Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Victor Davis Hanson :: Townhall.com Columnist
All's Fair in Love and Talk Radio
by Victor Davis Hanson
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., caused a stir recently when she criticized talk radio for its role in stopping the recent immigration bill. Talk radio, she lectured, "pushes people to...extreme views without a lot of information."

Feinstein then went on to suggest that it might be time to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine, repealed in 1987, that mandated private radio stations devote time to all points of view during discussion of controversial topics.

Unfortunately, Feinstein chose Orwellian logic to make her point: "I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people."

One wonders what Feinstein meant by "correct." Correct to whom? Democratic senators, a government auditor or New York Times editors? Aside from the central issue of stifling free speech, there are a number of things wrong with Sen. Feinstein's desire to have the government arbitrate what is "fair" and "correct" on your car radio.

Talk radio is as much entertainment as political opinion. It lives or dies by ratings. Those who master the genre - with off-the-wall jokes, mimicry, satire and bombast -prosper and get their political message across. Those who can't, don't.

Had liberal talk show hosts of the past, like an Al Franken, Jerry Brown or Mario Cuomo, won far more listeners than Rush Limbaugh, one suspects that Sen. Feinstein would see little need for new laws. And we would probably now be spared the present sour-grapes cries about fairness.

The government is already in the broadcasting business with National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service. Despite conservative whining about the leftwing biases of these two institutions, fortunately no one has succeeded in having their broadcasts monitored or in demanding equal time on them for all views.

More importantly, for reasons that are not entirely clear, liberals and conservatives tend to excel in different genres of American media. Most successful political radio talk shows are in fact conservative. On the other hand, humorous political TV spoofs, like Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show," Bill Maher's "Real Time" or "The Colbert Report," tend to have a liberal bias.

Similarly, the major networks - CBS, NBC and ABC - are liberal bastions. So are most of our motion pictures and documentaries. The most prestigious and oldest grant-giving foundations - Rockefeller, Ford, MacArthur and Guggenheim - are liberal leaning. Likewise are the majority of universities, from the most prestigious, like Harvard, to the largest, such as the California State University system.

Yet, do we want a counter-editorial to everything a Katie Couric chooses to present as news at dinnertime? Or should we demand that Republicans match Democratic numbers on college faculties, or as graduation speakers and grant recipients? Should conservatives be provided an equal-time trailer at the end of "Fahrenheit 9/11" or "Syriana"?

The truth is that savvy Americans navigate well enough on their own through our various partisan genres. Liberals flip through The New York Times, tune into NPR on the way to work, and rave about a movie or documentary damning the Iraq war. Conservatives call into Rush or Hannity, check blogs for their news and watch Bill O'Reilly on cable.

There is a sort of irony in the debate over talk radio. Of all our media, it is perhaps the most populist. A radio host requires neither a journalism degree nor political connections. He just needs sheer talent. The unforgiving market - judged by how many turn the dial to your show or call in with questions - alone adjudicates success. Liberals who profess affinity for the little guy should welcome this prairie-fire revolt against the more highbrow New York Times, CBS News or NPR.

Finally, is the new politicking on radio any different from what goes on, in subtler fashion, elsewhere? Liberal media do not consider themselves biased, since selecting what story appears on the front page or leads the evening network news is far more nuanced partisanship than a Michael Savage screaming about the latest liberal transgression.

Yet that does not mean that Walter Cronkite's famous on-air declaration that the Vietnam War could not be won was any less political. Or how about Dan Rather's pre-election assurances that a forged memo about George Bush's National Guard service was authentic?

Rather than promoting government audit of our opinion media, liberals should master talk radio and cable news. And conservatives should work harder at providing counter-voices in Hollywood, on the campuses, and amid the major networks and newspapers.

Then let the best men and women win in the free arena of ideas and entertainment.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal.

Be the first to read Victor Davis Hanson's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Public broadcasting SHOULD be balanced
"The government is already in the broadcasting business with National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service. Despite conservative whining about the leftwing biases of these two institutions,"

No, Vic, conservatives whine because their tax dollars are coerced from them to fund propagation of views they find abhorrent. Read your Founding Fathers.

So best is not to have any public broadcasting, but if we do have to fund it, then let it be balanced.

But if a liberal doesn't like Rush, then he doesn't have to pay for him.

