Liberals Want End of 'Right-Wing Radio'

Originally posted by dgtempe
The FCC should crack down on this and permit nothing but true reporting- in keeping with good excellence in reporting and journalism.

I agree with your 'no liars' policy, but do you really want the FCC, an agency of the federal government to determine what is considered a lie or truthful? I think we know how that will go. Hmm, that sounds alot like censorship to me?

Originally posted by apc
Because their shows are for entertainment, not formal journalism.

Yeah it seems like Rush and all the other cronies out there on both sides can't believe all the garbage they spew. They know half the stuff they preach is BS but that most of their listeners will believe it and make them more $$$.

Originally posted by dgtempe
We should not have OPINION shows. Those people are ....well, you know, everyone has an opinion as well as one of these.

Voicing your opinion, no matter how many listen and how much of the airwaves you consume, is a right protected under the first Amendment. As long as both sides have the oppurtunity to do the same then there's nothing wrong with it and taking that away will only lead us one more step towards the government completely censoring the media.

Originally posted by dgtempe
I dont care about anyone's opinion on radio or tv. Just give me STRAIGHT news, that's all that's needed.

And that's your opinion If and when ATS comes out with ATS TV and radio (hopefully sooner than later )I'm sure it will be full of opinions on both sides. Should that be censored too?

Originally posted by dgtempe
Explain to me why the likes of Rosie odonnell cant voice an opinion, or Ed Asner getting laughed off tv, or countless of others and i may change my mind.

Rosie always expresses her opinions and when she does she gets more media coverage than anyone.

Originally posted by grover
Well to mock someone with a disease like Michael J. Fox, just because he disagrees with him does not speak well of his character. At least in my book it doesn't.

Not that he had any, but Rush lost major cool points in my book. That was a definate low blow and speaks volumes of his character

On a personal note, I have grown to really dislike Rush and Bill. Their talk is cheap.


[edit on 27/6/2007 by SportyMB]

Well let us start with a mild correction, actually more of an addition to make clear the point you are bringing up..

I listened to the entire interview and Coulter's comments were in reference to a comment made by Bill Maher in which he stated that he "wished that the assassination attempt on Vice President Cheney had succeeded and that Cheney had been killed by a terrorist."

When Mrs. Edwards refused to express any outrage, or even mild concern over that, Coulter asked her how she would feel if she, Coulter, went around saying that she wished Edwards would be killed by a terrorist.

Coulter was very clear in her meaning and despite being talked over by a VERY rude Mrs. Edwards, got her point out.

Edwards brought it up..

Again, we can see the progression of the libs in all of the glory that makes them so special...

A lib brings up an insulting topic....

A Conservative responds.....

The lib then pretends outrage over the Conservative comment....

Even though the comment was identical to the lib comment and EVEN MORE TO THE POINT in response to the initial comment from the lib......

The lib and the ever present lib supporting media crucifies the Conservative..

Again the libs use subterfuge and cross agenda tactics to play on peoples feelings, out right telling lies and the lib media supports them...

The simple fact that when the attempt was made, there were NUMEROUS blogs created in which people stated the most vile and disgusting things about wishing a person, not just the VP, but any person, had been killed, would be killed or should be killed in a bombing, beheading etc...All with not ONE PEEP from the lib media in sympathy or regards....

I personally read four such different blogs on different sites. Several even wished for the painful death of his family as well

Where was your outrage then?

But...

Thank you Grover for bringing that particular instance up... I had watched the interview but considered the situation more "tit for tat" until you used it out of context...

On a personal note: I do not particularly care for Coulter, but again, I support her right to free speech.... Every bit as much as I support yours...

Semper

Well sense I do not read blogs, what I saw was on the evening news. And given Coulter's history of attack, to be put of the defensive for once is well tit for tat because she has used some very foul language in reference to liberals, Democrats and other opponents of hers. Regardless, hate speech, no matter who it comes from has poisoned the political discourse in this nation.

[edit on 27-6-2007 by grover]

If my memory serves me correctly, I believe Maher clarified his statement by saying "If Cheney died, then more people would live" which is true, since he is a "war" vice-president - Maher speaking of Iraqi civilians.

Originally posted by semperfortis

I'm a liberal...I ain't calling for an end to free speech...just asking for some self-control...

Self Control by who's standards?

