Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated
by Brian JenningsFor those of us fighting for free speech on American airwaves, this is a major setback. The Broadcaster Freedom Amendment sponsored by Congressmen Greg Walden of Oregon and Mike Pence of Indiana has been defeated. The amendment would have prevented any form of the Fairness Doctrine from returning, including the new Fairness Doctrine disguised in localism rules and programming advisory boards for radio stations.
Plain and simple, this is censorship. If Congress truly believed in free speech, it would have allowed a vote on this. To do otherwise is a slap in the face of all Americans, the First Amendment, and those who drafted the First Amendment in 1791. To not allow a vote on this freedom of speech issue telegraphs one thing – Democrats in charge of the House want to censor the airwaves, and in particular conservative talk radio.
They clearly want to regulate radio. Their speech is so disingenuous, its laughable. They say they do not favor the Fairness Doctrine, yet they support back-door measures that would accomplish the same goals. They cannot deny that programming advisory boards, localism rules, and defining the public interest with some “teeth” are all means of regulating speech in America – particularly conservative speech. This is an outrage and all Americans should see through this for what it is. These are tyrants in action.
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps has stated, “If markets cannot produce what society really cares about, like a media that reflects the true diversity and spirit of the country, then government has a legitimate role to play.” Of course, he reserves the right to define the “diversity and spirit” of the country. Apparently, the country (free marketplace) cannot do that for themselves.
This is plain and simple tyranny and we must call it for what it is. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski along with Michael Copps are close followers of the leftist media reform organization called Free Press. Genachowski has even named a member of Free Press to his staff as a communications liaison. In my book, Censorship: The Threat to Silence Talk Radio, I quote the Communications Director for the Free Press. Here’s what Craig Aaron said.
So, I don’t support re-instating the Fairness Doctrine not because I don’t support the goals, but because I think it’s the wrong way to go about it.
So, if that’s the wrong way, there apparently is a right way. Please read this note from Congressman Greg Walden of Oregon. All Americans should be outraged. It’s time for a mass cleansing of Washington in 2010.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
187 Comments
This kind of garbage really outrages me. The First Amendment . . . right at the begining so that it's easy to see. . . says the government can't control speech. They see this when some bumb wants to pass gas in a library, but they can't see this when people what to talk politics on the radio? Disgusting.
This kind of garbage really outrages me. The First Amendment . . . right at the begining so that it's easy to see. . . says the government can't control speech. They see this when some bum wants to pass gas in a library, but they can't see this when people what to talk politics on the radio? Disgusting.
2010 really can't come fast enough.
It is nothing, if not disheartening. I would be interested in seeing how the vote came out so we can target those who voted against in districts where there is actually a chance for a racwe.
It is nothing, if not disheartening. I would be interested in seeing how the vote came out so we can target those who voted against in districts where there is actually a chance for a race.
Very true. I just hope the Republicans start putting together a reason to support them. I am encouraged to see them finally start standing up to Obamacare, CapNTrade, and the "second" "stimulus" but I'd like to see them come out with a clear vision of government.
This is no real surprise. We saw just how dedicated the Left is to free speech when ABC aired the Obamacare infomercial while refusing to allow anyone to present an opposing view, even going so far as to turn down paid advertisements. And, of course, let's not forget last year when Pelosi tried to shut up the "Drill here, drill now" movement but turning out the lights, shutting off the cameras, and ordering security to kick the press out of the Capital.
An informed public won't go for a lot of the programs they're trying to push. Who'd want the government in charge of their health care if they saw what things were like in both the IHS and VA systems? Who would want Cap-and-Trade if they understood the full costs of the bill?
The Left know a lot of their positions are weak, based on emotional appeal, and can't stand up to a thorough examination. Since they can't defend their positions, their only alternative is to try to shut the opposition up but I think that ultimately they'll find that while they can gain a temporary measure of success they'll ultimately fail just as Pelosi failed to silence those in favor of drilling for our own oil.
I'd like to see the republicans do the things you mentioned, but I recently read Atlas and I'm very afraid. Vote for the most conservative person running. That would mean Arizona voters wouldn't have to vote for that schmuck John McCain.
What's good enough for radio should be good enough for TV too. Let's see some more balance on MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. And why stop there? Let's make sure the print media is presenting both sides of the issues as well.
If they want to play, we should sue them into playing fair.
Andrew Klavan has a funny little video at PJTV about, "Just Shut Up."
The problems are the Unelected appointees the czars have almost free reign
the ends they argue justify the means
The only place where right wingers have any stronghold is on AM radio. It is a staticy medium at best. Do individuals representing other points of view really clamor for time on these stations? it isn't even in stereo usually.
radio stations are already required to provide public content , hence all the junk on the weekends. If people wanted the messages that or forced on us they wouldn't be forced, wouldn't be on during the weekend and wouldn't have to back door it.
radio stations are in the business to make money. if this stuff did, there would be more of it.
Bush who was supposedly evil incarnate, never tried to shut down MSNBC or anyone else.
I will definitely vote for the most conservative person I can find. My concern is that the Republicans are offering nothing except "we're not them." That only works so long as people remain upset at the other guys. They need to put forth a vision of the future (1) to give people a reason to be loyal to them and (2) to give them a "mandate" once they win.
I listen to "talk radio" on the internet. I used to listen to it on the radio.
This inroad to talk radio, won't last. Right now, it is annoying, but the ones who listen to talk radio, will just utilize the internet.
I am pretty sure the internet can't be stopped. Oh, they will try, but there are too many computers that can easily be converted to websites on a moment's notice and then put out there.
Plus hackers of all stripes will take it as a challenge to make it very hard for the censors to control the internet.
I agree.
You can't sue them into playing fair when they own all the judges.
We have proof of your premise in Iran. the gov't there couldn't stop Twittering.
Be that as it may, we must still fight for every square inch. I'm sick of giving up a little here and a little there, because Liberals only take more and more when you do that. So it doesn't matter that "the ones who listen to talk radio, will just utilize the internet." What matters is that we push back and never retreat again, in any forum, ever.
Amen to that
I encourage Mr Jenning to do a follow-up with a score card of who voted yea and who voted nay.
The information needs to be made readily available at least here, since the Obama media will never present it.
"Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grandchildren are once more slaves." ~~D.H. Lawrence, Classical American Literature, 1922
It begins . . .
I think it is time to go en masse to Washington and let them know exactly what we think. Obviously, they are not getting the message.
'If they want to play, we should sue them into playing fair.'
Ain't gonna happen. Until people in this country become sufficiently incensed at the goings-on of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Durbin, Barney Frank and the rest, to do something that can't be ignored by the Obama media, this trainwreck will continue.
Not good at all. When 2010 comes, I'm not voting for the Democrat.
Maybe the 'Rats own major stock in Sirius Satellite knowing that even if we have to pay to listen to conservative talk radio (that'd be me!) we will! They'll clean up.
Unless we bring electric cattleprods, I don't think even that will wake them up. But hey, how expensive can a cattleprod be?
(yawn)
Mr Jenning. Please indulge this reader a bit of detail on the "Broadcaster Freecom Amendment". Was its content exclusively aimed at blocking future "Fairness Doctrines" or where there other items?