First Amendment Support
The party that supposedly professes a love for the First Amendment is again showing their true intentions.

Let's look at their history of support for the First Amendment:

First, we have the support for the fairness doctrine.

Second, we have Rockerfeller, et. all sending a letter to ExxonMobil to tell them to desist in their funding of global warming research. This along with some veiled threats.

Third, Reid and company sending a letter to ABC about the airing of a program that showed the run up to 9/11. Again somemore veiled threats.

As our Gen. Petraus and the troops have found out, Democratic support is like a broken jock strap. It looks good but is useless and will get you hurt at best and killed at worst.

Vic seems to confound
tax-payer funded entities with those of the free market - much as Ms. Feinstein does.

While I agree that the government should stay out of the free market entities like the broadcasters and newspapers as well as talk radio (especially since there is an opportunity for "fair and balanced" news and commentary on cable and online), I draw the line at those entities that are supported with my tax dollars.

And those include NPR AND state-supported universities. If MY tax monies are going to maintain them, then I DO want 'fair and balanced'. With a 90% Demoncrat/liberal college instructor ratio, you're darned right that I want to see that "we demand that Republicans match Democratic numbers on college faculties, or as graduation speakers and grant recipients". The brainwashing/propaganda that is occurring demands a 'fairness doctrine'.

But I doubt that that is what Ms. Feinstein has in mind.

liberals
liberals don't want fairness, they simply don't want any opposition from anyone
only they know what is correct speech
now we not only have to hide our wallet, but soon our keyboards too

PJ hits it deadon...
"I draw the line at those entities that are supported with my tax dollars.

And those include NPR AND state-supported universities. If MY tax monies are going to maintain them, then I DO want 'fair and balanced'. With a 90% Demoncrat/liberal college instructor ratio, you're darned right that I want to see that "we demand that Republicans match Democratic numbers on college faculties, or as graduation speakers and grant recipients". The brainwashing/propaganda that is occurring demands a 'fairness doctrine'."

I'm NOT in favor of the "fairness doctrine" that the Democrats are promoting - which is nothing more than censorship of all voices that don't spout their point of view. I am in favor of more balance in national news, newspapers, movies, universities, etc. I realize one is free to listen or not to these biased views but I think the constant brainwashing of liberal ideas has contributed to the decline in the American way of life.

How many make the effort to read Townhall or Powerline or Michael Yon? It's faster and easier to just listen to ABC,NBC,CBS while cooking dinner or doing chores -- hence, painless brainwashing.

If the "fairness doctrine"
gets revived, I bet the top conversative talk radio hosts will switch over to satellite radio, as Stern did to get out from under the FCC's thumb and regulations. So, we''ll still be able to get our Rush, Hannity, and Beck. However, it's the guys in the individual city markets that we'll lose - Howie Carr in Boston etc.

If the Republicans want to be clever, they'll propose an amendment to any and all legislation having to do with the fairness doctrine - that amendment would also make sure the doctrine would apply to NPR.

Senator Feinstein's definition
"(E)xtreme views without a lot of information."

You realize she just described the Senate floor debate over the scamnesty bill that she just tried- and failed- to ram through.

It was the INFORMATION that radio and the Internet supplied to the Amrican people which helped rally support to defeat her, and Kennedy's and Graham's and, yes, the President's, little exercise in social engineering by fiat.

From this, I am forced to conclude that she only objects to a lack of information when it does NOT benefit her. And that she wants to decide what "information" we are allowed to have.

How very "progressive" of her.

I'm sure Joseph Goebbels would approve.



cheers

eon

V.D.H. as diplomat
I deeply admire our learned author's calm, cool tolerance of the highly entrenched propaganda mills masquerading as Universities,Media etc. However....I would hasten to point out that those who speak for the "Right" generally proclaim their political positions. Those on the left claim always to represent the "reasonable, moderate center". Those who promote liberty have no hidden agenda. They don't need one. The left is a multi-layered, mostly hidden vehicle for those who would prey on others through control. But....always with the best of intentions. Open debate simply does not serve the left well. So they avoid it. It generally takes about 3 minutes of debate with a leftist to arrive at the point where the ad hominimisms kick in.

fredo
well said.

Talk radio.
As usual, Dr. Hanson goes straight to the point and presents a balanced argument.