Yours?

Mine?

Why is your standard any better than mine? Because you say so? Why is your standard better than Rush? Over 20 million people think that Rush is doing just fine. Are there that many people that think your standard is the "one"?

I'm guess that 20 million people don't know who you are any more than they know who I am..

Guessing mind you, but I'll wager it is true..

Currently I'll side with the 20 million that apparently agree with Rush and take my chances instead of the hate and vitriol on here being spewed forth trying to destroy free speech...

Semper

what don't you understand by self-control?? I think the key word is SELF??
You know, I set the standard for myself, you set the standard for your self...and well....all should be fine unless one of our standards are so far off that it infringes on currents laws....
my standard requires me to be kind to people regardless of weather or not I like them...yours and rush's might be different, that's okay, because my standard also has appropriate methods of dealing with rude, obnoxious people...

but, let me tell you this, our country, our government is set up to promote our freedom to set our own standard and live our lives accordingly...it's our responsibility to accept a standard that isn't too destructive to our society or our nation....and to live by it. it we fail to do so...and too much havoc results, well, we may find our freedom limited accordingly. I mean, ya there's free speech on the airwaves. but just how long do you think I would get away with using it to incite riots or a revolution?

another example would be the freedom people have when it comes to their sexual relations. we can spawn as many children with as many different partners as we like.....but if too many people are too irresponsible with this freedom, and we end up with too many single moms with a bunch of kids and no way to support them, well, before society is gonna let itself be turned into chaos, it will start restricting that freedom.

self control....acknowledge that our freedoms come with responsibilities...and that failure to live up to our end of the bargain just might cause the loss of the freedom.

Dawn I do understand what your saying...

But your very premise flies in the face of the concept of freedoms...

Just because it shocks you, does not mean I am under any obligation to be shocked...

Just because you don't like it, does not mean I can not...

The standard is not set by you, except with your ability to shut the radio off if it offends...

I have literally traveled all over this world, some courtesy of the USMC, some on my own. I have seen things that shook me too the bone, but were normal everyday activities where I was. That does not make it wrong as they are under no obligation to abide by my standards..

