Clinton, Boxer Want to Squash Conservative Radio Talk Shows

[actsnoblemartin]

what do you mean here?.

f republicans are to be believed, would serve to marginalize your ability to do just that?

 

[maineman]

the editor's boss cares about shareholders... exclusively.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I agree that news media is owned by big impersonal corporations, which is the problem. How can you have competition, when 5 people own all the media?.

Second, journalists, are human beings, and are going to have a hard time, getting rid of their bias completely, and that takes real effort. Now, I am not saying that someone with a liberal point of view is a loony toon. I would just like some honesty. If a radio talk show host, can say, im a conservative, then why cant a reported, as full disclosure say, im a liberal, or a democrat, but that has no baring on my reporting, but dont hide the fact, you give money to a political party, any for that matter. I think its a degree, Chris matthews in my opinion is liberal, and i dont mind him so much, I watch cnn, which is the most moderate in my opinion, so you can be a raving loony liberal, or a very professional, NON-biased liberal, or something in between. But for people who report politics, it is a bit un-nerving that 90%, or 87% whatever it was, lean one way. Even if it was republican, that would not be good.

I don't think it's an "either - or" choice. I agree with you that corporations sole function and intent is to increase shareholder wealth.

At the same time, the journalists themselves are not going to abandon their upbringing. And, as I stated previously but did not expand on, journalists can have a left-leaning POV that affects how they present the facts that does not necessarily mean they are raving left-wingnut loonies.

 

[maineman]

I must have missed the fact that "Hardball" was a news show and not political commentary.

my bad.

 

[Gunny]

I agree that news media is owned by big impersonal corporations, which is the problem. How can you have competition, when 5 people own all the media?.

Second, journalists, are human beings, and are going to have a hard time, getting rid of their bias completely, and that takes real effort. Now, I am not saying that someone with a liberal point of view is a loony toon. I would just like some honesty. If a radio talk show host, can say, im a conservative, then why cant a reported, as full disclosure say, im a liberal, or a democrat, but that has no baring on my reporting, but dont hide the fact, you give money to a political party, any for that matter. I think its a degree, Chris matthews in my opinion is liberal, and i dont mind him so much, I watch cnn, which is the most moderate in my opinion, so you can be a raving loony liberal, or a very professional, NON-biased liberal, or something in between. But for people who report politics, it is a bit un-nerving that 90%, or 87% whatever it was, lean one way. Even if it was republican, that would not be good.

Why does it matter what a radio talk show host claims to be? Talk show hosts are not reporting the news. They usually take already reported news and put their own slant on it. Why I don't listen to them.

If you want facts ... take two supposedly liberal news sources and two supposedly conservative news sources, read what all four have to say. The facts common ot ALL FOUR will usually give you the truth. It will also give you an appreciation of how the same story can be presented two or four different ways to lead readers to different conclusions.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

the editor's boss cares about shareholders... exclusively.

true.

Perhaps, conservatives are over-blowing it, but I think you would agree, there is some there

Perhaps I am nieve, but i dont want bias, liberal or conservative.

 

[Gunny]

true.

Perhaps, conservatives are over-blowing it, but I think you would agree, there is some there

Perhaps I am nieve, but i dont want bias, liberal or conservative.

Being naive would be refusing to accept the fact that the bias exists. Being idealistic is wishing it did not exist.

Conservatives overblow the MSM's liberal bias the same as liberals can be counted on like clockwork to launch a monthly attack against Fox News, then start bitching about O'Reilly and Hannity, both of whom are oped hosts, not news reporters.

 

[red states rule]

Being naive would be refusing to accept the fact that the bias exists. Being idealistic is wishing it did not exist.

Conservatives overblow the MSM's liberal bias the same as liberals can be counted on like clockwork to launch a monthly attack against Fox News, then start bitching about O'Reilly and Hannity, both of whom are oped hosts, not news reporters.

Overblow?

