Free Speech Fades in America
by Brian Jennings
There is growing alarm among talk radio personalities and executives nationwide as the Obama administration embeds socialistic values into the American mainstream. Thanks to President Reagan, broadcasters have been free from the Orwellian Fairness Doctrine for over twenty years. The number of talk stations has grown from 125 to now over 2000 thanks to his great wisdom of repealing this doctrine which muzzled free speech. Radio and Television owners simply didn’t want to risk being turned into the FCC and potentially lose their broadcast license if they said something controversial. I worked for twenty years under this doctrine and we never broached major controversy – free thought and expression was tightly controlled over the airwaves. When Reagan dropped the restrictions, Rush Limbaugh and a multitude of other conservative hosts emerged and succeeded because there was so much pent up demand by those who felt their views negated by restrictions and by the overwhelming liberal media bias. Now, Democrats want to restore speech restrictions and it is simply covert censorship.
The FCC will soon have a 3-2 Democrat majority. It’s no secret that two of the Democrats serving on the FCC favor restoring balance to talk radio – in other words, they would move conservatives out and balance them with liberals. They call it balance and diversity, but whenever government regulates free speech, it is censorship. Whenever government proscribes a certain amount of speech, it is speech control. John Madison who helped craft the First Amendment would roll over in his grave.
This debate is one of the hottest topics on radio today and with the White House declaration of war on Rush Limbaugh there is almost a fever pitch in Washington by Democrats to take back the airwaves because they think conservatives dominate talk radio and Fox News. That’s true. But, we don’t dominate the rest of the media which includes hundreds of NPR stations, the liberal network Air America, dozens of cable news and public affairs channels, dozens of magazines, 1400 newspapers, and tens of thousands of Internet sites.
On any given day, Americans can get any point of view anywhere which makes the argument for control of American airwaves moot, at best. Yet, the debate is moving ahead and Democrats are carefully writing language for regulation of our broadcast media. It is personal for them. They want to control it all and they want to eliminate conservative views from the media.
I’ll be writing more about this in the days and weeks ahead and through my contacts in the media will soon be publishing a book entitled Censorship: The Threat to Silence Talk Radio from Simon & Schuster on May 5th. I hope to share key content with you and keep you posted on the fight for free speech under the new administration. In the meantime, look out for the speech terrorists. Check this out from the liberal censors on the left. It states bluntly what they want to do – muzzle the right. At least they get a gold star for their honesty.
The ongoing “War on Words” by the left in America is intensifying on many fronts. Stay tuned.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
163 Comments
Hear, hear — literally.
Caveat Emptor:
The Fairness (so-called) Doctrine is radioactive for the Dems right now; Barry doesn't want a street brawl with Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, Ingraham and the others. It looks, smells, and is censorship- plain and simple. No, what we must be vigilant about is the back door approach already under way. Namely 'local ownership' amd 'ownership diversity'
(dontcha love the aphorisms this lot comes up with?) amongst other initiatives.
Namely they would take control of the radio stations from ClearChannel and Evergreen and other syndicators who have found manna from heaven with conservative talk. Don't laugh- there is already money in the porkulus bill to achieve this end. Yeah, you bet- taxpayer money- our money- will be used to buy stations so they can give us Air America 24/7 without worrying about the bottomline.
Once again we Chicagoans are guilty of sending Ofiicious Left Wing Bureaucrat Dick Durbin (look in the dictionary under officious bureaucrat and you will see his picture) to DC and this is his sneaky stuff…
This is dangerous- more than you might think. Spread the word, good citizens…
With the war looming, a good defense is a strong offense. It's time to dig in for the long haul.
Support the troops, support conservative talk radio.
When I brought this up on a Baptist discussion forum (dominated by liberals) I was told that the Fairness Doctrine was an internet rumor analogous to the whole Madeline Murray O'Hair nonsense. In other words paranoid nonsense and what a fool I was to believe anyone is trying it. Granted I wondered why there was so much smoke if there was no fire. Is there a concrete response? Is this rumor? Or can we point to specific things specific people in Washington are saying and doing that indicate yes indeed there really is a Fairness Doctrine and someone is/someones are trying to put it into effect.
(In quasi-defense this person acknowledged there are efforts to change ownership rules. The effect being more "local ownership" and less "networks" and thereby less conservative talk radio. I see.)
This will be difficult to fight since Barry and the Dems have changed laws and strategically put their goons in the right places.
Let me add, that I cannot put in writing how angry it makes me that the left is trying to styfle free speech through this act. Beyond that, my blood pressure probably won't let me comment.
"covert censorship" … not so covert. If this doesn't scare you, you must be unconcious. … and people wonder why people like Glenn Beck are getting traction.
The saddest part is that it won't be enforced in an unbiased manner. Conservative talk radio will be held to this standard, while the liberal MSM will get to continue to be unabashedly liberal. If that happens it could be game over.
I am willing to take up arms to protect the bill of rights. A move like this could incite civil unrest. Hmmmm, is Obama preparing for that already with some of his plans?
I say bring it on. When they attempt this, it will be contested all the way up to the Supreme Court, and it will be ruled unconstitutional.
Then the Leftist turds can quit dreaming about a country where they get to decide who has 1st amendment rights.
A lot of Republicans and Christians (note I didn't say "conservatives") will agree with the fairness doctrine because they are afraid/uncomfortable with "hate" speach. I know Christians who don't like Rush because he's controversial and abrasive, etc.
That has been the crux of my argument when I've brought this up with libs. Who decides? Who's idea of fair applies? How do you guarantee an equal number of listeners? How can it be balanced if we turn off the radio every time a libera comes on.?
That has been the crux of my argument when I've brought this up with libs. Who decides? Who's idea of fair applies? How do you guarantee an equal number of listeners? How can it be balanced if we turn off the radio every time a liberal comes on.?