Would you care to mention the reasoning of the opposition to this bill you are such a fan of? I realize you aren't trying to be journalistic, but I guess I'm just curious about the actual content of this amendment – and not just your prescription to us for how we're supposed to rally with you on the subject.
call me silly.
Sickening.
I love America.
It's the politicians I can't stand.
Michael Copps is an idiot. “If markets cannot produce what society really cares about, like a media that reflects the true diversity and spirit of the country, then government has a legitimate role to play.”
Let's see, I count at least three major errors in just the one sentence.
First, there is no such thing as a unified "society," much less a "society" that has monolithic cares.
Second, what is "a media," anyway? Not only is the word media plural, but so are the forms it takes. I suppose that his mythical singular society wants an equally mythical singular media. [sic]
But the winner goes to the absurd claim that "government has a legitimate role to play." Hm, he and Iran's Ahmadinejad could have a wonderful mutual back-slapping conversation about how they agree on that point, perhaps including Hugo Chavez for added mutuality.
At least banana republics have nice weather…
I think if any form of the "Fairness Doctrine" passes, we force Hollywood to live by the same doctrines for TV, film and music.
You're silly…..
I wonder what the push-back is going to be like when the majority of the public finally tires of Obama and the Dems in Congress and all of their combined garbage. I certainly do not advocate a second civil war and still believe that we can take back our country via the ballot box unless Obama manages to totally circumvent the Constitution. If he attempts that then I believe we are in for a hard fight.
The question, in my mind is, are Republicans failing to offer their vision for America, or is this really their vision of America, large, bloated, over burdening government, and the only change is they are in charge?
I was raised to be a blind, mindless, total idiotic modern liberal, but have developed antibodies to the disease. But that doesn't give me much insight to republicans or conservatives. I pretty much like the brand of conservationism Rush Limbaugh hawks. But I'm still trying to figure out if that's what the GOP is selling too. After watching them control congress for six years, and blow out the federal budget, I'm not so sure. I agree, just about anything this side of Karl Marx is better than the current crop of elected thieves.
Let me put it this way, I'm not convinced the republican party actually believes what they say. And if they are lying, and have no intention of sticking to their principles, then, ironically, it makes the left more honest, because they at least tell us they want to destroy the country.
I work in the internet security business, and I can tell you, try as they might, the only way the American government can stop the internet is by moving to a military dictatorship. The speed the technology changes is just way too fast. Government can't move fast enough to keep up. By the time the Senate holds hearings on restricting one form of technology, the web would have moved on two or three new ones.
A military dictatorship can stop it, as was fairly evident in Iran. They can get their control of the wide area boundary routers and squeeze it there. In America, those big boxes are owned by private companies.
I agree, by all means, fight the good fight. What I should have added, was that all is not lost. We have to win the hearts and minds of America, which is what we are doing. More and more people are, if not turning off MSM, turning to the internet to get their news.
Here, they get all sorts of opinions. Not the monolithic ones from the State and MSM.
No one said this is going to be easy.
Fair question. This amendment along with the previous Broadcaster Freedom Act would ban any restoration of the Fairness Doctrine and any "stealth" measures (sons of the FD) that would impact free speech. To that end, there are proposals such as required "localism" and "community advisory boards" for radio stations now supported by the FCC. Radio professionals are totally against requiring advisory boards because they represent big brother looking over their shoulder and would have alot of weight when license renwals are up for review. That is censorship in a stealth manner and it accomplishes the goal of the Fairness Doctrine. While the Democrats say they don't favor the Fairness Doctrine, they have dressed it in new clothes – localism and advisory boards, and tougher license renewal definitions. I hope this helps. Thank you.
“If markets cannot produce what society really cares about,…"
As if he, or any other bureaucrat or politician, knows what that is for a nation of 300+ million people. What an ignorant, arrogant a$$hole.
I'm old enough to have spent much of my life during the original "fairness" doctrine. It was one of those "sounds good–doesn't work" concepts that outlived its usefulness. But it was relatively benign, a good intention gone to hell. This new plan is a horse of an entirely different color. This is another power-grab, and an insidious attempt to undermine free speech (the old one attempted to balance free speech, and failed). The old system made news unnecessarily bland and overly-cautious, this one amounts to "all liberal, all the time" since it is government apparatchiks who will determine what "fairness" is, and we all know who they work for.
You can't sue them into 'playing fair' – they own the 'wise Latina' judges.
But take heart. Though we can't sue them into playing fair, we ARE bankrupting them for not.
Air America went belly up because no one cared to listen to them. The number one reason conservative talk radio thrives is that most of their base works, and they can't sit around and watch the local news. So rather than forcing tv to become more conservative, they force radio to be more liberal. Only in the eyes of a bureaucrat does this make any sense.
Government was never meant to be messing with the media, yet they have their fingers in the pie all the time. If the Democrats get their way, the taxpayers will be funding Air America 2 to "balance the airwaves".
Air America went belly up because no one cared to listen to them. The number one reason conservative talk radio thrives is that most of their base works, and they can't sit around and watch the local news. So rather than forcing tv to become more conservative, they force radio to be more liberal. Only in the eyes of a bureaucrat does this make any sense.
Government was never meant to mess with the media, yet they have their fingers in the pie all the time. If the Democrats get their way, the taxpayers will be funding Air America 2 to "balance the airwaves".
How about we prepare for this by setting up "Radio Free America" somewhere outside of the Obama jurisdiction and broadcast the truth without government censorship as we did with "Radio Free Europe?" I'm only half-joking, but we need to ready ourselves for the eventuality that the left will succeed in its scheme, leaving us nowhere else to go. Alternatively, there's always the 2010 election, if we're allowed to hear the conservative point of view by that time.
Just heard the last half hour of Rush today–june 15, 2009–and I must say that if this is ever taken off the air, we are in big trouble. Obamanation HAS arrived!
Oh, yes, and it is very bad…
Ed, I have one suggestion for you: Commentarama.com
[...] From the Pen: The Fairness Doctrine: Welfare for Sub-Prime Liberal Broadcasters Brian Jennings: Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated John T. Simpson, Big Hollywood: What if President Obama Were a Republican? Jeffrey Jena, Big [...]
[...] Savage & Kashmiri Terrorist Leader Banned from UK — Update: Video Added Brian Jennings: Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated Nice Deb: Michael Savage Banned In Britain Weasel Zippers: UK Bans Michael Savage From Entering [...]
[...] CA Dem leader: Why do we allow free speech to terrorize politicians? Brian Jennings, Big Hollywood: Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated Hot Air Green Room: Lies Wide Shut Legal Insurrection: Yes They Do Why Mommy Is A Republican/Palin [...]
[...] Easy As ABC…President Obama’s Official “State-Run” Media Brian Jennings, Big Hollywood: Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated Sharp Right Turn: Jon Voight: Let’s help bring an end to (the power of) this false prophet, Obama [...]
[...] Congress Fears the Public Will Become Too Educated on ObamaCare Brian Jennings, Big Hollywood: Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated Senate GOP Doctors: Have a Better Plan for Health Care, Not Socialized Maddmedic: Exposing Liberal [...]
If you have suspicions about the wealthy and powerful interests that dominate the AM band, know the only reason they broadcast conservative talk is because it works. Liberal talk hasn't. We are in business to make money and therefore we broadcast what works. What works is determined by the self-censorship of the individual. If he/she doesn't like it, they turn it off. We are responding to what people want to hear. If a product doesn't sell, we take it off the shelves. Otherwise we give them what they want.