Nor is Rush or any other talk show host under any obligation to cater to you, me or any individual... All they must do to remain on the air, is please the listener base, and whether you like it or not, Rush does that the best in the industry..

~~~~~~~

Stillz,

Whether he "qualified" it or not, his words were EXACTLY as I quoted...

Of course after the backlash and when he realized what he would be facing, he backtracked...

Typical

Semper

the standard that I set for myself most certainly does govern me...what governs you is completely up to you....

but, I guess then, if I came up with evidence that the gov't was about to hit Iranian nuclear facilities, had the plans and all........(I don't really, so I do



clearly, somewhere, the line must be drawn as to freedom, otherwise, the stupid people will destabilize society and compromise national security.


hope homeland security knows just how much a waste of time it would be to come and hassle me!),....but, let's imagine that I did manage to come up with the plans for a secret attack on IRan.....then, well, guess you wouldn't mind me blasting them all over our airwaves, and across the internet? you just surf on or turn off you tv??

what about the torture pics??
the revelation of wiretapping and such?
the blowing of a cia agent's identity?
janet jackson's superbowl extravaganza?

the constant ramblings of some in the media who's only purpose is to divide this country into two opposing hostile forces?

by the way, if rush is rambling about how it's the liberals that want to do something about these conservative talk shows....ummm...got a feeling this is a lie also.
with all the great coverage these guys have to having on the immigration bill......well...got a feeling that no one would like to invite these guys on a hunting trip with cheney any more than Bush and Cheney would!!
at the moment, I don't think there are many in washington who wouldn't like these shows to disappear for awhile.


[edit on 28-6-2007 by dawnstar]

[edit on 28-6-2007 by dawnstar]

Nobody that I have read on this thread; NOBODY, not me, not anybody including the article itself that we are supposed to be discussing have suggested censoring anybody, removing anybody from the air or trying to control in any way shape or form what is said; it is not about restricting anybodies freedom. There are only two issues:

(1) A call for more diverse ownership of the airwaves, or should I say the media. It is not saying take away anybodies business or anything else, just saying that we need more diversity in the media. In a day when conglomerates are gobbling up small radio stations, newspapers and television stations left and right, up and down (like I have said before here in Roanoke EVERY radio station in town is either owned by Clear Channel or its #1 rival) diversity and divers opinions become lost in the corporate push for uniformity.

When I lived in Portland Maine there was a small free weekly newspaper (now defunct, it was bought and shut down) called Casco Bay Weekly. It became a force to be reckoned with in Portland because it would take on issues that the corporate owned paper would ignore, it would be the only one to sit in on late night city council sessions and report on the dealings, it took on irresponsible developers and so on. In the years it that it existed, it provided the people of Portland with a voice that the mainstream papers had failed to do. THAT is the kind of thing that diversity in ownership of any media can do.

(2) The second issue is a proposal to restore the fairness doctrine. This is not despite the rhetoric aimed at individual shows; it is aimed at broadcasters. Simply put it would require the media outlets to provide airtime or space for for both sides to make their case as a form of a public service. That is not an attempt to ban advertising by candidates nor is it an attempt to force Joe Blows talk show to have someone he doesn't want.

In the heyday of the fairness doctrine, generally speaking, broadcasters would provide a few minutes, (usually one to three) for different candidates and an issues backers, or detractors to make their case and for a rebuttal. Then if the candidate or the issues supporters or opponents wanted to buy additional airtime in the form of advertising, then of course they could. In this way we the people became a better informed electorate. This is good. An informed electorate is good and any way to further encourage that only strengthens our democracy.

An uninformed electorate, or one that is exposed to only one viewpoint is a danger to our way of life.





[edit on 28-6-2007 by grover]

What is a danger is the spin you are putting on this and your advocation of the restriction of free and unfettered business in radio...

Oh of course you have not come right our and said it! Libs never do, you dance around it...

Here is where you get it all wrong....

We really are as smart as you.... I know it's a revelation, but the pain will subside after time...

So you are going to have the Government REQUIRE (FORCE) that the broadcasters use some part of THEIR PERFECTLY LEGAL air time, to broadcast something (anything) that they may not want to. Thereby TAKING away time that they have EVERY RIGHT to use as they wish..

Word it how you want to

Spin it all you like

YOU and all those like you, want to take away the broadcasters freedoms by TELLING them what they must do...

OH YEAH

Sugar coat it all you want to, your intent is clear...

I have a book written by Neal Bortz though, that you will NEVER make be burn...

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis

Oh of course you have not come right out and said it! Libs never do, you dance around it...

Spin it all you like

YOU and all those like you, want to take away the broadcasters freedoms by TELLING them what they must do...

Sugar coat it all you want to, your intent is clear...

I have a book written by Neal Bortz though, that you will NEVER make be burn...

Semper

TO EVEN SUGGEST I WOULD SUPPORT BOOK BURNING IS DEEPLY OFFENSIVE AND I RESENT IT.


FOR THE RECORD: The fundamentalist Christians in your own party are the chief advocates for banning books in this country.

FOR THE RECORD: It was the conservatives (and conservative owned Clear Channel who promoted it. Around here anyway the only radio stations having CD burning parties were the ones owned by Clear Channel) who got together and made public spectacles of burning the Dixie Chicks CD's because they were critical of bush minor. AND it was conservative crack pots who called them up and sent them letters threatening their lives.
