internet -- are critical, national infrastructure. We think that gives us an opening to look at what runs over that critical infrastructure."
Also involved in "brainstorming" on "Fairness Doctrine and online monitoring has been the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, which has published studies pressing for the Fairness Doctrine, as well as the radical MoveOn.org, which has been speaking to committee staff about policies that would allow them to use their five to six million person database to mobilize complaints against radio, TV or online entities they perceive to be limiting free speech or limiting opinion.
This focus on the Internet is bizarre. How do they think that any sort of American law could control content on the Internet. The Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down all attempts to control obscenity on the Internet. How are they going to write any sort of regulation that would achieve their goal of achieving balance on the Internet? And with sites like Huffington Post and Daily Kos, where would they get off arguing that there is any stifling of views on the Internet?
There is a case right now before the Court that will determine the power of the FCC to regulate the use of "fleeting obscenities" that could be an indicator of how this Court looks at the power of the FCC to regulate content.
The real danger is in this localism weapon to try to water down content on the radio and the TV. And it could probably be imposed through control of the FCC if the three Democratic appointees could agree on new regulations that would require such advisory councils. And then, this would become a battle fought out in every community as ideologues work to try, in the name of local control, to reduce the time that local radio stations devote to conservative talk radio. Rather than fighting costly appeals of licensing regulations, many radio stations might decide to just do away with the whole fight over programming conservative talk radio and instead just play music.
It's ironic how, in the name of fairness, liberals want to control speech content. Once again, there is nothing liberal about today's liberals.
55 comments:
So at the least we'll end up with something that looks like the scence in Lawrence of Arabia when the Arab revolt has made Damascus the seat of a new government.
Or possibly a cable channel devoted to fairness meetings where Troofers and Nazis can line up and respectfull claim that the radio and tv stations are not giving enough time to studying the melting point of steel or whether the crematoriums could reduce to ashes that many people?
I'm holding out for the 15 minute surf report brought to us by the LBGLT community because the fascists wouldn't do tide and buoy reports that addressed the ten percent of the population with big hands.
Liberal Bias + Political Correctness = New Age Stalinism.
The Left should be careful what it puts into place. A local radio station, which airs conservative talk radio (and has aired Mario Cuomo, Jim Hightower and Ed Schultz - all of whom bombed) has for three weeks posted a poll for listeners asking whether they agreed with, among other things, Sen. Stabenow's call for implementation of the Fairness Doctrine. In every case, listeners overwhelmingly voted against the Left's desires.
I would wager as many complaints could be dredged up by conservative forces against NPR, Network radio and television, etc. as the Left could promote against talk radio. George Will could use some support at ABC, anyhow.
The "Fairness Doctrine" is the electronic version of book burning.
I would add that this could be another nail in the coffin of Democratic overreach. But, the issue and message have to be framed as a free speech issue, not as a "fairness" issue.
I can easily imagine Congressional races in 2010 being framed as free speech and a Presidential campaign in 2012 framing the same issue.
I really doubt that the fairness doctrine will end up being a winning issue for the Democrats. The outrage will be palpable.
Rick
So porn (David Ogden)
http://www.scribd.com/full/11607068?access_key=key-18yr2u50t8o0sz54rbrl
is free speech but political speech is not??
Did not Mrs Clinton tell us that it is patriotic to question the party in power?
Suddenly she and Bill have changed their minds. Funny how that happened.
It really is rather amusing to see all the Neocon knee-jerk dittoheads screaming and whining about people having access to opposing opinions.
The best part is when they then compare those who would like to hear BOTH sides of the issue called "nazis".
Leave it to the GWB 24%'ers to think that "More Information on a subject is a BAD THING©"
Ya gotta laugh, they still think they're in control.
The Left should be careful what it puts into place. A local radio station, which airs conservative talk radio (and has aired Mario "Cuomo, Jim Hightower and Ed Schultz - all of whom bombed) has for three weeks posted a poll for listeners asking whether they agreed with, among other things, Sen. Stabenow's call for implementation of the Fairness Doctrine. In every case, listeners overwhelmingly voted against the Left's desires."
This is not a matter of local involvement. It is a matter of community activists like Acorn getting on these boards. You can be sure they will get on the boards to the exclusion of others.