Obama has stated repeatedly that he opposes re-instating the Fairness Doctrine. Relax: it's not coming back.
NOPE – you twisted all the facts: There's 100 less production companies serving 500 channels on TV than in the 1970's when we had just three TV networks and UHF. All US programming — total of companies providing shows is an ALL-TIME LOW of 65 companies. (In the 1970's, there were 165 prodco's making TV shows…it WAS fair and balanced.)
Ronald Reagan killed free speech; consolidating all radio and TV via media conglomerates. Radio stations are lead,by evil, Clear Channel – spewing hateful hip-hop at minorities and cheesy GOPblessed music-product, as controlled by a privileged few Producers… Other Radio conglom is Evergreen – anesthetizing us with boring, repetitive Oldies, lame R+B and freaky country music produced like it's hiphop!
Five Hollywood studios control everything. You think Fox, GE(NBC), CBS/Paramount/Viacom, Disney/ESPN and Time/ Warner Bros. work outside the government? You're mistaken — that's why the GOP's "liberal media" concept is a JOKE. If media were liberal — the past 20 years would 've been FUN …and honest.
GO OBAMA
Socialistic values? HA – How many knee-jerk words can you use on this site.?..and of course there's alway your obligatory liberal reference! Funny how there we virtully NO protest songs on the Radio for the past 20 years of the Iraq war huh? — but during Vietnam we had hundreds on the air……despite the fact Republicans and Democrats are/were against the Daddy Bush Iraq war, huh?
Fact is: the GOP, as lead by Reagan – the longest-running President of the Screen Actors Guild (where he got his training to be president of the US! ) has held back the country culturally for over 25 years.
Now it is going to end!
The flood of propoganda on Talk radio — well, it's really hate radio, right? — is the work of Reagan…24/7 repetition of moral dilemmas in which the puclis has no decison in the outcome — this is the GOP definiton of NEWS — i.e., like the hateful commentaries on stoopid NOT- Hollywood site …
Guess what ? Pretty soon you will stop dressing like it's 1987 because it will stop feeling like your same old tired life as we take a quantum leap into, gulp! the acutal 21st Century!!!!!!!!
Like Obama hasn't gone against a "promise" he's made before?
As a democrat, I know I should be saying: yeah, yeah, whatever…but I can't Jennings is right, this whole Fairness Doctrine crap is nothing more than censorship. What floors me is how those who, for good or for ill, would style themselves as liberals, would be the driving force behind such measures. The very definition of being "liberal" should mean you are all for free speech and a neat wanton anarchy of expression of ideas. It just goes to show that politics isn't about serving anything or anyone, it's about latching onto which ever ideological train will get you reelected and donate the most cash.
I wouldn't call myself a liberal, but I'm certainly not conservative. Fox News is too conservative for me, I won't disagree that they tend to have a viewpoint which leans further to the right. OK, so rather than try and silence Fox, I turn the station to a different news channel. As stated above, there are many available to me to check out. I exercise my freedom of choice to change that station.
Censorship is censorship…period.
"that's a good 1" and "all wrong" (how appropriate) are excellent examples of utterly unprincipled people who only wish to crush dissent and eliminate all opposition. Check out their comments, complete with not-so-veiled threats, conspiracy theories, historical revisionism and gratuitous exclamation points. They would like their own voices to be the only ones heard, and perhaps they'll succeed, with the Teleprompter President as their ally. The purpose of power is, evidently, more power. Most illuminating.
You're confusing consolidation with censorship. Apples and oranges. Consolidation is something I disagree with. I also disagree with censorship of the kind you seem to think is "fair". Censorship is never fair or balanced. People on the left want to silence conservatives, when all they have to do is support the stations and networks who tell their side.
Except apparently, the public isn't interested in the left's message based on how well left wing talk radio and networks are doing. So you want to shut up the right. It's transparent and it will backfire. The genie is out of the bottle.
First the first amendment, next the second amendment. Watch.
If they manage to succeed here, it will be temporary because I doubt Obama will last one term. The Dems are destroying themselves quite well without any Republican help, so next election should be interesting. Laws can get overturned.
However, if they do succeed for a time, we should just challenged any and all left wing bias in the press. They can't have their cake and eat it too.
Mr. Obama is a Politician and a Politicians favorite tactic is Flip Flopping.
However, we shall see.
"John Madison who helped craft the First Amendment would roll over in his grave."
Shouldn't that be James Madison?
Really!
The GOP held back the Nation? Maybe they kept it from going off of the "Progressive" cliff.
I was not aware that the Iraq war started in 1989.
Hundreds of Protest Songs about Viet Nam? I don't think so. Tens maybe.
As for hate and propoganda, I read it in your writing
i will be looking for your articles. thanks!
your screen name describes your post perfectly
I agree!
James, if they succeed, conservatives need to use the act to immediately start filing suits against every single liberal television show, radio show, etc. Gee, CNN isn't fair, day time television doesn't reflect fair views, wow look at MSNBC. Fight fire with fire. Make this law so unweildy and oppressive that even the left starts screaming to undo it. That's the only way the left learns, when things blow up in their faces.
At the same time, challenge the law itself in court, and blast Congress with hate mail and phone calls — flood them with our displeasure.
As a Conservative Cristian Democrat, I am neither uncomfortable nor afraid of hate speach. I think that it is a sign of a lack of intelligence. The hate speach that has been spewing since December 2000 has been down right, no pun intended, disgusting.
Thanks. I was going to point that out if no one else did.
Yeah, yeah whatever. True to your name, AWAU. Next!
Except now that our dear congress (lower case for me these days) seems hell bent and determined to make laws to tax specific companies' bonus' (AIG) as they did today, I am sure that they will make sure that the "Fairness Doctrine" only regulates radio.
