next target of the left will be talk radio

[Mac1958]

What about hate TV?

Ed Schultz -Republicans want you dead! - YouTube

And what about left-wing hate radio?

When I see you folks being intellectually honest, I'll believe this stuff isn't just a steaming pole of partisan horseshit, a transparent attempt to stifle opposing speech.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoqzR9Rf4C0]Mike Malloy : I Hate These People - YouTube[/ame]

Evidently YOU have never like me taken any journalism classes, much less do I think you are able of sound reasoning and rational thinking!
Rush,Sean,et.al. you consider "hate" they are very very clear they are "commentators"... NOT newscasters...
Here in case you don't comprehend the difference... "commentators" are like editorial writers or "columnists" they have an opinion.
Now Schultz, Matthews, Madow, THEY don't consider themselves "commentators" but "newspeople".. journalists"!
But THEY have a bias they don't admit it!!!

They too are commentators but do they tell you they are conservative/liberal/progressive? NO because they are AFRAID like most liberals of
the being called "liberals"... so they are "public" news reporters!!!!

And idiots like yOU believe every word including these words from so -called "journalists"..

I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Evan Thomas on Hardball, June 5, 2009.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/06/05/newsweek-s-evan-thomas-obama-sort

Oh, where to begin.

First, I was in broadcasting and the media for about 20 years in a former life, from the street to the office. I've spent plenty of time in journalism classrooms on both side of the equation.

Second, as a result, you don't need to explain the difference between a commentator and a reporter to me.

Third, I strongly suspect that most of the other people here realize that the point of my post is that hate speech is practiced by folks at MSNBC, and that it is intellectually dishonest to complain about the Limbaughs of the world while ignoring that. But, for some reason, that little tidbit got by you and you immediately resorted to name-calling and insults. How this got by you is an abject mystery.

Good gawd, your blind ideology has rendered you positively goofy. Play your weird little games with someone else, thanks.

.

 

[Mac1958]

That's funny because I don't know any of "them" that want to silence RW radio. They don't want less Glen Becks, Mark Levines or Rush Limbaughs, they just want more Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Millers and Thom Hartmans.

How have "they" tried to "shut down" opposing speech? The Fairness Doctrine (no, I'm not advocating a return to the Fairness Doctrine) didn't shut down opposing speech, it required it.

I don't want to see RW radio go away, just broken up enough to let other voices in. We no longer have public airways...they, like everything else these days, are corporate owned. Clear Channel owns our public airways.

I'm all for more and more diverse voices, the more the merrier, I'm a First Amendment purist. I just don't want to see happen due to government statutes and left wing intimidation. Create a good product and get it up & running. Create interest, satisfy demand. So far, only the right wingers have figured out how to do that. The left simply and clearly has not.

Long live the First Amendment.

.

Forever live the First Amendment. But again, political philosophy is not some "product" to be bought and sold like soap. To reduce thought to that level isn't honoring the First Amendment. It's spitting on it. It's reducing Freedom of Speech to a corporate commodity where the biggest megaphone wins. That's not the spirit of democracy; it's corporatocracy. See my sig line...

There's no effective difference between on the one hand silencing a voice we don't like, and on the other hand redefining it to a "commodity" that can then be outsold by ClearChannel on the basis that they have more money. Either way, you squelch dissent and produce monologue.

Not sure why ClearChannel has to be such a critical part of this equation. The zealots on MSNBC have no problem getting the word out, there are other radio corporations out there. There's the internet. And, your inference seems to be that ClearChannel will trade revenues for political advantage, and I'm not convinced of that.

We're either going to let the First Amendment breathe and allow the market to decide what it wants to read/see/hear, or we're not. I'll always be for the former. If we want to change what people want to hear, we do that through the culture, by changing hearts and minds, not by controlling speech.

.

 

[hazlnut]

 

[Wry Catcher]

This link is from 2009 but it does show there are some Democrats who do want the Fairness Doctrine back now these people may not even be in office anymore and I doubt it would ever be reinstated but still there were and probably still are some from the left who want it back and with Obama not having to worry about reelection again they might try and push this issue.
Dems target right-wing talk radio ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

I support a revised form of the fairness doctrine. I'd love to see the commentators on Fox debate Racheal Maddow.