WRT to Washington, DC. How long do you think conservative radio will last in the District even without Acorn. The minority is the majority and they aint conservative.
Rush Limbaugh is right. He saw this coming years ago. He is a light shining in the darkness. Wake up America, your rights are being taken away incrementally. The liberals are deceptive and cannot tell the truth, because if they did no one would want to follow them and they would lose their power.
Rush, Sean, Glen and other conservative talk show hosts are effective and it causes the liberals to want to inhibit the truth.
The Fairness Doctrine will take away our rights of free speech. Stand up America and pay attention. Fight for what is right.
"The minority is the majority and they aint conservative."
What?! You can't judge a book by its cover, and I dare say that most people buy the "spin" rather than the fact.
Freedom of Speech is protected by the Constitution. The Constitution is a shield to protect everyone's rights rather than a sword to cleave off the rights of those in the minority with whose opinions you may disagree with at any given time.
If the "majority" (whoever they are) can eliminate the speech of the minority, then the Constitution is a mute point. Of course, how someone in the "minority" (now in the majority) could want to disenfranchise those now in the minority (used to be in the majority), knowing the "unfairness" of such action, indicates those now in the "majority" have a serious problem--ethically and morally.
Of course, that is just my opinion...
we need all views, repubs need to come up with better ideas. Rush is an jerk who thinks for the unable, and not very well. People who buy into Limbaugh just lost...Big Time. The mess we're in happened on our watch (repubs) and I don't hear better ideas, just the same old socialistic rant. What I do know is, we can't expect to sway people with the same tired give tax breaks to the wealthy and hope for trickle down..middle class republicans are looking for hope. I for one am sick of the flavor of trying to scare people into being conservative..and the notion that religion and morality can be legislated. May be time to become independent as I detest social welfare to the same degree as corporate welfare..how about just FAIR?
seriously what can we do to stop this... this is an outrage... I really want to know. Lets find out and lets do it.
If Sewmouse is correct then won't this also apply to Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow as well? If now one still wants to listen then is Congress going to make all radios and tvs only capable of certain channels ala the DPRK. Or is it just as likely that people will continue to pick their own sources of information, whatever the sanity or accuracy of the source, to suit their interests.
I can just see Stormfront with an ADL rebuttal published weekly or the AJC with an opposing viewpoint from Opus Dei. Thae mind boggles at the stupdity of anyone requiring someone to publish opposing views and even more insane is the idea that one cannot find opposing viewpoints now.
Much of this has very little to do with actually making opposing views heard but in reining in those views that are unpopular with those either in power or those incapable of convincing anyone else of the rightness of their view.
Why has this administration been so resolved to subsidize broadband Internet, when broadband Internet has been thriving quite nicely without benefit of subsidy? Is it paranoid to think that it might be to provide a justification for government regulation of Internet content?
Camille Paglia nails the Dems here:
Speaking of talk radio (which I listen to constantly), I remain incredulous that any Democrat who professes liberal values would give a moment's thought to supporting a return of the Fairness Doctrine to muzzle conservative shows. (My latest manifesto on this subject appeared in my last column.) The failure of liberals to master the vibrant medium of talk radio remains puzzling. To reach the radio audience (whether the topic is sports, politics or car repair), a host must have populist instincts and use the robust common voice. Too many Democrats have become arrogant elitists, speaking down in snide, condescending tones toward tradition-minded middle Americans whom they stereotype as rubes and buffoons. But the bottom line is that government surveillance of the ideological content of talk radio is a shocking first step toward totalitarianism.
One of the nuggets I've gleaned from several radio sources is that Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who has been in the aggressive forefront of the campaign to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, is married to Tom Athans, who works extensively with left-wing radio organizations and was once the executive vice-president of Air America, the liberal radio syndicate that, despite massive publicity from major media, has failed miserably to win a national audience. Stabenow's outrageous conflict of interest has of course been largely ignored by the prestige press, which should have been demanding that she recuse herself from all political involvement with this issue.
Government listening to terrorist's phone calls is "eavesdropping on Americans". But Government cataloging every political opinion expressed by Americans is...Good Government?
The fairness doctrine is a Bill of Attainder designed to Hush Rush.
If you have to pass a law to get mandatory listeners, MAYBE YOUR IDEAS SUCK!