Truly Orwellian! Censorship and speech codes propogated by the same crowd that extolls "diversity" and "tolerance" and almost nobody gets the irony.
We are genuinely rushing toward Room 101. I just hope the re-education camp I get sent to has an open bar.
it would be interesting to see if those who think the MSM is actually conservative (yes! they exist, and are in government) would buy on to this argument… they believe PBS is a fair, if somewhat conservative and stodgy affair- Garrison Keillor is actually considered conservative programming because he adresses 'small town
America' which by dint is conservative. To these people the first amendment is to protect kiddie porn and the second is to (occasionally annd with restrictions) hunt ducks… We hope it doesn't come to this.
Unfortunately, as we saw here yesterday, there are those on the right that are trying as well.
The Fairness Doctrine is a bad answer to a bad problem.
Talk Radio is sophistry at its core. It is rooted in the fallacy of dichotomy: it's either X, or it's Y. And, it's unfortunately unmoderated. So what you get is the repetitious ramblings of people who don't know all the facts, but it lets segments of the public affirm their beliefs because a "news source" confirmed it for them.
Please don't straw man me and say that the media is perfect, but there is little objectivity in the majority of talk radio.
The United States of America never stops to amaze me. Here we have one of the greatest countries this world has ever seen, with one of its principal tenants being that of Free Speech. And here we are in the midst of debating/arguing about that very tenant being gagged. We can debate this openly all the way up to the point this site gets shut down, because it doesn't have enough liberal commentators, and we can discuss it openly up to the point we get thrown in jail for stating positions contrary to the administration.
The fairness doctrine is the beginning of what will eventually become complete censorship.
Any ides for how to go about stopping this?
Calling Representatives, writing letters…time to think outside the box any suggestions?
If Limbaugh and the rest are so full of hot air like we've been told, why would anybody care that they spout off on static laden AM radio? The point is not balance it is to control the message.
"These guys are not singing from the same sheet of music, and they won't listen to reason. They must be stopped. They haven't headed the warnings, and now it is time to do something about it."
It is crime-think to even have these ideas, even worse to actually put them out for public consumption.
"The Dems are destroying themselves quite well without any Republican help…"
Isn't that the truth. I sure love how they came in and turned htis country around. As a Democrat, I personally feel just as ripped off by the current congress just as much as I do by big oil. It's a classic bait and switch tactic. I could give a damned about whether talk radio has the same amount of stations for each side of the aisle, I want the same amount of food on both sides of my table. Fix the economy and forget about talk radio and the media.
"That's the only way the left learns, when things blow up in their faces. "
Since when has EITHER side learned from something blowing up in their faces? I think you are giving all our illustrious elected leaders WAY too much credit.
And of course there's really nothing else more important to focus on….
Great straw man argument. But let's talk about what's actually going on.
The philosophy behind it has to do with the quality and veracity of the information in its presentation, not to control the content and say it can't be said. The theory, which I agree with, is that all information should be question, but the application is that points of view should be represented, which is not necessarily correct.
Amen. This country could use a good street fight. It would be cathartic. Liberal / traitors identify yourselves, sit down Chris Matthews we know about you.
You are exactly right. This is all about CONTROLLING the message. We can't have opposing viewpoints, now can we. That's what is really being lost in this country, the great art of debate. It always just degenerates into name calling and mud slinging. What ever happened to debating about ideas strictly ont he merit of the individual idea, instead of on some grand conspiracy theory?
And where in your entire diatribe was the word "censorship" shown to occur? Hm…. Oh, I know, because Reagan and the Republicans DIDN"T promote censorship.
Too funny! We have no power to suppress anything! For many years the left has been trying to control every news venue; they've taken over colleges and universities so that no student has a chance to hear a different side. I can see that you've really been supressed!!!!!
Right. The left doesn't see the MSM as liberal so the networks, NYT, etc., will be considered "balanced," whereas anything actually moderate or right leaning will get the hammer.
Ok, I agree with that.
One of my big problems with the Democrat party is that, for a long long time, going back to the 80s, they don't seem to be about anything other than attack and react. They don't seem to know how to do anything. Besides raise taxes and spend, I mean. They spend almost all their time trying to play gotcha with Republicans or conservatives and the rest of their time trying to divert people's attention away from their failings.
The party needs a purge. There are too many career politicians in the Democrats who are doing nothing but harm.
"Growing alarm"? Please. Why would we take away the mics when they're saying monumentally stupid and damaging things like wanting Obama to fail and responding to criticism with fat jokes? Those aren't microphones, those are spades, digging the political graves of talk radio haters. But of course when the conservative talk radio finally tanks, it will naturally all be the liberals' faults.
The White House strategy of playing up Boss Limbaugh's place in the party would seem to be evidence that refutes the notion Democrats want to shut down Boss Limbaugh. But of course you all hate empiricism like that with the burning fires of Hades.
"Funny how there we virtully NO protest songs on the Radio for the past 20 years of the Iraq war huh?"
Leaving aside the "20 years," I'd suggest that the lack of protest songs has more to to with a lack of talent than any kind of censorship. Plus, as much as the liberals tried to say that Iraq was another Vietnam, it just isn't.
You can't be serious! The mainstream media is so biased and selects their "facts" and experts from the left. You almost never hear a true conservative voice on any other channel than FOX. We don't need liberals on talk radio – we can listen to them all day long on news channels…there is little objectivity in the MSM.
I can't tell you how frustrated I have been since the 70's. It was like my opinions were SINS. When talk radio and then the internet came around, I was amazed to be able to find folks who agreed with me and who had facts to back up their opinons.
Have you ever listened to conservative talk radio? Might be a good idea before you pass judgment.