 

[yidnar]

Oh, boy. Another Obama/leftist/liberal/progressive/commie/socialist/fascist conspiracy theory. God knows we don't have enough of them already.

This ought to be the new theme song of the looney right.

Napoleon XIV: 'They're coming to take me away' - YouTube

ever heard of the fairness doctrine ??the left wants to silence conservative talk ,hell they already tried ,they just couldn't get the votes.

 

[Pogo]

And what about left-wing hate radio?

When I see you folks being intellectually honest, I'll believe this stuff isn't just a steaming pole of partisan horseshit, a transparent attempt to stifle opposing speech.

Mike Malloy : I Hate These People - YouTube

Evidently YOU have never like me taken any journalism classes, much less do I think you are able of sound reasoning and rational thinking!
Rush,Sean,et.al. you consider "hate" they are very very clear they are "commentators"... NOT newscasters...
Here in case you don't comprehend the difference... "commentators" are like editorial writers or "columnists" they have an opinion.
Now Schultz, Matthews, Madow, THEY don't consider themselves "commentators" but "newspeople".. journalists"!
But THEY have a bias they don't admit it!!!

They too are commentators but do they tell you they are conservative/liberal/progressive? NO because they are AFRAID like most liberals of
the being called "liberals"... so they are "public" news reporters!!!!

And idiots like yOU believe every word including these words from so -called "journalists"..

I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Evan Thomas on Hardball, June 5, 2009.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/06/05/newsweek-s-evan-thomas-obama-sort

Oh, where to begin.

First, I was in broadcasting and the media for about 20 years in a former life, from the street to the office. I've spent plenty of time in journalism classrooms on both side of the equation.

Second, as a result, you don't need to explain the difference between a commentator and a reporter to me.

Third, I strongly suspect that most of the other people here realize that the point of my post is that hate speech is practiced by folks at MSNBC, and that it is intellectually dishonest to complain about the Limbaughs of the world while ignoring that. But, for some reason, that little tidbit got by you and you immediately resorted to name-calling and insults. How this got by you is an abject mystery.

Good gawd, your blind ideology has rendered you positively goofy. Play your weird little games with someone else, thanks.

.

I'm glad you responded to that post; I found it hopelessly inane. Invokes "Journalism classes", and then off to the imaginary "very very clear they are commentators" when it's his own "team", and then "newspeople/journalists" when it's the other "team". Of course neither assertion is true. He must have failed those journalism classes.

My background is quite similar to yours, going back to 1982, so both before and after the Fairness Doctrine was actually in place. Good to know there's somebody else here who knows what he's talking about.

 

[Pogo]

I'm all for more and more diverse voices, the more the merrier, I'm a First Amendment purist. I just don't want to see happen due to government statutes and left wing intimidation. Create a good product and get it up & running. Create interest, satisfy demand. So far, only the right wingers have figured out how to do that. The left simply and clearly has not.

Long live the First Amendment.

.

Forever live the First Amendment. But again, political philosophy is not some "product" to be bought and sold like soap. To reduce thought to that level isn't honoring the First Amendment. It's spitting on it. It's reducing Freedom of Speech to a corporate commodity where the biggest megaphone wins. That's not the spirit of democracy; it's corporatocracy. See my sig line...

There's no effective difference between on the one hand silencing a voice we don't like, and on the other hand redefining it to a "commodity" that can then be outsold by ClearChannel on the basis that they have more money. Either way, you squelch dissent and produce monologue.

Not sure why ClearChannel has to be such a critical part of this equation. The zealots on MSNBC have no problem getting the word out, there are other radio corporations out there. There's the internet. And, your inference seems to be that ClearChannel will trade revenues for political advantage, and I'm not convinced of that.

We're either going to let the First Amendment breathe and allow the market to decide what it wants to read/see/hear, or we're not. I'll always be for the former. If we want to change what people want to hear, we do that through the culture, by changing hearts and minds, not by controlling speech.

.

ClearChannel is used as a ready example of what can happen through corporate monopoly of discourse. MSNBC is a cable channel (as is Fox Noise) so they are not related here. I don't follow what "trading revenues for political advantage" means. But I gave you a thanks for the last sentence.