Somehow I can't read the phrase "the chairman has made it clear that oversight of the Internet is one of his top priorities" without hearing it in a Russian accent.
Watching Sewmouse and "truth" march in circles while giving stiff-armed salutes and chanting "Heil Obama!" is really quite amusing but typical of their sort. ^_^
BTW, am I the only one to notice how Orwellian Sewmouse's claim of "more information" is when in point of fact what she and her fellow liberal bimbos are proposing is to *censor* information? And of course, poor widdle "truth" is so ashamed of his leftist roots that he needs to pretend to have been a Republican because he knows that Mr. Obama and his fellow Leftists will never be anything more than second rate human beings with second rate minds. Typical Chicago Democrat of course. Those who are as corrupt as Daley, Obama and Blagojevich will always be afraid of Free Speech and Freedom of the Press. Sucks to be them! ^_^
Before I read y'alls comments, I'll first say this.
This is just evil, that we allow the government to regulate political speech, broadcast or otherwise - via "local boards" (the most political of all bodies).
This is a shameless attempt to perpetuate political power via activism and legalisms. It's always been the left that could motivate an army to demonstrate and fight for fascist policies. Arm them with lawyers and it can be an unstoppable force.
The First Amendment and the electoral process are our bulwarks. They better not cross me on the subject of free speech. I won't sit still on this one.
Pat:
Much of this has very little to do with actually making opposing views heard but in reining in those views that are unpopular with those either in power or those incapable of convincing anyone else of the rightness of their view.
Exactly. This is an argument to use against such starry-eyed Obamaniacs as Sewmouse and Counsel, or their sock-puppets.
To carry this campaign to the big stage, to motivate voters in the '10 and '12 elections, we will need some powerful ideas, some potent memes. The left has fear, class-warfare, and deception on its side. This won't be easy.
Some thoughts:
This is really about local broadcast, using radio and TV spectra that are owned by the government. The push for "local boards" is a brilliant ploy. Nationwide, federally directed policies would be too high profile and generate active opposition. But local boards are ignored by most of the populace, and they are easy to take over and politicize by groups that know the right tactics.
Pat's point, that it's not about making voices heard but about reining in voices they don't like, is spot on. Local stations are businesses and most won't be eager to schedule "alternative" programs they know few will listen to. And most won't stomach a fight against the board. The policy is engineered to stifle speech, but deceptively promoted as providing more speech.
Brilliant politics.
I believe the parts about the Internet are a red herring, to make it seem to apply equally to all media. We all know how futile it is to regulate the Internet.
I wonder if some solution (if such legislation passes) might lie in satellite radio and digital broadcasting. Would these technologies eliminate the idea that broadcast channels must be regulated by government? I finally got a Blackberry this week. I can get the internet in most locations, and hence internet radio. What if this technology becomes ubiquitous in a few years. Won't broadcast radio and TV be obsolete by then? Maybe not. Broadcast comes to us free. I pay a fee for a membership to get the Internet. Hmmmm.
"Broadcast comes to us free. I pay a fee for a membership to get the Internet. Hmmmm."
Broadcast is free to the listener because the commercial stations sell advertising.
Satellite radio is not free. You pay a subscription just as you pay a subscription for the internet.
Oh! and with the recent satelite radio merger attempts (I do not know if it succeeded) - Congress and the FCC tried to force community boards on the company.
The Democrats in Congresss try this every time a TV licence is due for renewal or a merger or sale takes place.
As usual, the authoritarians are trying to imagine the issue into one of prohibition. And we know how well that failed.
The issue is one of free speech. If you use a public good, like the radio spectrum, the public good demands that you have to open it up to more voices. You can't pour exclusively far right poison into America's ears, as happens now. Part of being allowed to use the public good, is to open it up to more than one viewpoint.
Why are you against freedom of speech?
Jawbone, why do you hate puppies?
You're being blatantly disingenuous. It's well-known that the effect of the previous "Fairness Doctrine" was that stations chose not to air any political opinions.
And careful using phrases such as "the public good." It's classic fascist jargon used to justify the curtailing of all kinds of liberties.
equitus, you say you wont sit still for this one. what are you going to do? I really want to know what action we can take because if all we ever do is talk nothing with happen.