[...] first to pimp socialized medicine and ABC: The All Barack Channel Brian Jennings, Big Hollywood: Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated The Classic Liberal: ABC News: Lap-Dog Media Pirates! Man Your Women: Who’s the Bigger Kiss-Up – [...]
They will have to remove their microphones from their cold dead hands! I will be helping with that. If they dare to put this straw on the camels back, look out! I've just about reached boiling point and am ready for a revolution!
[...] Obama’s Father? GayPatriot: Obama’s Problem with the Unexpected Brian Jennings, Big Hollywood: Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated San Francisco Chronicle, SFGate: State cuts tax exemptions for kids Current: ACORN Added As [...]
[...] Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated by Brian Jennings [...]
How exactly does the Fairness Doctrine, which simply requires both sides of an issue be presented, stifle free speech?
Answer – it doesn't stifle free speech. It simply requires republican-sponsored media to allow it. And that's why right wingers must stop it – to keep their constituents from discovering their scams.
The author is making up fairy stories, and so is anyone else claiming the Fairness Doctrine is censorship. Period.
I think there may be a little more to this issue than what is being said. I worked in radio for years as a disc jockey, and one of the things forbidden was payola, the practice of accepting money to play someone's record, whether the audience wanted to hear it or not. Being familiar with talk radio, realistically, much of it is political payola. There really isn't competition as to who gets heard. It is usually decided by who will pay the most to have their voice heard. And the airwaves are a scarce resource. The same goes with the liberal media. Basically, there is political payola going on there as well.
That is why I think the internet is the future. There is limitless space to publish speech and promote music. I expect the day is not too far away when AM radio is a total dead zone, as well as FM. Cars and trucks, the most common place where radio gets played, will have satellite radio with broadband access. We will have a much more diffuse press and town hall, but it will provide a better model for free speech and a free press.
ah yes, but this is too simple. I do not turn on my radio and decide which rhetoric I like and slide in a quarter based on that. there is a system of ratings (which is also in dispute – i take it) and the real people that get to "vote with their wallets" in the world of radio is… not the listeners but, the advertisers.
Now this generally washes out and generally the advertisers are presumed to be politically neutral and only care which programs get the most listeners based on the ratings and so on.
(this is TV but) I guess I'm still irked by the story of the Smothers Brothers. Here we had a very popular show, but because the relatively conservative advertisers didn't like the message…YANK!! Now, we have a generation later and shows like Steven Colbert and John Stewart. And advertisers today definitely do not take their money off the table in their case. Are the Smothers Brothers vindicated? Perhaps.
I could go on… my response to your comment was basically that "its not quite so simple" and I hope this point is appreciated.
I thought you claimed to be a true Libertarian? Not a Liberal, where is your consistency?
Liberal translation of the Copps quote:
"If the free market cannot produce what liberal society really cares about, like a state-run media that reflects only it's point of view, then the government must take over all media."
I have no doubt that Comrade Obama, the Democrats, and the FCC are loving what Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is doing to his media outlets. They're positively drooling.
EdSki: I've mentioned on this site before that I was more than liberal in my misspent youth, I was a 60s radical. I evolved into a moderate Democrat over the years,and then came the Contract With America. I finally realized that Ronald Reagan was right, I didn't leave the party, it left me, and in 1994 I switched parties. The Contract was the thing that finally convinced me. The Republican Party today is not the party that proposed that contract. But there are plenty in the party who still see most of its principles as being right. As Lord Acton said, power tends to corrupt, and that is exactly what happened in the years after 1994. If the Republicans go back to standing for principle over retention of power, we can regain the Congress and the Presidency in the next two elections. If the Republican Party fails to return to its conservative base, it will continue to lose elections, and will leave the field open for the Obamacrats.
Ed, rank and file Republicans believe in conservative ideas and would like to see them put in place. The problem comes with the jokers sent to Washington.
On the one hand, I think that they don't really understand conservative ideas or why they work — they know the lingo, but not the reasoning. So when they are confronted with a problem, they don't know what to do. Thus, they end up listening to lobbyists, who are looking for more government control.
On the other hand, many of them fall in love with power. And they learn that they can keep that power by handing out goodies. When you get 500 power-drunk idiots, each agreeing to give each other whatever they want in exchange for getting their own desired filled, you have a recipe for a massive drift into government intervention/spending land — leftism.
Add in the fact that Bush was no conservative and that Congress tends to follow the lead of the President, and you have a further drift left.
Hence, Republicrats.
CrisD, thanks for the plug. Sadly, we don't speak for the Republican party. . . yet.
P.S. Here's the link: http://commentarama.blogspot.com/
Really, really silly…..
He\\she has come out of the closet and claimed to be an "Intellectual Liberal" a few days ago….
He or she has come out of the closet and claimed to be an "Intellectual Liberal" a few days ago….
What??? Air America did not make it…as Lib as it gets! I tried to listen to "both Sides", but Randy Rhoads made me depressed…along with the rest of the bunch!!!
Air America could not make it on its own, even after a large bit of cash thrown its way!! Who wants to hear that dribble? I guess you live in fairy land!!!
Don't we already do that? I believe it's called NPR or National People's Radio…..
It is censorship. When it was applied, it managed to stifle all political speech. Which means that your side was never heard on radio as well. Now that we have the internet, conservative as well as liberal speech isn't so vulnerable.
Reapplying it, will only manage to make the LIBERALS, your side, look more tyrannical.
Ahh! I missed that, because I have to cut my cool weather grass X2 a week now because of Global warming/cooling/change.
If not, we just claim Rush, Beck and others are a form of Hollywood entertainment.
maybe so but moreover… I'm not that into labels. Don't fence me in! And I was never in the closet. I've been a troll since day 1.
but enough about me: Why are you so interested in consistency?
First of all, judging by the success, or lack thereof, of Air America, nobody wants to listen to liberal talk radio. So, by forcing – or using your euphemism "requiring" – liberal talkers on a conservation station, it will drive away listeners, and ad revenue directed at those specific listeners. Basically, it's like requiring a rock music station to play country music, or vice versa. CMB, pick your favorite music station, and now put your least favorite music on that station. You won't listen when that music is on.
Another major concern is who will be the judge of what is liberal, what is conservative, or whatever political bent, and how will that judge determine how much time should be allotted for what side.
I'm sure you'll get plenty of other reasons why the "Fairness Doctrine" is not fair.
Liberals are scared of conservative talk radio because they cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas!
It's StlDan that's interested in your consistency. Frankly I think you've been pretty consistently shilling for liberalism.
But c'mon man, stop it already. Are you really defending any form of the Fairness Doctrine?? Seriously?? You don't see that stepping on the 1st Amendment at all??? Really??
Cthulhu, eh?
"there's no such thing as unified society"…perhaps but there is such thing as society, and to your point, it is not a unified kind of thing. So what? there's still are a lot of cases where a majority opinion may decide a ballot initiative.
"what is "media" anyway?" I like your questioning. I think media is a bunch of people that go between speakers and listeners. And yes, they aren't monolithic and that's because they are biased. And that's all true because… its a bunch of people.