'Fairness Doctrine'
Fairness Doctrine sounds like something you might find in Russia these days.

fairness
talk radio has given me more information than i ever received in the past from the biased newspapers. people are paying more attention to what washington is doing. i wish we could have term limits on the washington crew. oh yeah...not possible cause they have to pass on it. well someday...

The problem with NPR, PBS
and State Universities, is NOT the fact that dissenting opinion is stifled, but that they are publicly funded with hard earned tax dollars. The fix for this lies not in forcing them to be fair and balanced, but in cutting them off from the public trough.

Democrat rhetoric
.
"Talk radio, she (Feinstein) lectured, 'pushes people to...extreme views without a lot of information.'"

Sounds like a description of your average Democratic politician's rhetoric.

Public Radio ...
heard a commentator do a spiel on Jorge's threatened veto of an increased tax on tobacco products and how it was an attack by this administration against the children. He is just opposed to one of the grandest government programs ever, starting the little people on their way to looking toward the government for their medical needs. Same evil, hypocritical, self centered nonsense we can anticipate from any of the public radio group.
Fair and balanced? I doubt that any of us would get a few moments on the air to ask these mavens of mockery a few key questions. One of my favorites of course is always that as a liberal and a good human who believes in government empowerment ... do you take tax deductions?


NPR and PBS
perhaps well intentioned and possibly needed in their inceptions, their reasons for being no longer exists. they were once without "commercial endorsement", but no matter how they would dress this paid endorsement revenue stream today, it exists. they are market commodities and the taxpayers should not be forced to support them anymore than ABC or the rest! it is well passed the time when a Federal government which has irresponsibly spent this nation into massive debt should begin to cull ALL that is unnecessary in the way of expenditures.
it is an unfortunate developement which our Founders i do not believe ever imagined, but "we, the people" must organize into lobbying organizations every bit as effective as those of the special interests who now dominate the wills of our "leaders"; "we, the people" should be the only "special interest" of those we elect,and we must make sure that our desires are met, our opinions inacted into law, and not those of the elected individuals.

eon
You beat me to the punch. I couldn't have said it better. However, she forgets to mention that even some people in congress probably and most likely did learn about some of that failed bill on talk radio, as they did this behind closed doors and tried to ram it through without congress getting a chance to read it. So where do you think most of the congress got their first tast of it?....Couldn it be talk radio?

fairness doctrine?
since when do thinking people need another govt agency telling them how to formulate their thinking. Libs are content with sheeple, those unwilling to do critical thinking or want to have any ideas brought forward that might upset their utopian views of how wonderful life will be when they rule trhe society. TGhinking people want to debate ideas, both good and bad. No one person has a perfect solution. Thousands and millions discussing issues lead to ideas that determine how things should proceed. I would rather place my trust in the majority listening to many voices and then making decision than listening to a few selected voices all echoing the same point of view. Obviously the dims in congress are scared and worried about the populace discussing the activities of those elected officials

Blue-Z-Anna: Bravo
However....I would hasten to point out that those who speak for the "Right" generally proclaim their political positions. Those on the left claim always to represent the "reasonable, moderate center".

Bravo. You conveyed the nature of left-wing "ideological myopia" rather succinctly. What is the source of their myopia? False moral superiority of course. Leftists seem to think that their particular ideology imbues them with an esoteric insight on all matters pertaining to the reality in general and the human condition in particular. If the rest of us were intelligent enough to appreciate the subtle beauty of social engineering (gender/racial quotas, wealth-redistribution, etc.) we would of course be leftists as well. Hence, because we don't agree with the dominant leftist-paradigm we must be stupid, immoral or merely bigots.

Fairness Doctrine
Talk about "the pot calling the kettle black" the liberals have long taken advantage of what they see as the short attention span of the average American voter (which is why they utilize the entertainment/news media of mainstream television). Talk radio at least gives the listener an opportunity to hear extended information on the program hosts views.

eon
Feinstein * her scum bag allies DO control what
they wish us to know.
When interviewd on network 'news', they bring the
questions & give them to the ABC's et.al. --------makes it easy doesn't it.

Something to think on: Down the 'road' all TV
will be available only on Cable or Dish. And we will be supporting non stop propaganda.

It is well known that you cannot work for ABC
unless you are a Liberal.