Jaw Bones,
There are far left stations, but nobody listens to them. People own these stations and it is not fair (at the very basic level) to them because in essence the government will be saying you have to broadcast someone that cause your listeners to tune out. Secondly the New on TV is primarily Liberal are they going to force them to put up the conservative view as well?
Jaw-Bone,
So you think Limbaugh, Hannity, and other conservatives should be granted equal time on PBS. 5 minutes of Moyers for 5 minutes of Limbaugh?
Well, at least, you are acknowledging that the Fairness Doctrine is about extending, not denying freedom of speech. That's progress right there.
If you don't like the phrase "the public good" just substitute any words that convey the meaning I intended, like "national assets which are licensed or administered by the government for the benefit of all".
You don't think national parks are fascist, do you? There are some extremists here who do say they believe that. One raver here earlier this week was saying that the GOP recession was actually caused by liberals, to install Obama into office!
Jaw Bones entry is instructive in that it shows exactly how the dems will portray the issue.
Though it's really about silencing conservative voices, the left will claim it's a free speech issue.
Those not tuned into politics on a regular level will hear these lies, assume they're correct and support the absurdly named "Fairness Doctrine".
Side note: This is a classic tactic of those on the left. And until conservatives come up with a strategy to fight these lies, they're always going to be on the defensive.
Jaw Bone,
Face it Dude! The reason you Dhimmicrats are pushing this is because Al Franken was such a miserable and talentless failure! :P
Nobody said Dummycrats couldn'thave radio shows. It's merely that none of you know outside of NPR know how to produce them and the thought that there are voices outside the TV oligopoly fills your little leftist hearts with terror. But if your party and ideology were any good would you be so fearful of the existence of voices beyond your little TV oligopoly? o_O
And isn't it interesting that you, sewmouse and all the other toadies are skipping lightly over the fact that this is also regulation of the Internet we are talking about? Nice to know that being a lefgtiat "progressive" involves looking to Beijing and Moscow for one's ideas of Freedom of Speech the way you libs do, ain't it? :P
Oh well, liberal=intellectual coward! That's the sort of person all Democrats really are. Were it otherwise there would be Democcrats speaking publicly and out loud against this. ^O^
"Jaw Bone" and "Sewmouse" make the usual leftist leap from "freedom to speak" to "forcing others to listen." The Hollyweird Left, Al Franken, "Sewmouse" and "Jaw Bone" are free to speak wherever and whatever they wish within the usual bounds (no shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater). If they have advertisers for their programs, they can have the time on the very same stations conservatives are on. (I've heard Cuomo, Hightower and Schultz, but they lost their advertisers when they lost an audience, as did Michael Reagan and several other conservatves.) Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon are free to spout their leftist views all day and night, but scream "censorship" when opponents say they will not pay to see their movies. "Jaw Bone" and "Sewmouse" are given a forum by Betsy, but comments from too-vocal opponents at Kos Romper Rumors, Democrat Underpants and HuffPo get deleted and banned. So much for "fairness" for all.
Much as the socialists dislike it, even George Soros gets sick and tired of subsidizing Air America and Al Franken. He's trying to foist off the cost of Franken to taxpayers, and now wants to force station owners, who are in the business of earning a profit, not providing free airtime to any leftist who can't draw an audience, to give free "access" to socialist piffle when it's readily available on every Network nightly.
Let's not overlook the fact that hatred sells. Racism sells. Envy sells Greed sells. Tribalism sells. Fear sells. Paranoia sells. Demagoguery sells. Religious fanaticism sells. Bigotry sells. Discrimination sells.
So when you make an argument that "rightwing radio sells", you should really think about what you're buying, and what you are inviting into your home and life and mind.
Progressive radio has never used the tactic of whipping up hatred against other Americans. Hatred against the policies of other Americans, yes. But Right wing talk radio shamelessly exploits baser emotions to fool people and distract them from real issues. Like the GOP recession.
Its odd that Jaw Bone sees the issue as extending free speech vs curtailing someone else's. I don't for a minute suspect that he really believes that or am astoundingly surprised at how little Jaw Bone seems to be aware that the First Amendment was to protect the free speech of the majority and not to have some group collude to force their minority view of someone else. Will this extension, as I stated earlier, now demand that the PTL Club have a segment set aside for atheists, of course with the PTL paying for the airtime, to put out their version of the Bible? Or even better any time an atheist appears on the public air waves he is required to run old Bishop Sheen homilies.
