Clinton, Boxer Want to Squash Conservative Radio Talk Shows

[Toro]

That very well may be. But you do support al-Jazeera's right to broadcast if a cable carrier picked it up, correct?

 

[red states rule]

That very well may be. But you do support al-Jazeera's right to broadcast if a cable carrier picked it up, correct?

Of course I do

Unlike the left, I say let the people choose what they want to listen to and view

Libs say they are for that as well - until they see the ratings

 

[Toro]

Well, I can't argue with that.

I also agree with you that the liberals are getting their clocks cleaned on radio. I don't like talk radio, but liberals are pretty clueless on how to respond. Shutting it down or censoring it isn't the way to do it.

 

[red states rule]

Well, I can't argue with that.

I also agree with you that the liberals are getting their clocks cleaned on radio. I don't like talk radio, but liberals are pretty clueless on how to respond.

and THAT is why libs want to have the government regulate it - they can't compete.

One part of the media the left can't control so they want to try as pass laws in an effort to silence the dissent

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Tsk, tsk, silly Liberals.

Of course, conservatives who believe in free speech would allow for the broadcast of al-Jazeera in America. Unless, of course, "free speech" didn't include the right to show pictures of the war in Iraq.

If a network wanted to pick that channel up, unless the federal Government cited some legal reason they could not, guess what? That channel WOULD appear.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where is the proof that Hillary said that? Do we have a video or audiotape of her saying that? Do we have a letter from her saying that she wants conservative radio regulated?

Remind me again of your opinion of the unsubstantiated claims by a couple generals about the admin. If your willing to believe them with no audio or tape, then why would you not then believe a serving member of Congress?

 

[red states rule]

If a network wanted to pick that channel up, unless the federal Government cited some legal reason they could not, guess what? That channel WOULD appear.

As I said, it is all about ratings and money

Somehting liberal talk show hosts do not have

 

[red states rule]

look who's whining now.

Even other libs say liberal talk radio stinks


FNC’s Kirsten Powers: ‘Here’s the Deal With Liberal Talk Radio – It Sucks!’
Posted by Noel Sheppard on June 24, 2007 - 00:14.
Most Fox News watchers are familiar with Kirsten Powers, the outspoken Democrat strategist and political analyst that is often a guest of Bill O’Reilly’s.

On Friday, Powers sat in for Brian Kilmeade on Fox Radio’s “Brian and the Judge.” At issue was the just-released report from the Center for American Progress regarding conservative domination of AM radio.

To say the least, Powers' take on this subject wouldn’t ingratiate her with folks like Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer (audio available here, h/t Allah at Hot Air):

Here’s the deal with liberal talk radio – it sucks! I don’t know if you’ve ever listened to it…I’m talking like the liberal talk radio, like on Air America which is not free market. It’s a bunch of donors getting together and starting, you know, a business. It’s not a business…I don’t know what it is, I don’t know if the listeners are more naturally conservative, and liberals are already listening to NPR, and they’re not looking for something new. All I know is that I’ve tried to listen to it, and I’m not talking about Alan [Colmes], I'm talking about an Air America, and I just don’t find it compelling. And obviously other people don’t find it compelling, cause it’s not successful.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13691

 

[red states rule]

look who's whining now.

So to you, pointing out the truth is now "whining"?

It seems your side is doing the whining - they are the ones getting their asses kicked in the ratings

 

[red states rule]

Liberal Radio Host Demonstrates Hypocrisy of Fairness Doctrine
Posted by Noel Sheppard on June 23, 2007 - 20:25.
An interesting debate over the recent Center for American Progress report concerning conservative dominance on the radio transpired on Thursday’s “Tucker” when the moderately conservative Michael Smerconish, acting as guest host, took on liberal radio’s Ed Schultz.