 

[Mac1958]

Evidently YOU have never like me taken any journalism classes, much less do I think you are able of sound reasoning and rational thinking!
Rush,Sean,et.al. you consider "hate" they are very very clear they are "commentators"... NOT newscasters...
Here in case you don't comprehend the difference... "commentators" are like editorial writers or "columnists" they have an opinion.
Now Schultz, Matthews, Madow, THEY don't consider themselves "commentators" but "newspeople".. journalists"!
But THEY have a bias they don't admit it!!!

They too are commentators but do they tell you they are conservative/liberal/progressive? NO because they are AFRAID like most liberals of
the being called "liberals"... so they are "public" news reporters!!!!

And idiots like yOU believe every word including these words from so -called "journalists"..

I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Evan Thomas on Hardball, June 5, 2009.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/06/05/newsweek-s-evan-thomas-obama-sort

Oh, where to begin.

First, I was in broadcasting and the media for about 20 years in a former life, from the street to the office. I've spent plenty of time in journalism classrooms on both side of the equation.

Second, as a result, you don't need to explain the difference between a commentator and a reporter to me.

Third, I strongly suspect that most of the other people here realize that the point of my post is that hate speech is practiced by folks at MSNBC, and that it is intellectually dishonest to complain about the Limbaughs of the world while ignoring that. But, for some reason, that little tidbit got by you and you immediately resorted to name-calling and insults. How this got by you is an abject mystery.

Good gawd, your blind ideology has rendered you positively goofy. Play your weird little games with someone else, thanks.

.

I'm glad you responded to that post; I found it hopelessly inane. Invokes "Journalism classes", and then off to the imaginary "very very clear they are commentators" when it's his own "team", and then "newspeople/journalists" when it's the other "team". Of course neither assertion is true. He must have failed those journalism classes.

My background is quite similar to yours, going back to 1982, so both before and after the Fairness Doctrine was actually in place. Good to know there's somebody else here who knows what he's talking about.

... and who feels your pain!



.

 

[Pogo]

This link is from 2009 but it does show there are some Democrats who do want the Fairness Doctrine back now these people may not even be in office anymore and I doubt it would ever be reinstated but still there were and probably still are some from the left who want it back and with Obama not having to worry about reelection again they might try and push this issue.
Dems target right-wing talk radio ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

I support a revised form of the fairness doctrine. I'd love to see the commentators on Fox debate Racheal Maddow.

Now that would be good. Intellectual nutrition instead of the usual candy bars.
Unfortunately it's a pipe dream since it would be too cerebral to sell, and "sell" is what it's all about. Anyone who thinks it isn't is living an illusion.

 

[nodoginnafight]

everything right or republican or right or republican related the left is determined to divide and conquer.
Its only natural the next target will be talk radio. Give it time

Roger?s Rules » The Next Target of Leftists: Talk Radio

I personally think that would be a big mistake for Democrats. Rush Limbaugh is as good a recruiting tool as they have.

Just MHO

 

[Pogo]

Oh, boy. Another Obama/leftist/liberal/progressive/commie/socialist/fascist conspiracy theory. God knows we don't have enough of them already.

This ought to be the new theme song of the looney right.

Napoleon XIV: 'They're coming to take me away' - YouTube

ever heard of the fairness doctrine ??the left wants to silence conservative talk ,hell they already tried ,they just couldn't get the votes.

Way to read the thread. "Ever heard of the Fairness Doctrine" We did that. It doesn't "silence" anybody-- it does the opposite. See posts 6 and 13.

Now you might want to ask yourself why those who oppose the FD are opposed to diversity of discourse. You might. Or you might not.

 

[Pogo]

everything right or republican or right or republican related the left is determined to divide and conquer.
Its only natural the next target will be talk radio. Give it time

Roger?s Rules » The Next Target of Leftists: Talk Radio

i wish someone would get on all the Radio broadcasts here in S.Cal period......IT SUCKS!.....some of the worst radio in the Country....

Harry, I'm glad you were brave enough to take on the first sentence of the OP here. I couldn't translate it into English.

As for your content, whatever it is, the way to address it is to communicate with the station(s). They're your airwaves so you get to comment and what's more they have to keep a public file of all comments -- and they also have to justify themselves to the FCC come license renewal time. You can comment there too. Because if a broadcaster isn't serving the public interest, we can pull their plug.