But as I said earlier I don't really think Jaw Bone is seriously defending the indefensible or if he is then can only wonder how many days he must have slept through high school government or civics?
The fact that this Congress wants to regulate the internet is very telling. There is plenty of free speech on the internet, and people can surf for what they want to read and view. This is not about fairness. This is about force.
I would not be surprised that should certain books by certain people become bestsellers, they'll come up with a fairness doctrine for bookstores. I can see it now--if you buy a book by Hayek, they'll force you to buy one by Keynes.
Bill, you've got to be kidding. Greed sells? On what planet?
What I heard from Air America was so base, so vitriolic, it made Rush and others seem like samaritans.
Your diatribe perfectly reflects the myths and misconceptions all you faithful lefties have about conservative viewpoints. You just don't get it, and you never will. Please don't try to foist policies based on these falsehoods. Be fair. Admit that you might be wrong about the motivations of your opposition.
Megan, I'm not sure what I'll do. I'm usually a bystander and idle commenter. But for this, I might sign up and/or donate money to groups to fight this. I'd write letters to my representatives, but Boxer and Feinstein and Tauscher aren't likely to pay any heed.
I'll also actually speak up and oppose those among my peers who voice support for this trash - something I usually avoid. I want to make sure my arguments are clear and strong first, and I anticipate the deceptions and falsehoods they'll raise.
I won't sit still. I can say that.
By the way, lefties, I don't even listen to talk radio - except maybe 20 min a week, and even that I find tedious.
"What I heard from Air America was so base, so vitriolic, it made Rush and others seem like samaritans."
Really? Are you claiming it disseminated hate speech against other Americans (which is what right wing talk radio does)?
Can you remember any examples of that, because I'd be very surprised to hear them?
I'm not saying it never happens. I am just saying that it is standard practice for regressive talk radio to pump out content based on fear, on ridicule, on tribalism, on envy, on racism, etc.
That is *not* at all the first resort of progressive radio. Progressive radio is based on facts, evidence, common sense, appeal to shared values, reasoned argument, and so on. Different set of values.
What you mean to say, Bill, is that you believe that it is standard practice for conservative talk radio to feature those things.
What you believe and what is are not always the same thing. It's time you realized that.
I happen to believe you have it exactly backwards.
Bill B.@3:42: "Let's not overlook the fact that hatred sells. Racism sells. Envy sells Greed sells. Tribalism sells. Fear sells. Paranoia sells. Demagoguery sells. Religious fanaticism sells. Bigotry sells. Discrimination sells."
Thank you for your explanation of how Mr. Obama and Mrs. Pelosi were elected to office but that is hardly relevant to the fact that this "Local Council" routine is merely a device to ban Freedom of Speech in the same way "Human" "Rights" Councils have done in Canada.
And make no mistake, Bill. Just because you think that to say Rod Blagojevich is a crook or to say that Obama worship can be legitimately compared to Hitler worship is somehow "hate speech" does not alter the fact that Freedom of Speech extends the right to everyone to say what they think whether you like it or not.
And this is what Herr Adolf Obama and Frau Eva Pelosi seek to abolish. Goosestep along with the other toadies and shout "Heil Obama!" if you like, but you only kid yourself if you claim that this is not what you are supporting.
Once again, Bill B. leads with his chin. It took me all of 12 minutes to locate (via google) and jot down these examples of "...facts, evidence, common sense, appeal to shared values, reasoned argument..." practiced by just a few of Air America's erudite hosts.
Randi Rhodes, appearing on behalf of her employer (AA) on the Left Coast called Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro "whores." Rhodes also publicly stated John McCain had been well treated by his North Vietnamese captors in exchange for propaganda statements, and his claims of torture were false. Rhodes also told an audience that Sarah Palin could not be trusted around teen-age boys. (The YouTube video of the latter is still available.)
Mike Malloy (AA night host) was a conspiracy theorist who claimed the Bush family conspired to allow 9-11 to happen, to invade Iraq to profit from its oil, and purposely allowed hurricane Katrina to ravage New Orleans. He told his listeners, "This Bush crime family is about theft and greed and fraud and lies and war and death and posturing. They are beyond evil. You want thugs and punks and liars and killers? Look at the Bush crime family."