Absurd? "government has a legitimate role to play" This is the concept behind any government. If you think that is absurd then by defininition you must be an anarchist.
Okay, that link makes more sense than the first one. Bookmarked and reading!
What else can be expected? The house is run by a Marxist Leftist Fanatic. She lies with no conscience. Let's just hope the CIA gets too tired of her harassment of them before to long.
Agreed, Andrew. George Bush was a "big government, compassionate conservative." That sounds a lot like "Democrat." If it weren't for his strong commitment to freedom and American strength, along with two amazingly excellent Supreme Court nominations, he would properly go down in the list of Presidents as George W. Bush (D). Any Republican who wants to reach the national stage needs to understand that "strong" and "big" are not the same thing. We want a strong government that protects free speech, not a big one that kills it.
"Me-tooism" is frat boy nonsense, and it has crippled the Republican Party. The Democrats have come to expect it, and the Republicans have obliged. But I am starting to hear rumblings that indicate the pot is finally boiling. The American people are fed up with both parties and their sick need for keeping themselves in power. The party that acts on behalf of the people and not on behalf of themselves, their jobs, and their special interests is the party that will win in the coming election cycles.
On the other hand, the Republicans must also learn that if you are going to reject everything the other party proposes, you'd better have a plan of your own, and so far the Republicans have been absent without leave. Let's hope that problem gets fixed, fast.
Drop by any time. . . bring your Congressman.
you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Are you for a fairness doctrine (for cable, TV and radio) or are you against it?
Andrew, that's pretty much the conclusion I've come up with too. Which brings me back around to the beginning of the circle. The MSM is no help, all they do is broadcast stereotypes, that I know are wrong.
Who make up the republican party, and what do they believe? They campaign on one platform, but when get to Washington, they jettison it like flotsam, and act pretty much like democrats. Which is why I think they keep loosing. Why vote for a republican when you can vote for a democrat and get the real thing?
I was very attracted to Sarah Palin (and not just because she's hot), she seems to break the mold of the standard big government republican, which is exactly why I believe she was defamed in the MSM. Those exact traits that attract reasonable people. I think it scares the hell out of the left, so they have to try and destroy her now, before it's too late.
I was pretty radical as a younger guy, but when I got into engineering, technology and computer logic in college, it became impossible to reconcile the bile coming out of the left with reality. The real kicker was taking a philosophy course on Logic. It covered the ancient Greek rules for honest debate. I guess it was part of the curriculum because when it comes to computer programming, every single word has an exact definition, and its extremely important to understand that. I had to memorize the 22 or 23 classic fallacies, and when I did, I found I could destroy ever single liberal argument coming out of my mouth. I either had to admit I was a fool or change. I Changed.
I can see your point big time. Indeed it was Rush who warned way back in the 90's that Republicans are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
did I say that? I will tell you what is "silly" Hank. What is "silly" is me having to give my view on that (which is to agree with you) while what is REALLY going on here is a wild goose chase designed to fan the flames of paranoia for the nutballs on the right.
How many Democrats are in favor of a fairness doctrine? Probably not all that many. Why? Because even if your average Democrat Congressperson doesn't like AM radio and all that it stands for, and even if they'd like to see it go away, they have enough electoral savvy to understand its a loosing issue for them. That kind of crap drives votes away from Dems and the Dems KNOW IT.
That's why I am generally disgusted by Mr. Jennings ax to grind around here. Its a "rabble rousing" rouse and I DON'T BUY IT.
did I say that? I will tell you what is "silly" Hank. What is "silly" is me having to give my view on that (which is to agree with you) while what is REALLY going on here is a wild goose chase designed to fan the flames of paranoia for the nutballs on the right.
How many Democrats are in favor of a fairness doctrine? Probably not all that many. Why? Because even if your average Democrat Congressperson doesn't like AM radio and all that it stands for, and even if they'd like to see it go away, they have enough electoral savvy to understand its a losing issue for them. That kind of crap drives votes away from Dems and the Dems KNOW IT.
That's why I am generally disgusted by Mr. Jennings ax to grind around here. Its a "rabble rousing" rouse and I DON'T BUY IT.
You have got to be kidding. My Congressmoron is Maurice Hinchey, possibly the biggest tool in the House. My dog Wolfgang makes more sense in a political debate.
Ed, LOL! I think I took the same course.
You're right. Modern liberal theory is flawed at every level. It is illogical and shortsighted, and history has proven that it not only doesn't work, but usually causes the exact opposite result of what it is trying to achieve.
But the people who subscribe to it, often do so because they've been told to take it on faith, which has all kinds of negative consequences. For example, they fall for smooth rhetoric even when the lies within the rhetoric are staring them straight in the face. They react very with absolute hate to anyone who challenges their comfort zone. They also need to find "enemies" to explain why their beliefs never seem to work out, because they "know" it can't be that the belief is wrong, thus, it must have been undermined by someone.
(cont)
[...] from: Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
"How many Democrats are in favor of a fairness doctrine? Probably not all that many."
You base this on what? Your spidey senses? If this was truly the case, then why was this bill shot down?
"Its a "rabble rousing" rouse and I DON'T BUY IT."
You're entitled to your opinion……silly….
I know, sounds amazingly like a religion, doesn't it?
Not believing in a God does not diminish the human need to believe in something bigger. it just shifts it to other "authorities."
On Republicans, you've asked a good question. I think what you're seeing right now is that the party got soft under Bush. Love him or hate him, the fact of the matter is that (1) Bush was not a conservative, (2) Bush had little interest in politics, and (3) the rest of the party stupidly was content to let him run the show. The people he appointed had no political instincts, and never stood up to define the party. The budgets he proposed gave away our claims to fiscal discipline. The policies he put in place gave away our base as the party of small business, the party of less and better regulation, etc. etc.
Now that he is gone, the party has a chance to recapture what it is supposed to stand for, because we no longer need to look to one leader.
(cont)
So, in my opinion, here is what the party needs right now (1) a large group of legislators pounding away on Republican ideas (not just opposing Obama, but offering real ideas) — with the support of party line votes to define the party, (2) each of the sitting governors to start showing that Republicans can provide clean, competent, conservative government, (3) Republican "think tanks" need to start teaching party members how to explain and defend conservative beliefs — we can't afford another McCain, who whipped out conservative ideas whenever he got in trouble, but clearly had no idea what he was talking about when he did, and (4) we need new thinking, ways to offer conservative ideas to fix problems.
uh, hello? Democrats now have a super majority in both houses? But where did the "Fairness Doctrine" go?
No I haven't counted its exact number of supporters, but its not a law now is it?
We'll prepare a remedial course for the good Congressmoron.
It's like the old joke about the preacher who, while writing out his sermon notes, inserts into the margin, "Weak point, shout here!"
Fidelismo creeps northward.
Bingo. It's got a lot of cult-like overtones, especially when you see them start to go all giddy about what kind of consumer goods their messiah uses. Creepy.
Exactly. If they truly believed in no speech regulation of the airwaves, they would have voted on it. To do otherwise, sends the opposite message and is un-American. It's a no brainer if you believe in the First Amendment. As for Democrats who favor the Fairness Doctrine, try these: Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Charles Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Maurice Hinchey, Louise Slaughter, Diane Feinstein, Richard Durbin, Jeff Bingaman, Henry Waxman, Tom Harkin, Debbie Stabenow. That's just starters and it's time to label them as they are – tyrants. For a further explanation of what this is all about, here's this link:
http://www.ntsmediaonline.com/?p=7934&utm_sou...