The MSM slants its news stories way to the left. Now, the left is going after the one area of the media they do not control - talk radio

 

[red states rule]

NBC News: 'Ugly Emotions' on Illegal Immigration Being 'Fanned' by Rush Limbaugh
Posted by Brent Baker on June 25, 2007 - 03:55.
On Sunday's NBC Nightly News, reporter John Yang distorted Pat Buchanan's point about the level of crime committed by illegal immigrants as he impugned Rush Limbaugh for helping to “fan” such “ugly emotions.” Previewing the expected Senate vote Tuesday on whether to revive the immigration bill, Yang asserted that “the outcome is uncertain, largely because of the heated debate over how to treat people illegally in the country.” Yang charged: “On NBC's Meet the Press today, that debate turned ugly.” Viewers then saw a soundbite from Buchanan: “Many of them are child molesters or drunk drivers, they're rapists, they're robbers, they've got a variety of crimes but they commit a felony by being here.” After a clip of Democratic Congressman Luis Guttierrez, on the same show, condemning Buchanan for casting “aspersions” and reasonably insisting that “the vast, overwhelming majority of immigrants that come here to this country come here to work hard, sweat, toil, and make our country a better place,” Yang, presumably referring back to Buchanan, alleged: “Those emotions are being fanned by conservative radio talk show hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh.” Yang played an audio clip of Limbaugh: “They want low-skilled, uneducated, cheap labor in the country -- because that's their next class of victims.” Yang proceeded to segue to a clip, of Newt Gingrich, by adding: “And TV ads.”

Two major problems with Yang's presentation in which he tried to characterize conservative analysis as illegitimate: First, the soundbite selected of Buchanan suggested he was making a generalization about how most illegal aliens are criminals, but his previous sentence (transcript) made clear he was referring only to a sub-set who have committed crimes: “You go after, in deportation, the 600,000 who’ve been ordered deported who are now criminal felons who have stayed in this country. Many of them are child molesters, they’re drunk drivers...” Buchanan also cited “the gang members who don’t belong in the country,” a well-known problem to anyone in a major urban area. Second, the soundbite featured from Limbaugh hardly supported the contention Limbaugh and other conservative talk hosts have “fanned” irrational fear of illegal aliens. In the bite Limbaugh was clearly making a claim about the motivation of liberals.

And I could add as a third distortion, the soundbite of Gingrich in a television ad -- “This bill does not even allow convicted criminals to be deported” -- hardly is an “ugly” criticism of the bill.

The soundbite from Limbaugh is at least nine days old since he was on a golf vacation last week.
http://newsbusters.org/node/13707

 

[Gunny]

Overblow?

The MSM slants its news stories way to the left. Now, the left is going after the one area of the media they do not control - talk radio

The MSM does not slant it's stories WAY to the left. That is oversimplifying the issue so you can point a finger.

As I previously stated, the vast majority of journalists are liberal. They do their best to honestly report the facts; however, how they view those facts is from a liberal POV.

Conservative journalists are NO different.

Unless you get a list of nothing but facts/evidence, the writer's opinions/POV will ALWAYS be reflected in their articles, just as none of us can communicate without involving our POV/opinions to some degree. That's just how the process of human communications goes.

 

[red states rule]

The MSM does not slant it's stories WAY to the left. That is oversimplifying the issue so you can point a finger.

As I previously stated, the vast majority of journalists are liberal. They do their best to honestly report the facts; however, how they view those facts is from a liberal POV.

Conservative journalists are NO different.

Unless you get a list of nothing but facts/evidence, the writer's opinions/POV will ALWAYS be reflected in their articles, just as none of us can communicate without involving our POV/opinions to some degree. That's just how the process of human communications goes.

Gunny, look at the articles I post from Newsbusters. They sight daily on how the media slants the news. What they leave oout, or how they covered a similar issue during the Clinton years

Why do you think the left wants to silence talk radio - it is the one area of the media they do not have control of

 

[mattskramer]

Gunny, look at the articles I post from Newsbusters. They sight daily on how the media slants the news. What they leave oout, or how they covered a similar issue during the Clinton years

Why do you think the left wants to silence talk radio - it is the one area of the media they do not have control of

Perhaps there needs to be a “NewsBusters” to watch NewsBusters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsbusters#Criticisms

There are similar watchdog groups such as FAIR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting

and Media Matters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America

Take your pick.

RSR complained that a site that I listed was partially supported by Soros. Let’s see who runs MewsBusters. Well, NewsBusters was created by the “Media Research Center” and the “Media Research Center” is headed by L. Brent Bozell III, the former director of the National Conservative Political Action Committee.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1972

Can RSR say “intellectual hypocrisy” and “double standard”? Probably not. He does not realize how guilty he is of it.