Yeah, sadly there are people on all sides of the spectrum who want to silence their enemies. Still, the left is the primary driver of this hateful little train.
This post sites absolutely zero evidence for its contention. Aside from a few minor House members no one has advocated bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. This is a non-issue used to fire up radio listeners and others who see black helicopters every time a Democrat is in office. Wake up people! Radio hosts and authors bring this up to boost ratings and sell books.
And are YOU going to decide which points of view are the wrong ones? That's been ongoing with MSM for 30 or 40 years!
bystander..the difference is that the "entertainers" on Talk Radio are open and honest to say they are not journalists, and they are out to promote their ideals and beliefs.
Stewart, Letterman, etc.. admit they're "entertainers" but also promote their ideals and beliefs, but never admit to doing that… (so they're a little more tolerable than the third category)
Whereas people like Oafermann, Chris-the-thrill, Maddows, Maher and others who claim to cover both sides of an issue never do.. they promote their ideals and beliefs and claim to be fair "journalists" (I only include Maher in this because he says he's giving both sides an open forum, but never does… if he were honest about his agenda, I'd have less problems with with his show/comments, and move him up with the Stewart/Letterman/O'brien level.)
bystander..the difference is that the "entertainers" on Talk Radio are open and honest to say they are not journalists, and they are out to promote their ideals and beliefs.
Stewart, Letterman, etc.. admit they're "entertainers" but also promote their ideals and beliefs, but never admit to doing that… (so they're a little more tolerable than the third category)
Whereas people like Oafermann, Chris-the-thrill, Maddows, Maher and others who claim to cover both sides of an issue never do.. they promote their ideals and beliefs and claim to be fair "journalists" (I only include Maher in this because he says he's giving both sides an open forum, but never does… if he were honest about his agenda, I'd have less problems with with his show/comments, and move him up with the Stewart/Letterman/O'brien level.)
Take your meds. Everything's OK. The vast right wing conspiracy has imploded, and the gummint will take care of everything. You did forget to mention that right wing rag, the New York Times Syndicate which has stealthily pretended to be liberal. The black helicopters were painted with disappearing paint, and soon they, along with the entire Reagan plot, will be revealed. Your head is nodding, and it's time for your nap.
Why would you think conservative talk radio will fail (short of government intervention of course)? I guess it is completely impossible that Obama is using Rush right now until he can be rid of him? (note: e-sarcasm in the second sentence of my post).
Well said. Never fear "hate speech", all it does is highlight the stupidity of the speaker.
Mea culpa, team. I ignored my own advice (above). Nevertheless, here is a belated DFTT.
Listeners to talk radio understand that they are listening to commentary–not news. The right is very clear on this subject, pointing out, and correctly so, how the left inserts commentary into standard news segments–offering opinion rather than news as news.
When called on this, the left, as so eloquently embodied in your words, attempts to put forth the notion that the right, both as commentator and audience, is too stupid to tell the difference between news and editorial.
Which is odd because it is numerous members of the left who happily tell us that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house…when that quote is actually Tina Fey. Additionally, many admit being 'informed' about the days news by Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert.
In this, as in most things, the left projects.
Jonah Goldberg really needs to release an updated, post-election, "Yes, We Can!" edition of LIBERAL FASCISM.
No kidding. I have been hearing these same concerns being repeated since the early years of the Clinton administration. There's about as much truth to them as there was to the rumors that Bush planned to invade Iran.
If the technological landscape was the same as that in the 1970s, with only a handful of broadcast networks, no cable, no satellite radio, and no internet, then perhaps there would be a serious push toward reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. But the landscape changed, and so did priorities.
I'm sorry – the what party?
I would agree except the Fairness Doctrine isn't on the table, except the flat, hard mullets of conservative talk radio heads. Really, can we please drop the charade?
If it gets through moderation, somecat.. you'll see some collaberation/eveidence of the contention.
We shall see the fantasies of idiots, yes we will see that
It IS failing. It is failing to convince independents of anything. It is failing to generate new ideas for a party that is virtually brain dead. It is failing in it's main function: helping the Republicans win elections. Independents HATE talk radio conservatives. So do young people. It has no future because it is RADIO. Young people don't read newspapers and they don't listen to talk radio (well except for that kid who is never going to get laid).
Evidence? They hate evidence with the burning fires of Hades
William, you're right about one thing. He has stated exactly that. And he and his minions have changed the form but not the substance, re-named it, and are giving it another go. Same s–t, different package.
Fairness Doctrine = War on Christmas
Not one year ago Nancy Pelosi, that "minor" House member, said she and the entire caucus wanted to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. If they didn't, why did she block Mike Pence's "Broadcaster Freedom Act", which would have prohibit anything like the "fairness doctrine", from even coming to a floor vote? Because they want to enact it.
There really isn't any push for this. It is not going to happen. I guess one of us will be proven wrong. I will keep my eyes open for a real move towards a fairness doctrine (I wouldn't be for it) if you will at least allow for the fact that the people who keep bringing this up are radio personalities and authors who stand to benefit from your outrage. Just keep it mind when you are once again stirred to an outrage. There is an entire industry that feeds on outrage from right and the left.
I don't know why NPR doesn't come up whenever the Fairness Doctrine comes up. Liberals would howl if you tried to have a conservative view point alongside some of their shows. I've heard some of the comments when they do minor puff culture pieces on conservative issues and it's astounding how much it pisses them off to even have to hear about the existence, say, of Christian communities in Appalachia, or good arguments for abstinence.
Andrew B. and John N., you need to find someone to do a daily or weekly fisking of the left-wing bias of NPR — I think Newsbusters does one fairly regularly. Then liberals can tell me why any "Fairness Doctrine" shouldn't apply to NPR as well as Rush. In fact, instead of the fairness doctrine, just put Rush on NPR, and force liberals to listen to him when he comes on. they could intersperse his show with "Fresh Air" or "Wait, wait, don't tell me" or "This American Life."