I'm against it 100%. But if one side will attempt to "level the field" (the one field where conservatives seem to excel) on radio, then the other media should also seem ripe for levelling. I don't think the liberals would like it if MSNBC had to give equal time to Keith Olbermann AND Laura Ingraham.
CMB – you are naive. When the Fairness Doctrine was enforced, there were only 125 talk stations in America. Today, there are 2000. Applying the FD to open up other forms of speech is un-necessary – the liberal point of view is seen and heard in all other forms of media and conservative talk is only a very small piece of the overall media pie. It is the balance. And, there is only one form of valid censorship – the right of the individual to self – censor not government.
well, we already know he advocates such actions in his statements regarding Honduras.
If you were really familiar with talk radio, you would know there is no political payola. Republicans don't pay talk stations to air Rush, Sean, Levin, Savage, Beck, and others. Unreal. Advertisers pay and they pay for large audience appeal. Same in music radio. If there is no audience, it goes away. What school did you get this from? I've been in talk radio for 40 years and programmed on the national level. Political payola…wow. Stay on the music side and on the internet.
"Free speech for me, but not for thee." The Democrat way!
Ahhh. I love the smell of revolution in the morning.
Classic Iowahawk:
"Why I Am A Democrat.
I am a Democrat because I hold sacred freedom of the press, as well as freedom of the TV and freedom of the movie. Where I draw the line is freedom of the talk radio, and don't even get me started about that damn Internet business."
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2003/12/why_...
You fail to understand that the FCC is proposing programming advisory boards for radio stations so they can try to force more diversity of opinion onto conservative stations. If that isn't big brother, then I don't know what is. We already have our advisors….listeners. If we have enough, we succeed as conservative talk radio has. If we don't the programming goes away. Air America. Rather than force the FD, this is the new FD they are forcing…..to achieve the same results. No brainer.
Agreed, Andrew. George Bush was a "big government, compassionate conservative." That sounds a lot like "Democrat." If it weren't for his strong commitment to freedom and American strength, along with two amazingly excellent Supreme Court nominations, he would properly go down in the list of Presidents as George W. Bush (D). Any Republican who wants to reach the national stage needs to understand that "strong" and "big" are not the same thing. We want a strong government that protects free speech, not a big one that kills it.
PS: This is the first part of a comment I made earlier which disappeared into the BH moderation blackhole. Maybe the rest will show up, maybe not. But this is in direct support of your description of George Bush as an alleged conservative.
Can I sign my Congresscritter up too (you know, Botox San Fran Nan)?
Apparently, you don't understand how this all works. It's only fair when we shut up and let them do all the talking. That's the only way to "level the field".
No. We can't afford the liability. You remember what happened the last time we gave that crew a box of crayons. . .
Well, Cthulhu is supposed to be a quasi-messianic figure with mind-control powers… and I do like crackers.
Anyway, saying that the government has no legitimate role to play in this area is not anarchistic, but in accordance with the authority from which the federal government is based. The First Amendment states that Congress can't abridge the freedom of the press, and however much certain Congresses (led by both parties) and federal agencies have devised ways around it, that does not justify involvement in this area.
The concept behind the American federal system of government is that it does NOT have a legitimate role to play in certain areas, and freedom in the press is specifically enumerated as one of these areas. Further yet, that constitutional concept doesn't arise merely from the federal constitution, but from previously enacted colonial and early state constitutions, several of which included mention of freedom of the press, saying that “the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty.”
So, if you want to say that the government has a legitimate interest in many areas, I wouldn't argue. But when the government seeks to circumvent the Constitution, legitimacy is most certainly not part of it.
Law Enforcement enables this.
I think that's covered by the new Obama National Liability Insurance Plan, which he's rolling out next week as soon as they fix the TelePrompter.
I really don't think you can. To quote Neil Young he's way too far gone. Even Sean Hannity can demolish him in a debate. I heard it. Wasn't pretty. Kind of like watching a car wreck.
As soon as i heard the term "compassionate consevative" I knew the GOP was in trouble. It's a broad apologetic sounding term that only caused the media/liberal glitterati to REINFORCE old worn out stereotypes. Big fat executives pouring into long, black limos with African American drivers…they pull out big cigars and light them with $100 bills, throw their heads back and laugh as they step on the poor oppressed worker…the GOP needs much better media liasons, people who can work the MSM like a rigged slot machine, and SOON!….does anybody have change for a $1000? I need to light a cigar…
As soon as Iheard the term "compassionate consevative" I knew the GOP was in trouble. It's a broad apologetic sounding term that only caused the media/liberal glitterati to REINFORCE old worn out stereotypes. Big fat executives pouring into long, black limos with African American drivers…they pull out big cigars and light them with $100 bills, throw their heads back and laugh as they step on the poor oppressed worker…the GOP needs much better media liasons, people who can work the MSM like a rigged slot machine, and SOON!….does anybody have change for a $1000? I need to light a cigar…
When I appraise Bush 43, there is no doubt his Supreme Court nominations were great moments. The fact that it took Justices Roberts and Alito to rule that the "right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon" actually means the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon says it all. That's how far America has sunk.
While I deplore the use of force against anyone, I can understand the logic behind Iraq. Natan Shransky has a great book on it, The Case for Democracy
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Democracy-Freedom-Over...
I highly recommend it .
Still, he was another big government liberal republican. Everything was cool, as long as his side was in charge.
Jed, I'll get to work on a list….
Well, finally, after two hours, the comment emerges from the moderation black hole. Sorry, folks, it was timely when I wrote it.
It sounds like he just needs a hug. . . and a little electric shock.
The airwaves belong to the public. Not just the far-right segment of the public.
Somehow you've been convinced that the Fairness Doctrine, which would open up access to all, is a mechanism of censorship.
Black is white. War is Peace. Up is Down.
Are you guys willing dupes, or what?
In case you haven't noticed, Clear Channel is in serious economic danger. Sinclair too is on the verge of bankruptcy.
Thom Hartmann, Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz compete and in many cases beat neo-conservative talkers when head to head on comparable stations.
The problem is, whenever they have success their shows are often yanked off the air or they turn the station into religious or sports programming. The system is rigged against their success. Where are you defending the marketplace when successful progressive radio shows are pulled off the air?
You are aware that Nancy Pelosi kept the entire Bush administration from impeachment and war crimes trials at the Hague by taking impeachment "off the table".
She also refused to use her power as speaker to stop legislation which continued funding for Iraq, after campaigning to do just that.
Nancy Pelosi was the best friend neo-cons ever had.
You need to turn off Rush. You sound foolish.
and…WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?…
I encourage Hartmann, Miller, and Schultz to keep working hard for ratings success, but they are nothing compared to Rush, Sean, Levin, Savage, Beck, or many other conservative talkers. There is only one reason to take talk off the air….and no broadcaster takes successful talk off the air – only if it does not commercially succeed. As a radio programmer, my job is to build ratings. You don't take ratings success off the air.
heretoday, you obviously are falling for the name, which, like most dem laws, is exactly the opposite of what it means.