Granted we don't have much pulling power individually, but that's the part that has to change.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm all for more and more diverse voices, the more the merrier, I'm a First Amendment purist. I just don't want to see happen due to government statutes and left wing intimidation. Create a good product and get it up & running. Create interest, satisfy demand. So far, only the right wingers have figured out how to do that. The left simply and clearly has not.

Long live the First Amendment.

.

Forever live the First Amendment. But again, political philosophy is not some "product" to be bought and sold like soap. To reduce thought to that level isn't honoring the First Amendment. It's spitting on it. It's reducing Freedom of Speech to a corporate commodity where the biggest megaphone wins. That's not the spirit of democracy; it's corporatocracy. See my sig line...

There's no effective difference between on the one hand silencing a voice we don't like, and on the other hand redefining it to a "commodity" that can then be outsold by ClearChannel on the basis that they have more money. Either way, you squelch dissent and produce monologue.

Not sure why ClearChannel has to be such a critical part of this equation. The zealots on MSNBC have no problem getting the word out, there are other radio corporations out there. There's the internet. And, your inference seems to be that ClearChannel will trade revenues for political advantage, and I'm not convinced of that.

We're either going to let the First Amendment breathe and allow the market to decide what it wants to read/see/hear, or we're not. I'll always be for the former. If we want to change what people want to hear, we do that through the culture, by changing hearts and minds, not by controlling speech.

.

Clear channel is "part of the equation" because they hold a monopoly on radio stations, a monopoly that wasn't allowed to exist prior to the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Cable TV and radio are two different animals.

 

[Harry Dresden]

everything right or republican or right or republican related the left is determined to divide and conquer.
Its only natural the next target will be talk radio. Give it time

Roger?s Rules » The Next Target of Leftists: Talk Radio

i wish someone would get on all the Radio broadcasts here in S.Cal period......IT SUCKS!.....some of the worst radio in the Country....

Harry, I'm glad you were brave enough to take on the first sentence of the OP here. I couldn't translate it into English.

As for your content, whatever it is, the way to address it is to communicate with the station(s). They're your airwaves so you get to comment and what's more they have to keep a public file of all comments -- and they also have to justify themselves to the FCC come license renewal time. You can comment there too. Because if a broadcaster isn't serving the public interest, we can pull their plug.

Granted we don't have much pulling power individually, but that's the part that has to change.

im just one guy Pogo......but i dont listen to talk Radio it sucks and to many dam commercials.....i am talking about the so called "Classic Rock" stations out here.....same bands same 5 songs by those bands.....i guess Led Zeppelin only did 5 songs.....know what im saying?......i wish KNAC,KDAY and KMET....were back with the format they had back in the early 70's............

 

[Jarlaxle]

Talk radio is fine. Hate radio is not fine.

What the Fairness Doctrine did from 1949 to 1987 was require that controversy on the radio be a dialogue (multiple voices). Once it was abolished by the Reaganites was exactly when we got the Lush Rimjob monologue style, where you could just blurt out anything and never have to put up with a challenge to it. The timing of that is significant; our discourse has been hyperpolarized ever since.

No, what is did was STIFLE controversy on the radio. Rather than risk being punished for not giving exactly equal time to both sides...they just didn't put either side on. It was and is a blatant muzzle on free speech, and anyone in favor of it is half a step above a traitor.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Forever live the First Amendment. But again, political philosophy is not some "product" to be bought and sold like soap. To reduce thought to that level isn't honoring the First Amendment. It's spitting on it. It's reducing Freedom of Speech to a corporate commodity where the biggest megaphone wins. That's not the spirit of democracy; it's corporatocracy. See my sig line...

There's no effective difference between on the one hand silencing a voice we don't like, and on the other hand redefining it to a "commodity" that can then be outsold by ClearChannel on the basis that they have more money. Either way, you squelch dissent and produce monologue.

Not sure why ClearChannel has to be such a critical part of this equation. The zealots on MSNBC have no problem getting the word out, there are other radio corporations out there. There's the internet. And, your inference seems to be that ClearChannel will trade revenues for political advantage, and I'm not convinced of that.