Yes it was CD's of music, not books but the principle is the same.

FOR THE RECORD: It is conservative right-wing regimes that historically restrict their citizens choices in what to see or read; who ban or burn books not liberal governments.
Mind you I am not saying ALL conservative governments; there are always exceptions, but when there is censorship and control of the media and the banning or burning of books etc. odds are it comes from the conservative right.

Neither the left or the right have a monoploy on bullheadiness, stupidity or arrogance.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by grover]

I will trust that you are not trolling me semper.

A Challenge For Those Who Truly Support The "Fairness Doctrine"

Practice what you preach.

If you believe broadcasters should be required to air "both sides" of any issue, then you can set a good example by doing so yourself.

Yes you too can help promote fairness by posting an opposing viewpoint for every opinion you've expressed in this thread.

Be sure to give equal time and word count when you post at length about why your previous posts were wrong.

And get used to it, because if the Fairness Doctrine comes back, you can bet there will be plenty of pressure to apply it to the Internet as well -- including ATS.

So brush up your "fairness skills", go back through every thread you've posted to and post an equal number of opposing viewpoints.

C'mon! Show those of us who are "unfair" how it's done.

Of course I'm being somewhat facetious about it, but I hope my point is not lost in the many layers of irony.

Since you brought it up... you first. Won't happen will it?

After You

Originally posted by grover
Since you brought it up... you first. Won't happen will it?

I don't support the "Fairness Doctrine" or any restriction of political expression by the government and never have.

Thus my challenge does not apply to me.

If, on the other hand, you do support it, then by all means feel free to accept my challenge.

And I don't see it as a restriction; indeed quite the opposite.

From Wikipedia:

Originally posted by grover
The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation of the United States' Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in what was deemed an honest, equal and balanced manner. It has since been repealed by the FCC and aspects of it have been questioned by courts.

The doctrine was enforced throughout the entire history of the FCC (and its precursor, the Federal Radio Commission) until 1987.

In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, under challenges that it violated the First Amendment. Although similar laws had been deemed unconstitutional when applied to newspapers, the Court ruled that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the limited nature of the public airwave spectrum.

Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, the FCC began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment.

Two corollary rules of the doctrine, the "personal attack" rule and the "political editorial" rule, remained in practice until 2000. The "personal attack" rule was pertinent whenever a person or small group was subject to a character attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said and offer the opportunity to respond on the air. The "political editorial" rule applied when a station broadcast editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the candidates not endorsed be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, ordered the FCC to justify these corollary rules in light of the decision to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC did not provide prompt justification, and ultimately ordered their repeal in 2000.

As of early 2007, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), along with Representatives Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), and Louise Slaughter (D-NY) have announced their support of legislation which would reverse the 1987 FCC decision and restore the Fairness Doctrine.

This proposed legislation has been routinely criticized by conservatives in the media as a means of keeping their views from being expressed or of deliberately cutting their available air time in half. Conservatives also claim that liberals already dominate Hollywood, academia and much of the mainstream media, which would not be subject to the regulations required by The Fairness Doctrine.

The equal-time rule specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who might request it. This means, for example that if a station gives one free minute to a candidate on the prime time, it must do the same to another.

However, there are four exceptions: if the air-time was in a documentary, interview, scheduled newscast or an on-the-spot news event the equal-time rule is not valid. Since 1983 political debates not hosted by the media station are considered news events thus may include only major-party candidates without having to offer air time to minor-party or independent candidates.

This rule was originally created by the Federal Communications Commission in 1927, in the Radio Act. It was later superseded by the Communications Act, where the Equal Time Rule lies under Section 315.

A related provision of Section 315 requires that broadcasters offer time to candidates at the same rate as their "most favored advertiser". Another provision prohibits stations from censoring campaign ads.

The rule was created because FCC thought the stations could easily manipulate the outcome of the elections.

The Equal-time rule is sometimes confused with the fairness doctrine.

So the question remains... would it restrict conservatives air time by increasing liberal air time OR would its impact be neutral... of course the conservatives say it would, BUT considering their predominance on air and in print, for me anyway their complaint rings hollow and suggests that they are more concerned about limiting exposure to liberal ideas.

BTW I was wrong about Reagan's involvement. I remembered that he had had something to do with the end of the fairness doctrine, but I was wrong about what. I was also unaware of the nature of the debate concerning it in the 80's but I still think that the more divers voices, liberal, conservative, what not, that we as voters are exposed to the more informed an electorate we are.



[edit on 28-6-2007 by grover]

Two items caught my eye:

Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, the FCC began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment.