Do some research on the actual effect of the so-called fairness doctrine, it opens nothing, closes all.
You do yourself a disservice opining on something of which you know so little.
You're mixed up. Conservative talk radio never claimed to own the public airwaves. What conservative talk radio, and we who listen to it, argue is let the market decided the content of station.
Access to the airwaves is not closed off to anyone, as you seem to believe. I'm not exactly sure how it works, but I would gather if you had enough money and the proper licenses to start a radio station, you're more than welcome to do so. If you wanted to air liberal talkers on your station, conservatives would not want you to have "equal time" because we believe in freedom of speech. You might have a difficult time succeeding depending on the liberal talkers you might have filling you airwaves.
Is it hard to walk, talk, eat, sleep, drive, read and collect welfare checks with DEMOCRAT blinders you're wearing? The Marxist Democrat led congress is "back dooring" the "Fairness Doctrine" with an attack using semantics, like the term "localism", this is a sham meant only to protect criminal Democrats from any criticism and they convert our great country into a Euro-style nanny state, it's that simple, like most democrats.
OK, these are the nine DEMOCRATS that are on the "Rules Committee". Seven of them STOPPED the "Broadcasters Freedom Act of 2009" from receiving a FAIR UP or DOWN vote in the House. The committee has NINE Democrats, but in this Obama era of "openness and transparancy" it was almost impossible to track them down. The "nine swine" are : Louise Slaughter NY; Dennis Cardoza CAL; James McGovern MASS; Michael Acuri NY; Alcee (hey,I got impeached!) Hastings FLA; Doris Matsui CAL; Ed Perlmutter CO; Chellie Pingree Maine (why don't we just ceed Maine over to Canada and seize Alberta in return?) and Jared Polis CO.
cont: These paragons of public virtue that will indirectly decide whom YOU listen to on the radio include an IMPEACHED Federal Judge Hastings, that to my amazement, has the gall to make LAWS for the rest of us, unbelieveable. A gay guy from Colorado; Polis, whom no doubt will soon "wrangle" a "position" on a committee with Bwarney Fwank; a freshman ex-lobbiest from Maine, hey Maine please seceed and join Canada; a lawyer (wow what a surprise!) and other unremarkable Obamatrons that, no doubt, don't take a dump without SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FROM San Fran Nan, the Wicked Witch of the West…what a collection of nincompoops.
The problem is, whenever they have success their shows are often yanked off the air or they turn the station into religious or sports programming. The system is rigged against their success. Where are you defending the marketplace when successful progressive radio shows are pulled off the air?
—————————————————————————————————————————————–
Uh yeah, Air America stations are shutdown because they speak truth to power, and they stick it to tha man and stuff. I'll bet Dick Cheney is behind this.
Don't advertisers have a right to decide who they advertise with? The fact is that if conservative radio weren't successful, advertisers would be foolish to go after that market. Look at Air America. It failed because there was no market for it, but make note that AA failed in the marketplace first before the advertisers bailed. The idea that "private interests" control what gets heard on the radio is nonsense because no one is willing to go bankrupt tossing money at a losing proposition, ideology be damned. If conservative radio didn't work it wouldn't exist.
Business follows the money. It really is that simple.
What part of the First Amendment do you not understand cmb? Do you need pictures?? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by not drawing you any, but maybe you do. Here it is a simply as I can put it.
The Government has no right to require *anything* when it comes to our freedom of speech. If conservative radio works it's because people *want* it. Air America failed because people *didn't* tune in.
Does that spell it out for you?
heretoday,
Plain and simple, you liberal tool. The airwaves belong to the public and the public apparently wants conservative radio. Go back to Kos, where everyone is a Marxist/Socialist just like you.
"I can see Mexico from my front porch"….no really I can…seriously..not like Tina Fey fake style…the only problem with doing the X station fro Mexico like the olden days when I was a kid is that Ciudad Juarez (which I can see from my front porch, no really, I can) JUST PASSED 1000 muders for calender year 2009. SEVEN MONTHS!!! 1000 MURDERS! The Obama Administration is trying to blame the availablity of guns on the U.S., studies have DEBUNKED this LIE, but that has never stopped these Marxists. Watch for ridiculous anti-gun legislation in the fall or early next year, USING the BOGUS numbers the cooked up.
Hey watch it. We don't want Maine and AL is my only hope of a safe haven in Canukistan
if liberal talkers are successful then they would make money and they would not be dumped – see how the market and America works
not like in your liberal world of subsidizing money losing ventures that I dont want, but at my expense
pelosi was afraid of her skeletons is her closet
she was afraid of the cost of the impeachment farce
I say let the radicals impeach bush and let America see how you liberals will not protect America and your true America hatred will shine thru
impeachment – bring it on !!!!
You are one wise Canukistanian…I just looked up the Canukistan flag, that is one beautiful pennant. I bet Obama is pissed that the hammer and sickle are being recycled befpre he can adopt it as the new U.S. flag…
You are one wise Canukistanian…I just looked up the Canukistan flag, that is one beautiful pennant. I bet Obama is pissed that the hammer and sickle are being recycled before he can adopt it as the new U.S. flag…
thanks for humoring my (snarky) question. Yes this does help.
I value the "ever vigilant" nobel attitude against censorship that you champion.
Having said that, I also am suspicious that private interests are able to afford themselves a domination of the public discourse that is not in the spirit of the freedom of speech. I do not think that "free markets" insure freedoms on their own.
We are a free society, yet we require police to insure that freedoms are not abused. On that exact token, I think there is a place for prudent regulation (in the identical spirit of police) to insure that freedoms aren't abused.
Accuse me of creeping or back-door tyranny if you must… I retain my own suspicions against the wealthy & powerful interests that dominate the AM Band. Or as the saying goes: methinks thou dost protest too much!
Double everything you wrote, Mr. Jennings.
Where is the outrage? How do so many Americans not get it?
Radio Free America — I never would've imagined such a scenario. Heeeeelp!
It dictates speech by law! Totally against First Amendment!
(I still cannot fathom that this actually has to be explained to anyone who grew up in this nation, although I have had first-hand experience in trying to get a liberal acquaintance to understand this. The vacant look in the eyes betrayed her; she did not comprehend a word.)
Okay now, here we go:
If someone bought 30 minutes of airtime specifically and above board to play certain records for 30 minutes, that would be fine. That would not be payola.
Voila – that's talk radio. People get sponsors to pay for the time to specifically air certain opinions.
No one is bribed; there's no secret dealing.
Liberals have the freedom (at least for now) to get sponsors to buy air time for them, too. It is simple. It is the free market place. Treasure it.
Yes, and do they not realize that it all can backfire? Reap what sow, etc.?
That's good.
Exactly.
Absolutely. Equal time for all points of view — isn't that the deal?
While I totally disagree with any attempt at adopting anything like the 'fairness doctrine', I'm not so sure Congress is actually going to attempt to pass it anyway. It was thrown out by the Federal appellate courts years ago which is the only reason we don't have it now. We already know how the current supreme court will rule and dems chaff at being called censors. But if they block Pence's bill they can leave out the threat of reenacting the 'fairness doctrine' without actually doing it. Frankly, if they pass it, they'll only be putting another nail in their 2010 election coffins.