Why exactly does there have to be any objectivity?
I wanna know.
There's this thing called the on/off button, ya know
2) Senator Tom Harkin
3) Ny Dem Rep Maruice Hinchey
(more to come)
Rely on the Supreme Court? It may be too late already. By the time a case gets to the Supremes BHO will have likely picked one or two new members who will tilt the balance away from any reasonable hope for constitutionalist decision. Supreme Court nominees . . . another reason why elections matter.
6) Tom Harkin – The Fairness Doctrine was eliminated in 1987, but calls for reviving it had surfaced again recently. Harkin says it’s something he supports.
7) Bill Clinton – "and believes we should have “more balance in the programs ""
n.m. Jeff Bingaman – FD is a "a higher calling?"
That's 8.. want more? I'm sure I can find them.
Note that there was another amendment that pretty much (at the moment) killed the Fairness doctrine (in name) that also passed – See, I'm being fair and balanced here!
stupid as it may be, hate speech is very dangerous. if you look at what happened in bosnia and later in rwanda it was hate speech on talk radio (directed at certain groups) that incited the violent rampage which ended or ruined the lives of many. i think it is important to listen and be on guard against hate speech of any kind.
"John Madison who helped craft the First Amendment would roll over in his grave."
First, a nitpick: That would be JAMES Madison.
Now, for something a little more substantial. I notice that those who are lamenting Reagan, the past 25 years, etc (8 of which included the Clinton administration, let's remember) make no mention of the word FREEDOM. As they do in their economic 'arguments' this word is simply no part of their vocabulary. There's a good reason for that: Progressives are amoral; the ethical center of their brains having been atrophied by their philosophy, they simply can not evaluate anything on moral grounds.
Yet, oddly, they continue to implicitly assume an entire spectrum of values that they expect to force on the rest of us.
You're absolutely right. I referred to it in another post as "same s–t, different package."
That's true, though both of those situations were far more complex than just hate speech. You had centuries old hatreds, combined with the sudden overthrow of ethnic governments that had exploited their power to oppress other ethnic groups, and politicians who consciously planned and implemented race wars.
Still, the point is a good one, which is why when we hear hate speech, we should point it out, ridicule it, boycott it and it's sponsors, and shun those who use it. But we should never fear it. Nor should we use government power to ban it, because that only gives it legitimacy.
Ha ha ha ha! Tell us another one!
OK I'll tell you the one about him being a Muslim. Or how about the one where he's not a citizen. Or the one where…
THE WHAT PARTY? Say it.
Hey Moran,
All the liberals coming here are telling you this is not on the agenda. Why don't you complain about it when it actually comes up. Otherwise you're PRECOMPLAINING which is pathetic. There are other more pressing issues right now.
Democrats. Republicans are already going through their own rebuilding phase after getting kicked to the curb, though there are plenty there who should go too.
I know you're a partisan, but even you have to admit the Dems are a mess.
Your talking points are way out of date. That makes me very sad… [-(
Teh, it did come up… check out the Durbin amendment that was stuck into the Porkulus bill… it was referred to by radio groups as a "Backdoor to the Fairness Doctrine".
So you want to try again?
Wow, an internet tantrum! Ask again, I dare ya.
Every statement Barack Obama has ever made has an expiration date. It's just a matter of time before he goes back on this promise and decides that he does support the Fairness Doctrine.
And then it's just a matter of time before he pisses off the other side by deciding that no, he really doesn't support it. The thing President Obama fears most is having to make up his mind, because it means having to take a stand.
Yes…he does not want to bring back the "old" Fairness Doctrine because he knows it would be unconstitutional. So, they are dressing it with new clothes in the name of diversity of programming and localism. These regulations would force conservative voices to move aside for liberals. This is the "new" Fairness Doctrine and the FCC has already debated these regulations and held national hearings about them.
I am waiting for it to fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Radio for the mentally challenged. Then they can blame GHWB.
You are absolutely right! They are also considering setting up "permanent advisory boards" to advise radio stations about their programming. This puts the government in the editor's chair and is another form of censorship. Requiring diversity of programming and localism also moves a conservative host aside for liberals. The Obama administration knows it cannot get the old Fairness Doctrine implemented, so it is looking for ways to get new regulations through that would accomplish the same goals. The Senate took action to do just that, recently. It was sponsored by Senator Richard Durbin, a close ally of Obama and the wording is exactly as you noted in your post.
So, now the worry is that Obama will re-instate the Democrat Fairness Doctrine and shut down shows like Rush Limbaugh. We have a different take on that possibility at ConservativeAmerican.org. Our position is Bring it on! We are all for fairness and equal time being given to both sides of issues so the American public can be heard. It is the democrat socialists who want to silence opposing views and kick them off the campaign airplanes, not us. If they want to bring it back, we will fight like heck to make sure fairness is actually fair, and not just democrat fairness. Fairness would mean, for example, that conservatives would get a 30-minute news show before or after all three major networks’ nightly news programs!!!!
http://conservativeamerican.org/media/fairness-do...
The rats used to torture us thoughtcriminals will be free-range rats (except when they're in our mouths, eating our cheeks).
See, you don't listen to Rush's speeches, only what's been reported to you. Rush said, and I paraphrase, "If Obama wants to bring Socialism to this country, then yes, I want him to fail in that endeavor." And I agree with Rush, because Socialism brings misery to all but those with Party connections. Go to Rush's website, and listen to his CPAC address, read some show transcripts and get informed. I double-dog dare you.