And I agree completely with Fowler's assessment. All speech should be heard, even if it comes from the likes of Limbaugh. I have the choice to not listen to them or their particular brand of hatred and I like having that choice.

I will strongly protest anyone - especially a Congressperson - who tries to sell this garbage as anything but an attempt at censorship. If anything it tells me that those who seek to reinstate it see the american public as nothing more than brainwashed sheep who simply do what a radio pundit tells them to do. Fact of the matter is, the big push to censor has come about as a result of the Immigration bill. Guess what Feinstein - most people in this country think the bill sucks. Not as a result of what Rush told them or Shaun or Lou Dobbs - they don't want illegal aliens to get a free pass. We were pissed when Reagan did it and were pissed about it now. (and this is coming from a liberal)

Two corollary rules of the doctrine, the "personal attack" rule and the "political editorial" rule, remained in practice until 2000. The "personal attack" rule was pertinent whenever a person or small group was subject to a character attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said and offer the opportunity to respond on the air. The "political editorial" rule applied when a station broadcast editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the candidates not endorsed be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, ordered the FCC to justify these corollary rules in light of the decision to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC did not provide prompt justification, and ultimately ordered their repeal in 2000.

I look at this in the perspective of the "news" - not newsmagazines like 60 minutes or Moneyline. If Dan Rather were to forbid make political editorials or personal attacks on candidates.... oh wait... he did, didn't he? And how well did that play to his credibility? He got a quick retirement. There is a distinct difference between Wolf Blitzer or Brian Williams being biased or offensive in their reporting and John Caffrey and Jon Stewart. One is journalism - the other is opinion.


B.

Majic, he wont do any more than he is doing now, side stepping your challenge...

See, lib restrictions only apply to those with different view points, not to the libs themselves...

Gover, I don't really care if you are offended or not...

If you support the government restrictions of free speech whether it is on radio or the internet, then you DO advocate book burning...

There is NO difference...

YOU are saying that it is OK for the government to control what is on the air... For a Conservative station, YOU are saying the government should eliminate one half of the programing THEY choose, the programing that makes the money for the broadcasters...

So YOU are advocating the control of the airwaves and the restriction of free speech on the radio.. YOU are advocating the elimination of one of our most basic rights...

YOU are trying to destroy the rights that are expressly conveyed in the Bill of Rights...

YOU are attacking that document...

YOU are attacking freedoms...

YOU are attacking me and ever other red blooded American that had the guts enough to get up and go fight for that document..

Burning books, oh yeah, that is absolutely your next step..

Semper

You should note those quotes that I used went into both the pros and the cons of the issue, so yes I offered opinions other than my own so I did respond to Majic's challenge.

As for my own personal opinion on the matter, I really am getting sick and tired of stating it over and over again and you reading into it things that I did not say, suggest or imply. I am articulate enough to say exactly what I mean and not a word more.

I will repeat it one more time: Diversity of opinion is good. Hearing both sides of an argument is good; especially during an election. In polarized times such as these we need divers opinions if any of us are to make an informed and educated decision.

We should not need a law dictating this, I agree, but then I remember this young man telling me a couple years ago that he had no idea what liberals and the Democrats stood for because he had never been exposed to their opinions; all he ever read, and all that he ever heard were conservative voices because that was all that was on.

When I hear things like that I really have to wonder about the direction our country is headed. THAT and only THAT is my concern.

grover

Originally posted by grover
And for the record when I said "As for how educated his listeners are... you flatter yourselves." It was in response to: "Limbaugh's listeners tend to be highly educated and up on issues." Which is not so much a slam as an objection to a very broad generalization. It would be an equally broad generalization to say the same thing about all liberals.
[edit on 27-6-2007 by grover]

I can see your point here. I get the same reaction when I read that liberals are more "enlightened" than your average bear.

Originally posted by grover
OK I have just about had enough of this crap.
Fourth...How over the top is his behavior that he almost immediately got fired from ESPAN after one broadcast for racist comments about black sports players?

I have no respect for ANYONE who plays that kind of game.

And I've had about enough of you deliberately misinterpreting what people like Limbaugh says. It reminds me of the brou-haha that erupted when Tony Snow used the term "Tar Baby". It was immediately characterized as a racist statement, when actually it illustrated the lack of education of his detractors.

As for ESPN, Limbaugh resigned, he didn't get fired. And he was attacked for offering his opinion:

The comments referenced by Limbaugh came during Sunday's pregame show when the conservative talk show host offered the opinion that McNabb wasn't as good as the media perceived him to be.

"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well,'' Limbaugh said. "There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

espn.go.com...

Most sports experts will tell you that what Limbaugh said was true: McNabb wasn't as good as he was made out to be. Nobody before Limbaugh had been upfront enough to approach the issue of black QB's in the NFL, though.

A similar argument about the lack of black head coaches was present at one time in the NFL.

I'm not defending Limbaugh as much as I'm protesting the way that certain events are deliberately misinterpreted to fit an agenda. It gets compounded when people repeat the false stories. That's dishonest, and should be discouraged.