Just another stake in the heart of the "individual". This whole "claptrap" of "diversity and fairness" is pure bunk. If leftist talk radio can't make it in the marketplace, then they need to find another avenue to indoctrinate the young skulls full of mush. Oh wait….that would be government schools, any college classroom, the "alphabet networks", the New York Times, NPR, etc, etc, etc……I hope they do try this with corporate entities like Clear Channel that carry Rush Limbaugh…..I know for a fact that Limbaugh will not go down without a fight and he's got a lot of "clout" behind him….30+million listeners and counting will decide at the voting booth and it can't happen soon enough…
"I can see Mexico from my front porch"….no really I can…seriously..not like Tina Fey fake style…the only problem with doing the X station fro Mexico like the olden days when I was a kid is that Ciudad Juarez (which I can see from my front porch, no really, I can) JUST PASSED 1000 muders for calender year 2009. SEVEN MONTHS!!! 1000 MURDERS! The Obama Administration is trying to blame the availablity of guns on the U.S., studies have DEBUNKED this LIE, but that has never stopped these Marxists. Watch for ridiculous anti-gun legislation in the fall or early next year, USING the BOGUS numbers they cooked up.
"Don't advertisers have a right to decide who they advertise with?"
of course. Did I suggest otherwise?
"Business follows the money. It really is that simple." NO, ITS NOT. THAT's MY POINT. BUSINESS DOESN'T ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY *BECAUSE* THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO OTHERWISE. e.g. They may say: "Screw you hippies and YOUR MONEY… I don't like your politics!"
like I said: The Smothers Brothers was a very popular show. Following the logic of capitalism, that should have been valuable to advertisers. But yet, no.
And don't tell me "Cuz hippies don't buy stuff" or "Hippies have money?"
No, I don't think they've given it that much…or indeed any…thought.
You're correct. You have NO IDEA how it works. AM radio is a monopoly. Anti-trust legislation needs to be used in concert with the Fairness Doctrine. 20 yrs ago we had 50 stations owned by 50 companies. Today we have 50 stations owned by roughly 4 companies. All those companies have right-wing loyalties.
Please give me a list of quality AM signals that are available for purchase.
I'll be waiting.
Man have you been thoroughly brainwashed. Localism is necessary because many cities have no radio station to report community news. How are communities to run smoothly without a radio station to keep them informed?
Because I believe that communities need a quality radio signal that makes me a Marxist? I think that makes me a believer in Democracy from the ground up.
Do you know that some towns had no warning of impending tornados and storms because Rush Limbaugh and others have monopolized their radio station?
You sound like an absolute loon.
I'm not a tool for anyone. I'm an independent/progressive. I'd be more than willing to bet however, that you're a tool (dupe) of Limbaugh and Hannity.
I'd like to know how you've come to the conclusion that the public doesn't want progressive radio. In the few cities where they go head-to-head, on signals of equal strength, the progressive shows, even though they're relatively new, compete.
When the progressive shows lose, it's because they're stuck on a dinky 5,000 watt signal, while Rush is on a 50,000 watt signal.
Aren't you aware of this fact? How many hours of actual independent research have you done on the topic? None? Just as I thought, you're the tool.
What I know is that since Reagan shelved the Fairness Doctrine everyone else has been locked out of radio except far-right extremist talkers. I blame Clinton as well for not re-instating the Fairness Doctrine AND for allowing media companies to grow far too large. I believe Clear Channel went from under 100 radio stations to over 1,000. They're a monopoly and need to be broken up.
Progressive talkers comprise only about 2% of talk radio yet are a larger segment of society than right-wingers.
Independents are the largest political group in the country and currently hold 0% of talk radio.
So how you can conclude that eliminating the Fairness Doctrine has opened up availability is nothing short of delusional.
Happens all the time to progressive talkers.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/6/232418/771...
You clearly have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about. Running ANY radio station isn't the Maw and Paw operation it was in the "golden days" of radio. Every Podunk town doesn't have a radio station for a VARIETY of reasons, $$$ being the largest. Stations operate as NETWORKS. They also, as licencees granted by the FCC, have a mandated DUTY to keep the population informed within the network. ALL OF THAT HAPPENS NOW. "Localism" as being defined by the new statist Marxist Regime in Washington means having local boards of "concerned citizens" make "recomendations" about programming. It's about SILENCING DISSIDENT OPPOSING VIEWS. Please, stop embarrassing yourself and learn just a little bit about what your spewing before you post again.
I listed the names of the Rules Committee where this died…I couldn't quickly find the exact seven of the nine so I listed the nine Dems that comprise the majority.
I hope they don't. I pay to listen to Sirius and absolutely love it! Traveling it's great and just way better just driving around town. Sirius is CONTRIBUTING to "global warming",,,how you may ask yourself? Sometimes I keep driving instead of pulling into the garabe where I lose the signal when the programming is to good to turn off.
I hope they don't. I pay to listen to Sirius and absolutely love it! Traveling it's great and just way better just driving around town. Sirius is CONTRIBUTING to "global warming"…how you may ask yourself? Sometimes I keep driving instead of pulling into the garabe where I lose the signal when the programming is to good to turn off.
I hope they don't. I pay to listen to Sirius and absolutely love it! Traveling it's great and just way better just driving around town. Sirius is CONTRIBUTING to "global warming"…how? Sometimes I keep driving instead of pulling into the garage where I lose the signal. Sometimes the programming is to good to turn off.
dailykos…the source of "real truth"…LOL!
Amen, hallelujeh…
You reveal your hatred for democracy when you angrily state that it's MARXIST when : "concerned citizens" make "recomendations" about programming. This is how it should be in a sane world!
And you claim I want to SILENCE DISSENT!!?? Look in the mirror my friend.
I believe in giving the tools of small "d" democracy to communities. You don't. You want them silenced and obedient to the masters at Clear Channel.
Rush Limbaugh is a welfare QUEEN and a SOCIALIST. He uses a virtually free license and publicly owned (taxpayer funded) radio spectrum to make $400 million dollars.
All Hail the welfare queen and closet socialist Rush Limbaugh!
[...] Popularity Plummets in Ohio as Residents Express Impatience Brian Jennings, Big Hollywood: Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated Rasmussen Reports: 74% Trust Their Own Economic Judgment More Than Congress’ Hot Air: Obamacare [...]
It's only the beginning. I'm just laughing at the people who voted for Obama, and how only after 7 months in office that I am reading "can't wait for 2010." We're F**ked. When duty calls you rise to the occasion.
"In America, those big boxes are owned by private companies."
…Until the next forced "bailout".
I just finished re-reading Kurosawa's autobiography, in which he details the censorship boards that hacked away at or completely blocked some of his films for the most ludicrous of reasons. He also explains his elation when the Americans arrived and replaced the Japanese government censors – the Americans appreciated the vision and artistry of his work and were helpers, not destroyers.
The ironic thing is that the first time I read the book (about 10 yrs ago), I thought, "I am so glad we aren't like that!"
Needless to say I had a different thought process on my second reading.