Malloy said this about Sean Hannity, "...You little rat weasel... Let me tell you something, Sean. You make me ashamed to be a male, you make me ashamed to be white, you make me ashamed to be in the radio business, you make me ashamed to be an American. You pig. You little pig."
Sam Seder, who subbed for Rhodes at times, introduced a Fox News clip by saying, "Let's go to Brit Hume, the horrible scumbag, who many people consider somewhat responsible for the fact that his son committed suicide."
I didn't bother to search for things the acid tongued Janeane Garafalo and tax scofflaw Al Franken said, because what had already popped up for the others must have so (gasp!) surprised Bill B. that he'd been in a coma before reaching Seder's endearing remarks.
Not many "...facts, evidence, common sense, appeal to shared values, reasoned argument(s)..." in there that I can find.
And before one of your alter egos jumps forward to claim these were "cherry picked," Bill B., there are literally a couple of dozen others, equally hateful and rancid, that could have been posted.
Yup, Progressives are purveyors of pure, sweet values all Americans want their kids raised to emulate.
Jaw-Biddle,
"the GOP recession"
If you stick to this fantasy - the belief that Democrats had no input in Fannie and Freddie, no input or influence with Big Three management and UAW affairs, no influence in energy policy, and no say in TART, how in the hell do you expect anyone to want to listen to them now? What were they doing? Were they asleep?
Carter and Clinton contributed to the current economic environment and if you can't see that you're simply blinded by partisanship. The Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006! Dodd and Frank are not GOP, Biddle-bone, no matter how much you want to ignore their involvement in the mortgage issues of the day, they are dirty.
If Obama has any hope of leading effectively he'd better start finding a way to appeal to the living, working, and thinking members of this society because you sound like zombies.
Well, I am surprised at what you report, BB.
Please can you give the links to the program transcripts?
If you are right, I will change my mind about Air America. But I don't think you are right. I think you have just cherry picked a few people who at one time or another appeared on AA, and at some other time and place shot their mouths off. That doesn't prove that AA was a bastion of demagogic hate talk, the way, say Rush is.
But I admit that my perception of progressive radio might be unduly colored by listening to NPR more than any other broadcaster, including tv channels. And NPR barely qualifies as progressive, they are so milquetoast.
Bill B must have been asleep while claiming to be listening to that bastion of tasteful liberalism NPR whose Nina Totenberg said of Sen Helms, "I think he ought to be worried about what's going on in the Good Lord's mind, because if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grand children will."
And she's still working on the public largess!
So, no links to the program transcripts yet.
Please post them when you have a minute, to support your claims.
Notice how Bill B. and his alter egos are quick to challenge others, yet seldom provide sources for their own comments? In fact, I distinctly recall them refusing to provide sources for others who requested them, telling the requesters to "do their own research."
HuffPo, 04/03/2008, quoted Randi Rhodes, while acting as an Air America rep, as calling Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro "big f***ing whores." (Yes, Bill B., I cleaned up the quote in my previous note. A foul-mouthed Progressive doesn't rate an exact quote on Betsy's Page.)
The McCain and Palin comments by Rhodes are available on YouTube (http://tinyurl.com/bq9ou8 and http://tinyurl.com/d8xucd).
The Malloy rant came on his Air America show (guess Bill B. was asleep then) 09-02-2005 (portions transcripted at: http://tinyurl.com/bzbrzn).
Seder's tripe was uttered while subbing for Rhodes on 07-07-2005. Here, I admit having missed a factoid. Seder was co-hosting with that wonderful, even tempered Progressive Janeane Garafalo, but even she was unable to rein in Seder. Or was it she who pushed him over the edge to comment so sarcastically on Brit Hume? Portions transcripted at: http://tinyurl.com/apbwhd and http://tinyurl.com/bastr3.)
Incidentally, Rhodes was on Air America from 03-31-2004 to 04-03-2008. Malloy was on Air America from 08-02-2004 to 08-11-2006. Seder subbed for Rhodes at various times through 04-06-2007, but co-hosted AA's "The Majority Report" with Garafalo from 03-2004 to 07-2006. I'd consider them pretty regular voices of the Left, not ...a few people who at one time or another appeared on AA...".