And conservative talk radio will not tank, because it is proven to be wildly successful (unlike, say Air America), which is precisely why it must be KILLED by free-speech enemies via something like The Fairness Doctrine II.
The WH is using Rush as a distraction when they should be focusing on making people's lives better. ACORN, Clinton, Frank and Dodd screwed things up really badly with the banking industry, and now Obama seems intent on busting up whatever pieces are left into fine white powder.
Now try to think before you post and please do something about your grammar!
Oh we hate empiricism AND evidence with the burning fire of Hades.
You're a CARTOON!
Because we hate POST-COMPLAINING with the burning fires of Hades!!!
TEHSTUPID=War On Thinking
TEHSTUPID=War On Thinking
While I am in agreement with the major points, I believe James Madison, not John Madison was the First Amendment crafter you were searching for. Fourth President of the United States? Virginian? Pal of Tom Jefferson's? Love Big Hollywood
That seems to be the trend, we just have to remember that the Second Amendment watches over all of the others.
There's a famous quote to that effect, but for the life of me I can't recall it at the moment.
I believe he said the Democrat Party, which in a manner much akin to the Holy Roman Empire, doesn't mean what the words in the title would have you think they mean either.
Indeed!
I read the book when it first came out, and decided to crack it open again just the other day to reread in the Post-Change Era. Comparing the book's "gameplans" to the Bizarro World we're in right now is an interesting, if acid reflux inducing, pastime.
Not only is free speech under relentless assault from the liberal degenerates but now the fuehrer wants to unconstitutionally levy taxes against a particular group solely for punitive measures. These criminals in DC pass this legislation then have a meltdown over what they signed into law and are now hoping everyone else is deaf, blind and stupid to their flagrant hypocrisy.
Witness what a fascist American govt looks like. Czar’s are appointed withoputn senate approval, the fraud for a presidenbt is singling out dissenters such as Rush, we have been criminally fleeced to the tune of trillions benefiting largely leftwing groups, unions and supporters. If this affirmative action president wants AIG employees to give back the bonuses he should first start by giving back the money he received from AIG. Then the employees should tell obama to go phuq himself.
Obama is abusing the office of the presidency, he should be impeached.
It's James Madison not John.
"Guess what ? Pretty soon you will stop dressing like it's 1987 because it will stop feeling like your same old tired life as we take a quantum leap into, gulp! the acutal 21st Century!!!!!!!! "
Yay!!!! Arbitrary temporal boundaries mean everything!!
Funny how there we virtully NO protest songs on the Radio for the past 20 years of the Iraq war huh?
FOTFL… wait a minute… for the majority of the conflict the public was generally in favor of the OIF war and mission and you want to know why there were no protest SONGS played? Just ask groups like the Dixie Chicks just how well protesting the war helped their pocket books for a while.
the longest-running President of the Screen Actors Guild (where he got his training to be president of the US! – Tweren't President Reagan a Democratic supporter during that time period? Aww shucks, no GOP tie ins there.
There are just way too many ways to be snarky to this post…I better cut short.
rvastar, i had the very same thoughts after GWB signed McCain-Feingold into law assuming it would be overturned in the SC. And look what happened there. The Fairness BS, local ownership BS has got to be stopped in it's tracks. Like the immigration fiasco of 2007, hell has got be raised in opposition.
Everyone has gone round-n-round about, “The Fairness Doctrine, it’s a double edge sword, and I believe that the Democrats probably won’t pick that fight, maybe I’m wrong? The interesting thing to me is why talk radio works primarily as a conservative medium. I believe it has to do with the fact that working people, entrepreneurs spend much of their lives in their cars, offices, etc. and the last thing you want to hear is, America bad, America bad, ad-nauseum. Or the constant lifting of victim hood as a point of pride, what ever. I personally love talk radio, but, “why doesn’t work in the liberal format?” Just a curiosity.
Sure…..just like said he opposed earmarks, opposed lobbyists in his admin. said he's not for bigger govt., would only take public funding for his campaign, need I go on?
20 years? How old are you…19? And maybe the dearth (that means lack of) protest songs was because the left changed mediums, this time around it was protest "movies". Twit.
Good idea…the left sure didn't like when the special prosecutor law got turned on them
Yep! And as you also may have noticed, a few of us jumped all over the author. We conservatives don't march in lockstep like the liberals. When a conservative advocates suppressing the right to freedom of speech, anybody's freedom, you can bet that there's about to be a bigtime family quarrel. And that's why the vast majority of us will be fighting the "fairness" doctrine tooth and nail.
If it gets through moderation, somecat.. you'll see some collaboration/evidence of the contention (from comments from both House and Senate Dems.)
I am noticing people on this post who don't believe there is any facts considering the return of the Fairness Doctrine. It is a political hot potato for the Dems- but they are trying backdoor solutions such as 'diversity' and 'local ownership'. There is money in the stimulus bill, tax payer money, our money- that will be available for these 'local and diverse' groups to buy stations at forced fire sale price if the FCC deems it necessary. Free market models would be stood on their ear with taxpayer funded local content stuff. They want to bring this to the internet as well, as they ahve an advantage now-
and want to keep it.
But troll feeding is sometimes cathartic.
You know you guys are advocating violence?
And Liberal = traitor now?
All this talk of war. It'll be the conservatives that start it.
have fun america
They're more recent than the ones on the so-called "comedy" shows at least, I mean if someone woke up out of a coma and turned on the late night standbys, let alone those "hip and edgy" cable shows, they'd think Bush was still in office.
On the plus side for once the message matches the packaging, which clearly states: TEHSTUPID. Something that is decidedly unusual in Liberal products, so kudos to whomever at the Daily Kos or Huffington Post is his handler for that one.
"Because we hate POST-COMPLAINING with the burning fires of Hades!!!"