Universities must be forced to equal there hiring. 93% libs. 7% Reps.

Demosthenes
"Hence, because we don't agree with the dominant leftist-paradigm we must be stupid, immoral or merely bigots."

Conversely, if everyone doesn't agree with the "conservative base" doctrine on every issue, they are painted as traitors, unpatriotic, godless, or RINOs.

It works both ways and I'd submit that neither the far left or hard core conservative base represent the majority of the voters. Independents and "true moderates" are the real deal and often reject the far left and right positions.
The bases of both parties are important in framing what the debatable issues are -- the moderates and independents are equally important in determining the compromises needed to make good change occur.
The only difference is that the moderate/independent voter is not a solid block in lockstep agreement on every issue and in turn doesn't engage in the name calling such as the bases do.


Sadly
There are too many people in this population who never get the whole story. When the failed immigration bill was first making the rounds, my niece sent an email blaming the whole thing on republicans. I suppose the media never mentioned that Kennedy and company was just as involved at the inception. I have noticed that since it failed, it has become idintified by the media as George Bush's bill. I know if it has passed it would have been Kennedy's bill. And only good things happen when Dims pass a bill. Everyone knows that.........
I think RR said it best...Democrats know so much that isn't true.

NPR & PBS
These are the two most liberal media outlets going, and we have to pay for them. So, yes, I do want to see some type of fairness imposed on them; I would love for them to be forced to give equal time to opposing viewpoints. If I have to listen to Daniel Shore give his typical leftist "news analysis", then I would surely like to hear somethng from..say..oh..Tom Delay. And if PBS is going to give Bill Moyers time to give his anti-American rants, then give time to Ann Coulter as well. Either let all viewpoints be fairly represented and heard, or stop taking government funding and run the propaganda outfits on your own dime. But that will never happen, because if it did NPR & PBS would go the way of Air America!

Where are the moonbats?
Have you noticed not a single moonbat on this string? Wonder why. As clear as the nose on your face...

The left is afraid of debate.
Thus their concern with true fairness. Which is letting everyone have the opportunity to express their views. As oppose to the liberals, that want to stifle the opposing views of others.


mikefast
why be surprised. You can't fight a battle without weapons to defend yourself. Telling fellow citizens they have no right to listen to the voices of their choice and to exchange ideas is even something they can't attack.

Feinstein is an ignoramus
First off I am not convinced that talk radio caused the Senate to get lambasted. I think the internet had a lot of influence there. I do think they would have gotten lambasted anyway. It isn't the first time the public has done this and this was a pot boiling over....20+years in the making.
Secondly I am suspicious of any politician left or right who wants to punish because they heard from their constituents.
Gotta wonder if we were overwhelmingly for that stupid bill if the Fairness Doctrine would have ever been brought up. Our Congress is full of children. The minute the game doesn't go their way they don't want to play anymore.

About moderates
being more reasonable more numerous and inbetween the radical far left and far right..... To me, being a moderate is not having guiding principals and too often, being uinformed. Many of my moderate friends proclaim them selves proudly as so, do little to obtain in depth knowledge of the issues and the people presenting the issues. Many are headline readers and 6:00 news only people.

What does the Left call itself?
Big Tent: Is a moderate someone who has a balance of extreme views, or someone who doesn't quite have an opinion on anything?

I know people who are professed right-wing conservatives, and I know people who profess to be anti-conservative, but I don't recall ever hearing someone profess to be a a "left-wing liberal". Is it because in their mind, there are two categories: "Right" and "Correct" ?


loco
you made my point.

loco
I disagree with your opinion about moderates. If what you say is correct that means that either the left or the right is correct on all issues they advocate.
Moderates read about the issues from both sides of the fence and make a determination based upon what I would see as a more informed opinion. The fact that sites like Dkos and TH cater primarily to the base is a good example of this.
One could make the argument that the base goes only to the sources that tell them what they want to hear.
As for talk radio and the 6 o'clock news; neither is where I go for my information. Thorough reading of a variety of credible sources is, in my opinion, a far better way to get a true picture of the issue.

Bess2728:
"If the Republicans want to be clever, they'll propose an amendment to any and all legislation having to do with the fairness doctrine - that amendment would also make sure the doctrine would apply to NPR."