 

[Eightball]

<blockquote>"Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem." - Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)</blockquote>

You're forgetting the views of one of your own. Or are you just conveniently ignoring them?

I don't care if Trent Lott is the most conservative guy in the congress.........He is wrong, wrong, wrong..............

I know that many or most conservatives will agree. We, conservatives do not "circle the wagons" and water down our principles for the sake of political party unity. If there's a bad apple in our barrel, we will "chuck it" more readily than some other folks and their party will.

We will not be "apologists" for it, either. There is such a wide gamut of views even amongst conservative talk show heads..........Savage and Rush don't see eye to eye. Medved and Rush don't agree on all issues, nor does Hewitt, or others agree with the pack.

Conservatives tend to be individualists, yet have a lot in common in philosophy, but they are not "apologists" in most cased just to have party unity. They'd take a campaign loss if it means watering-down their principles. Can that be said for other partys?

Trent Lott, had made a grave "boo boo", and I don't see anyone coming to his rescue, unless it's the Demos. If he's trying to be P.C. and placate the other party, he's washed-up like Specter in my book.

Sadly the Senate, whether it be GOP or Demo controlled is the place that outstanding bills are destroyed, or compromised to death.

Ever notice that Senators don't often become Presidents? It's usually governors.

 

[Annie]

I don't care if Trent Lott is the most conservative guy in the congress.........He is wrong, wrong, wrong..............

I know that many or most conservatives will agree. We, conservatives do not "circle the wagons" and water down our principles for the sake of political party unity. If there's a bad apple in our barrel, we will "chuck it" more readily than some other folks and their party will.

We will not be "apologists" for it, either. There is such a wide gamut of views even amongst conservative talk show heads..........Savage and Rush don't see eye to eye. Medved and Rush don't agree on all issues, nor does Hewitt, or others agree with the pack.

Conservatives tend to be individualists, yet have a lot in common in philosophy, but they are not "apologists" in most cased just to have party unity. They'd take a campaign loss if it means watering-down their principles. Can that be said for other partys?

Trent Lott, had made a grave "boo boo", and I don't see anyone coming to his rescue, unless it's the Demos. If he's trying to be P.C. and placate the other party, he's washed-up like Specter in my book.

Sadly the Senate, whether it be GOP or Demo controlled is the place that outstanding bills are destroyed, or compromised to death.

Ever notice that Senators don't often become Presidents? It's usually governors.

What I've noticed is that you and I often softly echo each other, at different times. I believe it was RSR who asked me a few days ago, which talk radio guys didn't really sell the president's agenda, rather their own thoughts. I gave him Medved and Hewitt. Some of us do not listen to one voice.

 

[Edward]

I don't, and aside from some unsubstantiated BS spewed by right wing politicians like James Inhoffe, I haven't seen any indication that Democrats having any desire to do as you've suggested. And it would be inappropriate for them, or anyone else to do so.

Bush's disdain for the Constitution and the liberties it guarantees us all is well documented.

Bush is a tyrant and a dictator just like the people who voted for him are tyrants and dictators.

 

[red states rule]

I believe two sitting members of Congress instead of one. When and if Clinton and Boxer admit that they said this than I will take the word of all three instead of two but it is a given that Inhofe is nothing but a fucking asshole just like the bitches he represents and I am far less inclined to believe a fucking piece of shit like Inhofe and instead I tell him to shut the fuck up and go fuck his slut of a wife Kay and to go back to Oklahoma and give the bastards who voted for him a blowjob. Inhofe, his whore of a wife, his children, grandchildren and those he represents our my enemies and I do not believe those who would harm me and my loved ones and he is nothing but a liar and his family are retarded bitches just like their fucking retarded father, husband, and grandfather. Let's not forget this bastard supports sending my loved ones to die for his family and for his opinion, and I hope to God he falls dead on the Senate floor from a heart attack so his fucking children can weep at the loss of their bastard of a father who is nothing but a murderous tyrant representing murderous tryants.

May God damn his family and him to hell and may Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton and their families remain calm even if Inhofe continues to lie about them yet I would not have a problem if they fucking walk up to him on the Senate floor and kick his lying ass and if the people who voted for him get upset about it and try to attack my representatives then I will kick their Oklahoma asses back where they and their fucking familes come from. My representative can kick your representatives ass.