I am working my way through the list, but none of them so far are transcripts of Air America programs.
I'm not accepting accounts from extremist bloggers about what their enemy said. I will accept media reports from non partisan sources, reporting on something that was said on Air America.
I'll work through the rest of the links later, but so far you are zero for 3.
Sure, whenever you get around to providing links to the now refuted points you tried to make at 3:42 PM or even the backtracking at 7:02 PM or finally the cherry picking claim or the hate speech claim of Limbaugh at 1:13 AM. Since you were the one who started then it's only fair that you prove your various arguments first.
I will accept media reports from non partisan sources, reporting on something that was said on Air America.
Right. If NBC/CBS/ABC/MSNBC/CNN didn't report it, it never happened. Right, Bill?
Very convenient.
OK, zero links to transcripts of hate speech broadcast over Air America, just as I thought.
Sorry guys, there is a qualitative difference between the values of the left and right, even if your ideology blinds you to it.
So, Bill, you're saying that these "right wing blogs" made all this up from whole cloth? If so, why did AA or any of its supporters (or lawyers) not challenge these quotes? They'd have an excellent libel case - easy money.
And who do you expect to dumpster-dive through AA transcripts just for YOUR edification (if they even exist)?
Bill, you are so precious. Don't EVER change!
You'll just have to do your own sleuthing as after two or three e-mails a very nice lady from Air America told me that the station does not have transcripts. Not as in hiding them but simply doesn't make them. Some of the radio hosts had partial transcripts made and are available on their own sites but none are available from AAR except in audio.
But this is really not the issue which remains that Bill and Jaw Bone have made the argument that suppressing one form of speech in the interest of fairness is ok. What they are essentially arguing is that they have so little confidence in their fellow citizens that they are willing to circumvent the 1st Amendment to make sure the voices that they agree with are heard. They are comfortable with the idea of one group now acting as a gatekeeper that has the power to more than suggest differing opinions but to demand that those different opinions to be heard as a condition of free speech.
I would like my daily dose of Mozart but are certainly don't expect that I will hear it between Rancid and Bob Marley on the stations I listen to. Also I noticed that one of the few pure leftist radio stations in America, Pacifica, has done a few intermittent programs on the issue and generally is hostile to any change. They realize that if the left can foist their programming on conservative programs then the time could come when conservatives will have no problem in demanding Charles Krauthammer have a show on KPFK by taking an hour away from Democracy Now!
Pat:
Your syntax needs work. "Bill and Jaw Bone have made the argument" is incorrect. That should be "Bill and Jaw Bone has made the argument".
Pat, you have a very unsavory habit of making up your own version of what someone thinks or said, and claiming it as their beliefs or words.
Please stop it. You may think it scores you points, but it only reveals your inability to win a discussion argument on the facts.
Bill B-Fine but doesn't the tapdancing become tiresome and if you are not implying a position on the original post then what exactly is the point you are trying to make. If you feel misrepresented then cite where you disagree with the characterizations of you. Instead of acting like a four-year old trying to take his new football home after the bigger boys began using it.
Or to be more agreeable are you in favor of the Fairness Doctrine or not?
Plus claiming no facts are in evidence, at least those you agree with, is pretty rich coming from someone that has an allergy to links or citation
Dr Weevil-Ego adversus solem ne loguitor!
Of course I am in favor of the Fairness Doctrine. Why, do you oppose free speech or something?
Try to follow along, Bill.
The prevailing opinion here is that the Fairness Doctrine has the practical effect of stifling free speech, at least as it is applied to commercial radio. This opinion is based on the evidence of the lack of political talk on radio prior to Reagan's recinding of the Doctrine, and the proliferation of it in the immediate aftermath of Reagan's decision.
Do you understand this point so far, Bill?
Ergo, in light of this evidence, opposing the Fairness Doctrine is in effect supporting free speech. Favoring the Fairness Doctrine is in effect opposing free speech.
Still with us, Bill? If this is not making sense to you, tell us where you're confused.
Good, now we know that Bill B has taken the statist point of view and has ignored the comment of Jusitic Robert Jackson, in 1943, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation it is that no official, high or petty can prescribe which shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinon."
Bill B has like Orwell's Napoleon cried out that he is the judge of what shall be said. Of course strictly in the interest of fairness.
Post a Comment