Unfortunately, the Left would probably take that deal. In exchange for maybe hamstringing the low-volume NPR, they get to completely quash the immensly popular right-leaning talk radio hosts. And they'll still have ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the NYT, Wash. Post, LA Times... As VDH pointed out, story selection and headline composing are much more subtle and nuanced (in other words, easier to hide) methods of slanting coverage.

Confusing the cart and the horse
as usual, Feinstein has it all wrong -- again.

Her premise that talk radio "pushes people to...extreme views" is ludicrous, as talk radio doesn't "push" people anywhere. Its popularity derives from the fact that it is a long-overdue forum that *reflects* popular sentiment that heretofore hasn't had an outlet.

Of course, her characterization of those views as "extreme" merely reflects her own vantage point: from the far Left, everything short of Marxism looks "extreme".

Opinion and Fact
In this article Hanson defines conservative talk radio as "a counter editorial to [Katie Couric]" and as "as much entertainment as political opinion". Indeed, Rush Limbaugh has described himself as an entertainer. But on one side of the equation here we have "editorial" and "political opinion" and on the other side we have "entertainment"---the two concepts aren't the same, and can be quite the opposite of one another. Entertainment can state what is untrue, ridiculous, or satirical, and can exaggerate to produce a humorous effect, while a political editorial, although it may impart opinion, should be based on factual information.

The point is that entertainment can be used to sway political opinion, so how are we to classify such talk?

I remember one of the long-ago segregationists running for office, I think either Wallace or Maddox, campaigning by speaking against what he called "eggheads". One time in a speech he said, "Now, you take some egghead college professor, if he gets a flat tire, he won't know what to do---he'll just stand on the side of the road and cry". This statement is ridiculous, certainly not factual, since plenty of college professors know how to change a tire, work on cars, go hunting, drink beer, and smack their wives around, all sterotypically signature behaviors of Good Ol' Boys. It's intended to inflame populists so they will vote a certain way. In other words, this statement tells a lie for political purpose.

And if that doesn't trouble anyone else, it troubles me. As a citizen of a supposedly free society, I don't like to hear lies told for political purpose (that's called "propaganda"). And I have certainly heard them told on talk radio. The first time I ever tuned in to Rush Limbaugh he was stating unequivocally that Bill and Hillary Clinton had murdered Vince Foster. This was not proved in a court of law. It may well have been Limbaugh's opinion, but stating a political opinion and calling it "just entertainment" is another lie. Speak calumny? Libel? Not me, folks: I'm just an entertainer. Just havin' a little fun here. Can't you take a joke?

All politicians direct their message, and probably all exaggerate. But that is not the same as telling an outright lie and then hiding behind the statement that you're just an entertainer. Talk radio constantly gets away with doing this.

Restoration of the Fairness Doctrine, unfortunately, would not silence the venomous voices of Limbaugh and Savage. It would just allow the other side of the story to be told. It may be that both sides would tell outrageous lies. At the moment, the Right is arguing that radio is a necessary balance to the mainstream media. But the mainstream media are not as extreme as talk radio. It's like, you have a mouse and you want balance in the animal world, so you bring in not another mouse but a cobra---talk radio is the cobra. Personally I can't stand Katie Couric, but I don't think I have ever heard of her representing President Bush as having had someone shot.

One more point: many years ago I taught English in a school district that required certain "structured composition" assignments to be taught every year. One was an essay showing the difference between fact and opinion. This was extremely difficult to teach because students generally assumed their opinions to be factual, and the more strongly they held their opinions, the more factual they were thought to be. By definition, a fact appears the same to every rational observer. Example: "At sea level, water boils at 212*" or "Birds hatch their young from eggs". Opinion: "Abortion is immoral" or "A person advocating universal health care is a Communist" or "Not wearing a burqa shows a woman to be immodest".

Talk radio sells opinion as fact---then hides behind the word "entertainment".

I still think
(and, of course, I AM a radio/tv political commentary expert)
Rush was better on TV!
I listen to 8-10 radion shows a day,
2 TV political shows a week(my credentials)
Rush's true wit and humor shows up only in TV.
...and I'm commenting on a failed TV show,with THE #1 radio show.
Go figure!

Who judges fairness?
Even more than the idea of government interfering with free speech, I am bothered by a simple question: how is it judged fair?