So when one of the Clinton hatchet men, John Podesta, heads up a group (funded by George Soros) to slinec conservative talk radio - it is just a coincidence?

 

[red states rule]

What I've noticed is that you and I often softly echo each other, at different times. I believe it was RSR who asked me a few days ago, which talk radio guys didn't really sell the president's agenda, rather their own thoughts. I gave him Medved and Hewitt. Some of us do not listen to one voice.

Due to work, I do not listen to alot of the top conservative talks radio hosts, but Sean has been all over Pres Bush and Republicans

Like me, he has been upset over spending, the mistakes made in the war, and the arrogrance of both for not listening to the base

 

[red states rule]

Libs want talk radio to sound like the network news

CBS Frets Over Supreme Court's Turn to Right, ABC Rues Campaign Finance Ruling
Posted by Brent Baker on June 25, 2007 - 21:25.
The Supreme Court on Monday issued two rulings related to free speech, but CBS was more concerned by the court's move “to the right,” while ABC deplored the impact of the ruling striking down of a ban on advocacy advertising 60 days before an election. In the other case, the court upheld the right of school officials to ban student signs advocating illegal behavior. Substitute CBS Evening News anchor Harry Smith, however, saw only one of the cases as involving free speech as he stressed the ideological direction of the court: “Today the justices ruled on a broad range of issues, including campaign finance reform and free speech for students. The rulings illustrate a distinct turn to the right due in part to the court's newest members.” Instead of seeing a victory for free speech, Wyatt Andrews described it as “part of a trend in which the Roberts court generally has moved to the right.” Andrews soon touted how “often the court's only woman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, would verbally strike back,” such as when “she said the partial-birth abortion decision reflects ancient notions about women's place in the family, and this was out loud in open court.”

http://newsbusters.org/

 

[red states rule]

Another example of how the left wants the news "reported"

ABCNews.com: Supreme Court Ruling a Blow to 'Reform' More Than Victory for Free Speech
Posted by Ken Shepherd on June 25, 2007 - 11:22.
Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to ban interest groups from running issue ads close to an election. The McCain-Feingold Act bans any issue ads by interest groups that mention a candidate running for reelection from airing within 60 days of a general election (and 30 days before a primary), even if the ad does not expressly advocate voting for or against the named candidate.

The way Ariane de Vogue of ABCNews.com reports it, the ruling is not a victory for free speech and political participation, but a blow to "reform."


Reigniting the debate over campaign finance regulation, the Supreme Court struck down a part of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act on Monday.

That legislation, also known as the McCain-Feingold law, restricts corporations and labor unions from broadcasting ads at election time using general funds. Proponents of campaign finance reform fear Monday's ruling will create a major loophole in the legislation and cause an influx of so-called "sham issue" ads that McCain-Feingold was created in part to combat.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13716

 

[red states rule]

Liberals vs. Free Speech
By Jack Kelly

Are there moderate Muslims? And if there are, why aren't they speaking out against the beheaders and the suicide bombers?

A lot of people ask those questions. Canadian filmmaker Martyn Burke set out to answer them. He made a documentary. "Islam vs. Islamist," which was financed in part by a $675,000 grant from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Mr. Burke hired journalists who reported from Denmark, France, Canada and the United States. There are a great many moderate Muslims, they found, but they don't speak out because they are intimidated by threats of coercion, ostracism and physical violence from the Islamists in their communities.

Mr. Burke's findings are important, but this column is about why the Public Broadcasting System chose not to air his documentary.

PBS had two objections, Mr. Burke told Bill Steigerwald of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. The first was that Mr. Burke showed "favoritism" to those Muslims who don't want to blow up their neighbors.

"Basically, the attitude...was that the Muslims we were portraying as the moderates were in some way, in their view, not true Muslims because they were Westernized," Mr. Burke told Mr. Steigerwald. "They felt the Islamists somehow represented a truer strain of Islam."

PBS also objected to Mr. Burke's co-producers, Frank Gaffney, a former assistant secretary of defense, and Alex Alexiev, a former RAND corporation expert on Islamic extremism.

"They demanded that I fire my two partners, because my partners were conservatives," Mr. Burke said.

PBS is the beau ideal of many liberals when it comes to free speech. Their point of view is subsidized by the taxpayers. Other points of view are suppressed.

for the complete article

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/liberals_dont_support_free_spe.html