The discussion ended up being a classic battle between a capitalist who believes that free market forces are determining programming on the radio dial and a leftist who feels ownership is to blame for the scarcity of liberal talk shows.

snip


"It‘s the old concept, Michael, when you are in business and you make a product and you have a product and it‘s successful, what do you do? You make more of it…But I take issue with those in the industry that say liberals can‘t talk and can‘t be entertaining and can‘t do commerce.

When we started in January of 2004, we started on two stations and 500 people listening on the Internet. We have grown to 100 stations. It‘s all about ratings. It‘s all about revenue. And you have to show a consistent growing audience. Now, we have been able to do that.

The point being here is you have to be able to sell advertising. You have to be able to hold an audience."

Then Sgt Schultz bellowed.........


SCHULTZ: Well, wait a second now. When you are talking about the spoken word, it influences a lot of people and it influences election in this country. There is no question. We are talking about market opportunities. Right now the liberal progressive format in this country—we are all fighting over the same 100 stations. Michael, I offer to you that ownership is an issue.

There are conservative broadcast companies in this country that do not broadcast one single second of liberal talk radio.



First Schultz says his show is successful due to he has ratings and makes money. Then the reason other libs fail is because of the evil right wing companies

Give me a break

To watch the video (and get a good laugh at the left's answer to Rush)

http://newsbusters.org/node/13690

 

[Bullypulpit]

You shouldn't assume all Conservatives hold the same positions, just like I wouldn't assume that you and every Liberal agree on everything.

I don't, but the talking heads on right wing-nut radio, and I DO listen to them, could all be reading from essentially the same script, with some changes to reflect their own personal psychoses.

 

[red states rule]

I don't, but the talking heads on right wing-nut radio, and I DO listen to them, could all be reading from essentially the same script, with some changes to reflect their own personal psychoses.

Why do your elected Dems want to regulate political speech?

This from the same crowd that says Pres Bush is trying to take away civial liberities - while Dems want to silence speech they do not agree with

 

[Bullypulpit]

I've got an idea, Bully. Why don't we keep an eye on the Fairness Twins, and see if their ACTIONS bear out Inhoffe's claim? I don't think we're going to have to wait long.

Just out of curiosity, what do YOU think should be done about conservative talk radio?

Let'em rant, and alternate the conservative talkers with liberal talkers.

 

[red states rule]

Let'em rant, and alternate the conservative talkers with liberal talkers.

Trying to find a succeesful liberal talk show host is like trying to find a virgin in the maternity ward

 

[Bullypulpit]

Why do your elected Dems want to regulate political speech?

This from the same crowd that says Pres Bush is trying to take away civial liberities - while Dems want to silence speech they do not agree with

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.

 

[Care4all]

From the article:

Mr. Inhofe said the conversation took place about three years ago, but noted that he described it to a Los Angeles radio host yesterday as "the other day."

Mr. Inhofe said the conversation took place about three years ago, but noted that he described it to a Los Angeles radio host yesterday as "the other day."

Mr. Inhofe said the conversation took place about three years ago, but noted that he described it to a Los Angeles radio host yesterday as "the other day."

The conversation took place 3 years ago, but he presented it as though it were JUST THE OTHER DAY....

Like he could really remember verbatum what was said 3 years ago in an elevator ride....let alone PRETEND and deceive others on it occuring "just the other day". tisk tisk! Shame on him.

What a crock of crapola!!!! Why are republicans in office sooooooooooo deceitful? Being straight forward and honest just does not seem to be important.....shakes head....

care

 

[red states rule]

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.

The Dems are trying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and a former hatchet man for the Clinton's, John Podesta, comes out with a "report" on how unfair things are for liberal radio

Group Led By Clinton’s John Podesta Outlines Assault of Conservative Radio
Posted by Noel Sheppard on June 21, 2007 - 13:52.
The supposedly “free speech” left are out in force trying to silence all voices in the media with views different than their own just in time for the 2008 presidential campaign.