I tend to think a lot of conservative reporting is fair. A lot of my more left wing friends think that NPR is quite fair. The truth is, there is no easy clear cut way to judge fairness in reporting the way we can, say, in a race.

Instead, fairness would be judged differently depending on who is in power. Deals and compromises would identify it, not objectivity.

There are so many ways to bias reporting that it is difficult to judge. I may have 50 Iraq disaster stories and one new Iraqi school story. Bias is so insidious in all of us that it is best to let the market be the judge.

diane feinstein
talk about a pathetic politician. She road to fame on the dan white/harvey milk tragedy. Ended up in the senate and enable her hubby to make millions with favored contracts. Yet this dim wit thinks she is on top of every issue. She professed fairness during the supreme court nominee hearings, asked unintelligent questions yet joined her fellow dims in voting against both nominees. The libs love her because they know she will never abandon the party line. Why libs continue to tell themselves that these millionaire dims in congress will look out for america's interests remains a mystery. That she favors a return of the fairness doctrine comes as no surprise, anything that might shine a light on her double dealings and duplicity comes as no surprise

To wildwest
Re your preference for letting majority opinion decide social issues: After the famous halftime breast-baring, the FCC received many emails demanding decency on the airwaves. An analysis of these emails later established that over 95% of them came from one organization, the conservative Parents' Television Council. This is hardly representative of the general population. And yet this "opinion" was used as the basis for changing rules of permissibility and for establishing large fines.

The other night in the kitchen I was listening to an old tape of the Mamas and the Papas and thinking how remarkable it was that so few of them could sound like so many more voices.

An orchestrated blitz designed to change social policy is not the voice of the people. It is a form of populist bullying---to force minority opinion on everyone.

BrianR
NOW REMEMBER! We have been told by NEA members that competition is destructive, that losing harms the self esteem of losers. If Liberals compete and lose, all we would hear are a bunch of Thumb Sucking, Girly Man, Crybabies and….

OOPS! Never Mind ;)!

Don writes that the "Fairness Doctrine"
.... sounds like something you might find in Russia these days.

Astute.

In fact, though, the Goebbelsesque-named "Fairness Doctrine:" the Moscow-fathered basta*d offspring of the heavily Soviet-agent larded Roosevelt "administration" and of the similarly illegitimate Communist Party of America was a a product of the USSR of the old days.

And many of those seeking its reinstatement are second generation (the dangerously-dullard Al-Fredo Gore-leone and equally execrable John Kohn-Kerry, for example) and third and fourth and fifth-generation Moscow-directed Socialist International-serving traitors.

Others serve such other foreign masters as Peking's pack of self-annointed, self-appointed and self-perpetuating predatory pack of lying, looting, thieving, mass-murdering gangster basta*ds.

Others, that is, including the Peking-financed, foul, Fineswine.

lilly
the episode occurred on public airwaves. The TV stations are mandated about what can and cannot be seen. If some are offended by bare breasts that is within their rights as citizens not to be exposed, forgive the pun, to things on the public airwaves. There are many salcious shows on cable and satellite stations, but that is a pay for view service. If yoiu think the standards on the public airwaves need changing contact the FCC and demand changes

georgetwin
I know many libs who happily state i is prode to be a idjit

LOL, SFASU and George
Ain't that the truth?

I'll give Feinstein "information"
Come live in my part of California for a month, dudette. See first-hand the result of the 1986 amnesty, and 20 years of not enforcing the laws we already have. Then tell me again why we need to do it all over again, on steroids. Explain to me how it is that your "information" trumps mine. Didn't need Limbaugh to make up my mind on this one. And BTW, you never answered my communications to you on this topic.

Too busy going Waaahhhh. Somebody expressed an opinion different from yours, and wasn't immediately silenced. Somebody used words and phrases that make his position look good, and yours bad. Horrors!

Welcome to the world of... wait for it... FREE SPEECH.

Lily, let me be blunt.
You are either a liar, or self delusional with extreme liberal bias. Probably both.

I remember listening to Rush during the Vince Foster investigation. HE NEVER SAID THAT THE CLINTONS MURDERED VINCE. I even remember where I was, and what I was doing when I heard about the murder at the top of the hour news report. Later that day, and for many weeks, Rush did discuss that event. I was a fairly new listener, so I was listening and following the content of the show closely. In fact, he made a point of discrediting some of the weirdos on the right, and their conspiracies theories.