I actually hate it with the burning fiery heat of 1.6 Trillion (subject to inflation) suns (and/or the burning fires of Hades!!!) Since I'm not sure which would be empirically hotter I'll go with yours too if you don't mind, just to be on the safe side.
There was no draft. The "kids" didn't give a crap as during Vietnam.
Major difference.
I would love the fairness doctrine – if the liberals dont play hypocrites with it and actually make it fair.
a true fairness doctrine would be by applying it to all media – TV, NEWSPAPER, CABLE, NEWS SHOWS, COMEDY SHOWS, RADIO, ETC – all or none – it is called all fair to any and all sources of media/hype
it would kill the liberals and the LIBERAL HYPOCRISY is like the LIBERAL VITRIOL AND HATE and only directed toward the outlets and parties that dont echo their propaganda.
"All US programming — total of companies providing shows is an ALL-TIME LOW of 65 companies. (In the 1970's, there were 165 prodco's making TV shows…it WAS fair and balanced.) "
That's because the other 100 companies either sucked or didn't have the corporate intelligence to market their product and subsequently failed or got bought out by others because they were about to fail. (I know there are a few good 1970s TV shows, but are they proportionate to the "165 prodco's" you mentioned?)
I might be a moron, but…. Wouldn't any move by the FCC to censorship talk radio would be fought in court. It's a clear violation of the first amendment? Or am I totally off base?
Define "a lot" please. Oh and do they call themselves "Lifelong" Republicans or "Concerned" Christians when they do so?
You all misunderstand.
Instead of "news source," I should have put "third party."
@granny3: You didn't read my post. The part about don't straw man me and say the media is perfect is exactly what you did. We'll debate when you l2read (How's that for internet savvy jargon?)
@Mark_S: I agree with your entertainer point, but the points that they make and the way it is presented have everything to do with your decision making process. Because I DO listen to conservative talk radio from time to time, let's take an example. I'm paraphrasing, but this is about what I heard. Caller calls in, starts to talk about Bush's tax policy. The host immediately jumped down his throat and said, "Bush isn't in office any more. Why don't we talk about Chester Arthur." I understand this is entertaining to some and vitriol is more 'fun', but then ten minutes later, he rails against Clinton and his policies. It's disingenuous and unregulated. It's nice to think you're getting more than one voice because they're all editorializing, but honestly, if you change the channel between Limaugh, Levin, Hannity… They're primarily talking about the same issues with very similar stances.
@Jack: You're right. I mispoke. People use editorials (talk radio) as an opportunity to reaffirm many of their beliefs or a way of looking at facts. If you dig a little deeper, it's often a superficial response to deep problems. The Sarah Palin quotation is anecdotal and probably said for hyperbole, if at all, but that's not real evidence of democratic laziness.
@GaryEaton: Because without objectivity we'd still adhere to a geocentric view of celestial movement?
You are right. Any such regulations would be fought in the courts. And, it would be a huge fight.
The Sarah Palin quote is well documented…I believe that there's a film that shows it, among other commentator opinions, being accepted as gospel by Democrats.
Uh, so what? It's time. Stay in your Mom's basement. It'll be over soon.
Jeff, thanks on James – you are right and I knew that, but in haste came out John. Thank you.
Yes and thanks, it should be James.
Please link to this documentary.
I can concede that some people have misquoted it, but ultimately it is not that telling of the audience nor is it gospel. Again, citing one documentary as sufficient evidence is a symptom of the problem.
How many conservatives have spouted "We have to fight them there or fight them at home" in reference to terrorists? That's a fallacy of dichotomy, but I'm not going to take it to the extreme and cite it as evidence to how the right can't tell the difference between editorials and real news. I think the problem of lack of information and serious political inquiry is pervasive on both sides.
That said, even though she didn't say she could see russia from her house, which is ridiculous and clearly untrue (both that she would say something so absurd and the prospect of seeing a country from your house), she did cite her state's proximity as foreign policy experience. That's like McCain saying he had foreign policy experience because Mexico is at Arizona's border.
As a Christian, I agree with Rush, the only person who determines if you get offended is you. When some one like Rosie O'Donnel makes a stupid comment about fundamentalist christians being more dangerous then Islamo-nazis, I don't get offended, I expect people like her to spew things that make no sense and have no basis in reality. When I hear some anti-semite babel on about how we're all dupes of Isreal I roll my eyes and put out the foolishness of their statement. The others are right, we shouldn't fear hate speech. We should mock it.
I hate to use this example, but I think it fits best. Consider in Harry Potter: Prisoner of Azkaban where they confront the boggart that takes the form of what they fear most, they beat by imagining what they fear in a humorous situation. This is same principle behind mocking hate speech or other things we are afraid of it. It makes us less afraid and robs the object of fear of its power to intimidate.
The key isn't feeding the trolls, its dangling a carrot in front of them, just out of reach, and watching them go into frenzy leaping at it, like the bully in school that would take stuff from the short kid and hold it up where they couldn't reach.
As for this particular troll, i wasn't aware of anyone still dressing like it was the eighties, unless you count Joe Biden's hair resembling 1980's televangelist hair. Or maybe this guy thinks that the live action shows he's watching on Adult Swim are how people really dress outside of his secure college dorm room and campus.
Or maybe he's just been rickrolled one too many times and its damaged his already fragile brain.
Oooh! Ooh! How about the one where he told the SF Chronicle he wanted to bankrupt the coal industry? Or when he made fun of retarded bowlers? or when didn't how many states there were or how many he visited? or the time he thanked himself because the Teleprompter told him to?
Seriously though, I watch Comrade Obama and "Anchorman" keeps going through my mind "I'm Ron Burgandy?" "I told you! He reads anything you put on the teleprompter!"