You missed the satire of my sentiment. These "concerned citizens" will be representitives of LIBERAL pressure groups. I expect the ACLU to be standing by, NAACP, MALDEF all the loony leftist to be there in an effort to silence conservatives. By the way, straying off my points and getting vitriolic doesn't make you the "winner" off anything. Stay on point. If networks and their outlets in any city or town feel there is a market for liberal talk, FINE! I expect that the financially bankrupt (as well as bankrupt morally and ideologically) Air America is available in San Francisco and seattle and other leftist strongholds. Thats fine. They don't get ratings in Dallas Ft. Worth or many other Mid American cities. They FAILED! It wasn't because they didn't get a FAIR CHANCE.
Do you understand the free market concept? The free will of the people determines the winners and losers in the competitive market place. Adverstisers want their spots on radio shows that people LISTEN TO. It's that simple. Killing AM radio is part of a wider leftist agenda to silence it's critics. The taxpayer doesn't fund Rush. Private companies PAY to advertise on his show. The same opprotunity is available to the Al Frankens and Randi Rhodes' of the world. THEY FAILED! NOBODY LISTENED TO THEM. Advertisers LEFT THEM…IT DIDN'T WORK. That's not Rush's fault. I don't listen to any of them because I'm busy in scholl and doing other things. If their conservatives i wish them well but I'm not part of that auydience. Same goes for liberal talk. Alan Colmes is on in my city. Fine. I don't care. If you don't understand this, get an economics book out and read it, other wise you're wasting our time.
Do you understand the free market concept? The free will of the people determines the winners and losers in the competitive market place. Adverstisers want their spots on radio shows that people LISTEN TO. It's that simple. Killing AM radio is part of a wider leftist agenda to silence it's critics. The taxpayer doesn't fund Rush. Private companies PAY to advertise on his show. The same opprotunity is available to the Al Frankens and Randi Rhodes' of the world. THEY FAILED! NOBODY LISTENED TO THEM. Advertisers LEFT THEM…IT DIDN'T WORK. That's not Rush's fault. I don't listen to any of them because I'm busy in skool (school,hee hee!) and doing other things. If their conservatives i wish them well but I'm not part of that auydience. Same goes for liberal talk. Alan Colmes is on in my city. Fine. I don't care. If you don't understand this, get an economics book out and read it, other wise you're wasting our time.
Do you understand the free market concept? The free will of the people determines the winners and losers in the competitive market place. Adverstisers want their spots on radio shows that people LISTEN TO. It's that simple. Killing AM radio is part of a wider leftist agenda to silence it's critics. The taxpayer doesn't fund Rush. Private companies PAY to advertise on his show. The same opprotunity is available to the Al Frankens and Randi Rhodes' of the world. THEY FAILED! NOBODY LISTENED TO THEM. Advertisers LEFT THEM…IT DIDN'T WORK. That's not Rush's fault. I don't listen to any of them because I'm busy in skool (school,hee hee!) and doing other things. If they're conservatives I wish them well but I'm not part of that audience. Same goes for liberal talk. Alan Colmes is on in my city. Fine. I don't care. If you don't understand this, get an economics book out and read it, other wise you're wasting our time.
You are correct, sir! Showing my age here.. but love the music from 70's and 80's, and also Cinemagic! My son has it in his car.. heavenly!!
[...] Read More: [...]
I have a remote like a TV and just flip around all over the place. I have about seven to ten favs and that definitely includes the 70's (my high school daze) and the 80's (my crazy barfly daze)!
1) First of all free market concept is DEAD. Are you not paying any attention to the bank implosion? Even Alan Greenspan, the most HARDCORE free marketer admitted its a FAILED CONCEPT. Anyone who still believes in the mythical magic of the "free market" at this point in time must be living on an island. Free market concept has destroyed the country.
2) Rush Limbaugh is a welfare queen because he uses publicly owned radio spectrum and a virtually free license to make his millions. If he was a hardcore capitalist he'd get a privately owned signal on Sirius. But he'd rather make his living from free taxpayer funded radio. He's perhaps the biggest socialist in the country.
3) Let's switch Randi Rhodes to Rush Limbaugh's 50,000 watt signals. Then lets put Rush on Randi's tiny 5,000 watt stations and see who gets ratings. Why are neo-conservatvies afraid to compete with progressives on equal ground?
1) You really are a FULL BLOWN SOCIALIST aren't you? The freemarket isn't dead you Leninnist dreamer. It's strenght and principals are at work all day everyday, atleast until statists like Obama jump into over-regulate segments of the economy that don't need their regulation. Markets always correct themselves. Liberal /communists don't understand that. Our market system is the envy of the world, I know I just did a months worth of research on the subject in FOUR EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
2) Every single voice heard on America's airways has the same opprotunity Rush has. He SAVED A.M. RADIO. It was a DYING MEDIA. In the process he became a very mealthy man. Then tiny widdle liberals began to notice, and created this "public airways" tripe as a defense mechanism.
3) It's not how loud RANDI says it, IT'S the CRAP SHE SAYS! People TURN OFF the radio. That equals bad ratings. How does she do in L.A.?
"Whatever you tax, you get less of." Alan Greenspan
"Protectionism will do little to create jobs and if foreigners retaliate, we will surely lose jobs."
Alan Greenspan
"I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I've said."
Alan Greenspan
"Whatever you tax, you get less of." Alan Greenspan
"Protectionism will do little to create jobs and if foreigners retaliate, we will surely lose jobs."
Alan Greenspan
"I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I've said."
Alan Greenspan
"Whatever you tax, you get less of." Alan Greenspan
"Protectionism will do little to create jobs and if foreigners retaliate, we will surely lose jobs."
Alan Greenspan
"I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I've said."
Alan Greenspan heretoday: concentate on that last quote and I'll get back to you later, when I have the time to waste.
"Whatever you tax, you get less of." Alan Greenspan
"Protectionism will do little to create jobs and if foreigners retaliate, we will surely lose jobs."
Alan Greenspan
"I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I've said."
Alan Greenspan
heretoday: concentate on that last quote and I'll get back to you later, when I have the time to waste.
"Whatever you tax, you get less of." Alan Greenspan
"Protectionism will do little to create jobs and if foreigners retaliate, we will surely lose jobs."
Alan Greenspan
"I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I've said."
Alan Greenspan
heretoday: concentate on that last quote and I'll get back to you later, when I have the time to waste.
Greenspan was shilling for more regulation, not saying the free market is dead, in, by the way, the most regulated economy in the world. The U.S. also has the highest corporate tax rates in the WORLD at 38%, look it up. Do yourself a favor, you don't want to get into a economics debate with me, I'll embarrass you. Grab your smock and get off to your shift at Mickey D's. Oh and "have a nice day".
The airwaves dont belong to the right wing OR the marketplace , they belong to the public at large. Fairness is required.
Those who think the fairness doctrine is tantamount to censorship have'nt the vaguest idea as to what constitutes actual censorship. Limbaugh and Hannity can scream their innanities as loud as they want.
[...] Housing for folks who can’t pay their bills. More tax-payer dollars for college students. The “Fairness” Doctrine might make a return. Those czars are getting weirder by the day. The elites are still pounding Palin for being an [...]
[...] From the Pen: The Fairness Doctrine: Welfare for Sub-Prime Liberal Broadcasters Brian Jennings: Unreal: Broadcaster Freedom Amendment Defeated Chuck Norris, World Net Daily: Atheists in the Capitol’s foxhole The “G” Blogs, [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.