He did however, discuss problems with the park police's investigation. As they were not trained, nor had the necessary experience to handle such a crime. If this would have happen during a republican admistration, the media and liberals, would have forced a more professional and vigorous investigation.

I will say this. If the Clintons did not have anything to hide. This would show them to be idiots, for not allowing a top notch investigation, to put the issue to bed. That is not to say that they murdered Vince. But that there may and were likely other issues, that they wished to remain hidden from public view. Illegal activities in Arkansas, that may have come up with a proper and fair investigation of Vince's death.

You Lily have been exposed. It's too bad for the education system, that you have also reconfirmed the extent of liberal bias and ignorance in the classroom.

Lilly
I think you are confused. Rush Limbaugh comes right out and says he is spouting his opinions. Furthermore, no one has to listen to him. If you think what he has to say is nonsense, then don't listen. It's simple.

Dan Rather and Katie Couric, however, claim to present news straight down the middle with no leftist bias. Dan Rather went so far as to completely make up a story about Bush 43 and the National Guard, in what SeeBS claims (or claimed, anyway) is "factual". It's no wonder nobody watches the evening news anymore. Common sense people realize the massive spin.

And finally, there is no law (except supply and demand) saying Al Franken and his ilk can't have liberal talk radio. In fact, they do. If no one wants to listen, is that my fault? This is like an average band demanding a "Fairness Doctrine" after their CD sells 20,000 copies and a big name goes multi-platinum. Reruns of Gilligan's Island probably get lower ratings than pro football games, too. Should we "fix" that injustice while we're at it?

The message is loud and clear. Democrats have found a medium which is more conservative than they like, and they want to muzzle it. There is no outcry for 'fairness' in TV news, hiring of college professors, NPR (yawn), or print media like the NY Times. ONLY the more conservative meduim must be regulated. That should tell you all you need to know.

Toomuchsense
According to Wikipedia "His death was ruled a suicide by investigations conducted by the United States Park Police, the United States Congress, and Independent Counsels Robert B. Fiske and Kenneth Starr."

Yet you still claim it was a murder. Looks like Lilly wasn't the one who was exposed.

AZphil
Please don't tell me you believe that Fox is the nirvana of "balanced" reporting.

SFASU
Gilligan was wiser than Franken, too.

SFASU
I'd tune in to see the Skipper whomp Al Franken over the head with his hat!

Notice anything?

MSNBC with Keith Olbermann: No regulation needed
Comedy Central: No regulation needed
CNN: No regulation needed
NY Times: No regulation needed
ABC/CBS/NBC: No regulation needed
NPR: No regulation needed
PBS: No regulation needed

Talk Radio: We need to regulate this NOW!

Not only is the idea unconstitutional, it's brazen in its selectivity.


Little Tent
It is at least as balanced as CNN.

Conservative Talk Radio is a Mind Suck
Literally the same talking points and catch phrases over and over, repeated multiple times a day for extra brainwashing.

Ironic you criticize Air America since it was a blatant copy of the conservative talk radio format. The difference is, liberals don't like to hear some angry jerk off try to shove opinions down their throat. They are free thinkers, good for them.

Talk radio is like a personality driven cult. You guys have probably spent more hours listening to Rush and co. tell you what to think than your father.

LOL, brainwashed neo cons who need someone else to tell them what to think.

Talk radio is a joke
Please don't compare talk radio to the MSM. Talk radio doesn't gather news. Talk radio doesn't report news. Talk radio has a stated, explicit agenda. Talk radio is entertainment. It provides a one-sided view point in order to push an agenda in an entertaining way for the purposes of rallying the troops.

Example: Former beatnik Michael Wiener has been having in his show the attorney who is representing Lt. Chessani in the Haditha killings. After listening to the one-sided arguments put forth by both of them, one would think that this guy is getting an extremely raw deal (he very well may be). The point is that he has never had anyone on his stupid little show for to represent the other side of the story.

As an attorney, I can tell you that even the worst attorney on earth (let alone the best) would have no trouble whatsoever convincing an audience of his position if there is no counter-viewpoint presented. That's the essence of talk radio.