They are building permanent relocation camps at 6 military bases around the country. This being done by FEMA for disaster relocation. I wonder why no one has publicized it widely?
seriously, its almost as if being a mule (stupid, stubborn, and wearing blinders) is a requirement to be in politics now-a-days.
Actually, thats a good name for the Democrat party. The What party. When confronted with their own failings and problems caused by their drunken lemur actions that just say "What? it was like that when I got here!"
"These are not the reeducation camps you are looking for, move along, move along…"
But that's just a wild stab in the dark I'm sure.
"Or when didn't how many states there were or how many he visited?"
Now that may have been an honest mistake, there are after all 57 "states" in the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
That should be worth a nibble from the usual suspects…
I think hate speech is an instructive thing. It lets you know what a person really is.
He/she/it doesn't have the cajones to ask again, he had to give them up when he became an Obamanite. As an Internet troll he is only allowed to breed when, where, and how his Socialist Masters tell him to. He's part of their eugenics breeding program to create the Ubertroll (as compared to the ubermensch). They want a troll so vile, foul, braindead, and crazy that people will shriek in agony at the mere sight of its name. Sadly for TehStupid, the only thing people do when they see his name is laugh uncontrolably.
Yeah, I'm not in a good mood and taking it out on trolls always cheers me up. But it is about like sandblasting a soup cracker (to steal one from Scott Adams).
But no one is objective. Its human nature. Everyone has a starting point or worldview that they base all of their decisions, actions, and statements from.
Example: You see a homless person passed out on the street. A liberal may think "Oh, poor man, I should give him money" where as a conservative thinks "Oh, poor man, I should help him find work."
Both the conservative and the liberal see the same situation, but view it differently. For a liberal, the guy needs a hand out, for the conservative, the guy needs a hand up.
The media is no different. The MSM mostly works from the liberal worldview, and reports the news this way. Rush, Levin, Hannity, et al are Conservative and entertain that way. this isn't new, by the way, read historic newspapers, old news reels, etc, news has always been biased one way or the other.
Take Galileo. The whole reason he had problems with the church wasn't because his theories were against the Bible, its because in one of his scientific publications he patterend the character, "Simplicio" (a simpleton) after the Pope. The nursery Rhymes of today were the political satire of the middle ages. Objectivity is a myth. Better is Honesty. Rush, Levin, Hannity, et al are honest about their starting point, their world view, the MSM is not. They parade around, masqurading Liberalism as Objectivity, when it is most certainly not.
I think you're missing the point of talk radio. Its a business. Their main function is to make money. Which, they are doing quite well at, unlike your comrades at Air America. If it was failing as you claim it'd have been replaced by something else. Funny, its still there, unlike your sanity.
Obviously Hooked on Phonics did not work for him.
I hate it like Rosie O'Donnel hates low-fat food.
That too. Look Plugs Biden's comments about Indians and convienience stores. Or Jesse Jackson's comments about cutting off Obama's you-know-whats. Or Al sharpton's Anti-semitic comments about New York. Or the outrage on the left that Obama wasn't Authentic. Or the firey hatred of all things Palin. Or Ray Nagin's "Choclate City" comment. It tells us who they are, they are people that should be embarassed for saying the things they do, I think its only our patriotic and civic duty to mock them until they're sufficiently embarassed.
I thought about going that route, or mentioning that he did attend a muslim-only school in indonesia, or that he states in his book that he agrees with the nation of Islam, just not their methods, or that he is, at least, a dual citzen, since his dad was a british citizen at the time.
There is this Zogby poll http://www.yelp.com%2Ftopic%2Fnew-york-zogby-poll-of-512... target=”_blank”>http://www.ask.com/bar?q=Obama+voters%2C+media+bi...” target=”_blank”>http://www.yelp.com%2Ftopic%2Fnew-york-zogby-poll-of-512-obama-voters-an-essay-in-media-bias taken of NY Obama voters who were 89% likely to identify Sarah Palin as the woman to have said that she could see Russia from her house among other things that pretty clearly identify media bias towards the Obama/Biden ticket.
pssst, I'm an Independent, but don't let that bother you any.
The "Ubertroll" — that's fantastic!! Holy cow that's funny!
And i'm young. And my friends that I grew up with all listened to talk radio. And they're all married except for myself and two others, and the two others will be married by July. So pretty much his entire theory is much like his head, empty and full of holes.
WTF!!! (just kidding)
Thanks, I'm trying, i really am. I can't mock my customers if I want to keep my job so I do the next best thing and mock the people that enabled by customer's to become welfare weasels.
Really? That's your ace in the hole?
Please look at the entire article you cite before proffering it as evidence.
"Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions – Answer is either yes or no, or Biden, McCain, Obama, Palin."
If people had to associate that question, which your reference did not include, with one of the people, they would say Palin because she said in the Couric interview that its proximity was evidence of her foreign policy experience.
No. Better is doubt and inquiry. Unfortunately, people don't arm themselves with facts. They arm themselves with opinions and cursory understanding of things they are told. Please see my post re: aharris. You have to dig, dig, dig.
Objectivity is the illusion which falls out of doubting subjectivity.
The biggest problem is that most of the major news outlets are owned by private corporations with linkages to other industries. So, to curry favor, concessions are made.
My problem with talk radio is it's sophistry prancing about as sound conclusions.
For example, I was listening to Curtis Sliwa earlier. All he did was rail against Obama for "capitulating" to Iran. Then he brought on a former Reagan advisor, she gave her OPINIONS, then Sliwa just railed more. There was no serious inquiry. All the opinions were formed and the facts were tempered to meet those opinions.
in my original post I outed the Officious Bureaucrat Durbin… these people are snakes and all tall grass must be closely monitored.
you bet!
You must be logged in to post a comment.