We're either going to let the First Amendment breathe and allow the market to decide what it wants to read/see/hear, or we're not. I'll always be for the former. If we want to change what people want to hear, we do that through the culture, by changing hearts and minds, not by controlling speech.

.

Clear channel is "part of the equation" because they hold a monopoly on radio stations, a monopoly that wasn't allowed to exist prior to the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Cable TV and radio are two different animals.

No, they do not hold a "monopoly" on radio stations. Claiming they do is just stupid.

Listening to a NON-Clear Channel radio station right now, in fact.

 

[g5000]

The left is already prepared to revise the 1st Amendment with the ironically named "fairness doctrine" which is aimed at conservative talk radio. That's two down and eight to go.

Ignorance is bliss. The Fairness Doctrine was (note past tense) a policy of the FCC requiring that when a station aired a controversial opinion, it had to also provide time to a party that wished to offer a counterpoint. In other words it required "fair and balanced". Senator Joe McCarthy (R-Wisc) not only used the FD to respond to Edward R. Murrow's report on him in 1954, but played a major role in instituting the Fairness Doctrine a few years before.

Though upheld by SCOTUS in 1969 on a case of ad hominem, the Fairness Doctrine was abolished by FCC Chair and Reagan appointee Dennis Patrick in 1987. Which you'll note is just about the time Lush Rimjob began his radio attack on civil discourse. But until that time, what the Fairness Doctrine did was ensure that if one opinion came in from this side, another one had to be welcomed from that side. Ergo it would be impossible to "aim" at any side whatsoever.

In other words exactly what we have the capacity to do here on this message board. Now what's your prob with that?

Note on the OP- the link contains nothing but a one-paragraph opinion warning "the leftists are coming" offering no evidence whatsoever. That and $4.52 will buy you latte.

The Fairness Doctrine was an unmitigated failure. Even the Left admits that today.

 

[JakeStarkey]

everything right or republican or right or republican related the left is determined to divide and conquer.
Its only natural the next target will be talk radio. Give it time

Roger?s Rules » The Next Target of Leftists: Talk Radio

I doubt that Rush and the folks on talk radio are just shaking in their boots.

 

[Gadawg73]

Talk radio is fine. Hate radio is not fine.

Your team has more hate jocks than the other team.

 

[g5000]

Anyone who advocates a Fairness Doctrine has absolutely no concept of what free speech is.

And you are damned straight the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine gave rise to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, MSNBC, Rachel Maddow, et al.

That is the absolute beauty of a free press:

In America there is scarcely a hamlet that has not its newspaper. It may readily be imagined that neither discipline nor unity of action can be established among so many combatants, and each one consequently fights under his own standard. All the political journals of the United States are, indeed, arrayed on the side of the administration or against it; but they attack and defend it in a thousand different ways. They cannot form those great currents of opinion which sweep away the strongest dikes. This division of the influence of the press produces other consequences scarcely less remarkable. The facility with which newspapers can be established produces a multitude of them; but as the competition prevents any considerable profit, persons of much capacity are rarely led to engage in these undertakings. Such is the number of the public prints that even if they were a source of wealth, writers of ability could not be found to direct them all. The journalists of the United States are generally in a very humble position, with a scanty education and a vulgar turn of mind. The will of the majority is the most general of laws, and it establishes certain habits to which everyone must then conform; the aggregate of these common habits is what is called the class spirit (esprit de corps) of each profession; thus there is the class spirit of the bar, of the court, etc. The class spirit of the French journalists consists in a violent but frequently an eloquent and lofty manner of discussing the great interests of the state, and the exceptions to this mode of writing are only occasional. The characteristics of the American journalist consist in an open and coarse appeal to the passions of his readers; he abandons principles to assail the characters of individuals, to track them into private life and disclose all their weaknesses and vices.

Nothing can be more deplorable than this abuse of the powers of thought. I shall have occasion to point out hereafter the influence of the newspapers upon the taste and the morality of the American people, but my present subject exclusively concerns the political world. It cannot be denied that the political effects of this extreme license of the press tend indirectly to the maintenance of public order. Individuals who already stand high in the esteem of their fellow citizens are afraid to write in the newspapers, and they are thus deprived of the most powerful instrument that they can use to excite the passions of the multitude to their own advantage.

Tocqueville: Book 1 Chapter 11