Potentially more worrisome, one liberal advocate in the middle of this debate has close ties to the Clintons, although it is quite unlikely the press will convey such when its recommendations are disseminated with their predictable stamp of approval.

With that in mind, the left-leaning Center for American Progress published a report Thursday detailing how conservatives dominate the talk radio dial, and exactly what needs to be done legislatively for liberals to wrest control over this medium (emphasis added throughout):

Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.
http://newsbusters.org/node/13642

 

[red states rule]

LIKE A BORDER FENCE

Talk Radio Report Downplayed Actual 'Progressive' Content

In cooking up their now- infamous report on talk radio's "imbalance", what exactly was the Center For American Progress trying to accomplish?

Though your Radio Equalizer has argued the study should be ignored, it's getting so much attention that its overt flaws need to be addressed.

After the near- total failure of libtalk across the country, do they really believe they can force stations to carry what programmers already know won't work?

Short of the legislative action Hillary and Boxer are apparently planning, it just isn't going to happen. Any manager crazy enough to propose a libtalk format for one of their stations would be laughed out of the building.

Interestingly, libtalk still exists, though with few land- based affiliates. But it can be found on both XM and Sirius Satellite Radio, in addition to Internet streaming. Why doesn't that count?

That's why the whining is incredible. While your Radio Equalizer and syndicated host Mark Levin (photo right) have already revealed the personal connection one of the report's authors has to liberal talk radio, a quick glance at the study reveals something else: they've greatly downplayed the amount of lefty talk actually airing.

In fact, the mistakes are so obvious, they shatter the study's credibility. According to the methodology cited on page seven, "hosts were categorized as conservative, progressive/ liberal, or indeterminate/ neither based on self- identification, show descriptions, and listings in Talkers Magazine. Only hosts with evident and near- indisputable leanings were categorized."

That's where the survey's clear bias is exposed: they clearly have a much easier time labelling a "conservative" host than a "progressive" one. The results are comical

San Francisco's KGO is listed as featuring only three hours of daily liberal talk! If this refers to Bernie Ward, what about the four hours of hyper- lefty Ray Taliaferro (shown in top- left photo)? Or two hours of liberal- leaning Pete Wilson? Finally, why don't the 17 hours or more of "progressive" weekend programming count?

The report lists KABC / Los Angeles as featuring no liberal talk, but morning host Doug McIntyre's four- hour show fits the study's "progressive" criteria, having sat on the "left" side of the Talk Radio Rumble panel at the recent New York City convention organized by Talkers.

In New York City, why weren't WOR- AM afternoon hosts Hennican & White listed in the "progressive" column? Ellis Hennican is not shy when it comes to promoting a leftist viewpoint.

In Washington, why isn't urban talker WOL listed on the liberal side as well? Take a look at the schedule: is there anything unclear about Al Sharpton's leanings? The same goes for the stations with this format in Detroit, Philly, Chicago and elsewhere.

for the complete article

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2007/06/kgo-center-for-american-progress.html

 

[mattskramer]

Remind me again of your opinion of the unsubstantiated claims by a couple generals about the admin. If your willing to believe them with no audio or tape, then why would you not then believe a serving member of Congress?

I guess that I did not explain my post. I think that I would believe this thread’s original post just as I would believe the post about Cheney. I was hoping to gage your standard – to see if you have a double standard. See:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=578521&postcount=11

Provide a source document from the Vice president or his staff making the claim thery are not part of the Executive Branch. I read the linked items and while the claim is made by those unhappy with him I see NO source document that actually makes that claim.

Well. Do you also call for a source document from Clinton and Boxer just as you demand a source document from Cheney per the other thread?

 

[red states rule]

I guess that I did not explain my post. I think that I would believe this thread’s original post just as I would believe the post about Cheney. I was hoping to gave your standard – to see if you have a double standard. See:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=578521&postcount=11



Well. Do you also call for a source document from Clinton and Boxes just as you demand a source document from Cheney per the other thread?

Yawn

Zzzzz.......