Also, don't you real conservatives wonder why no reputable conservative commentators ever go on these little entertainment shows?

AZPhil
Fair enough. Thanks for the reply.

Typical example
Of the behind-licking done by the "unbiased" media outlets (and still nobody cared):

NBC’s Ann Curry: "Live Earth involves 130 countries, 7 continents, 2 billion viewers, dozens of bands and it’s all in a day’s work for this man, who’s worked tirelessly to raise the issue of global warming, the Chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection, Al Gore. Al, good evening. You know, you’ve been pouring yourself into this issue, I mean, I gotta tell you, you’ve exhausted yourself....Nevertheless you keep pushing and actually the question is, what constitutes success here?" | |

Former Vice President Al Gore: "...We are now prepared to announce formally that this is now the largest global entertainment event in all of history."
Curry: "Whoa!...Congratulations....A lot of people want me to ask you tonight if you’re running for President.... Would you answer the call?...Have you ruled it out?...Have fun tonight. And I think you are."
Gore: "Thank you very much. Thanks for what NBC has been doing."
Curry: "Alright, thanks a lot."

— Exchange during NBC’s three-hour July 7 broadcast of Gore’s "Live Earth" concert to fight global warming.


SFASU7392
Anyone who depends on TV or radio (regardless of network) to tell what to think in 30 second sound bites, shouting matches between two people, or one way rants needs to go back to reading if they want to claim they are independent minded.

Desu
You're free not to listen to Rush, you know. I'm not criticizing Air America. I think it's great to live in a society where there's freedom of speech. Listen to it all day every day if you choose.

You are right - we shouldn't compare the two media (TV news and talk radio). Talk radio claims to be opinions, and the hosts make no bones about their biases. TV news, however, claims to report the "news" in an unbiased fashion, when is fact the major media are wildly liberal. They are not even above completely making stories up; see Dan Rather.

For an analogy, the front page of the paper is news. the editorial pages is opinion. TV news claims to be like the former, and are in fact more like the latter. Of course, it's for our own good that they tell us what to think. Sadly for them, people aren't buying it, and ratings are way down.

Big tent
I get virtually none of my news from TV. I pretty much read a variety of things online, and sometimes read papers and/or magazines. the screaming at each other, personified by liberal Chris Matthews, is ridiculous.

desu
WOW!!! If you can't tell the difference btwn NEWS and shows like Limbaugh's (entertainment with an agenda) then your powers of discernment are shot.

Perky Outlook
"Historian Douglas Brinkley says he used the White House as a stepping stone for greater things. He intervened in civil wars around the globe, monitored elections, and confronted dictators. And Carter’s work for Habitat for Humanity shows that even for someone who was once the most powerful man on Earth, there’s no higher calling than helping your neighbor. To cap it all, in 2002 he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Of course he’s been outspoken, criticizing President Bush and equating some Israeli policies with apartheid, and critics have accused him of acting decidedly unpresidential. Agree with him or not, you have to respect him for sticking to his principles. At 82, Jimmy Carter is having an impact still, perhaps even more than when he was President."

— CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric on her June 19 "Katie Couric’s Notebook," a video posting to her "Couric & Co." blog at CBSNews.com.

Unbiased ABC
Co-anchor Ryan Owens: "Okay, I have an idea....You know how we have a Paris Hilton blackout?...How about an Ann Coulter blackout?"
Co-anchor Taina Hernandez: "Ah, no ‘Coulter cash’ for us....Or we can pit them together in some kind of skinny death match?"
Owens: "Skinny death match?"
Unidentified person off-camera: "Or go to jail together."
Owens: "Here’s your weather."
Hernandez: "Or go to jail together. That’s Peter. Here’s your weather."

— ABC’s overnight World News Now, June 28.

Global Hot Air
"Everyone agrees", right?

"I really don’t think climate change is a political issue.... Everyone agrees it’s happening. If it’s a political issue, it’s whether the political will exists to address that change. We know we need to do something, and this is a way to heighten awareness."

— NBC Senior Vice President Dan Harrison quoted in the July 9 Washington Post defending NBC Universal’s 75-hour multi-network coverage of Gore’s "Live Earth."

SFASU
Right, unbiased and still perky!

AZPhil
"TV news, however, claims to report the "news" in an unbiased fashion, when is fact the major media are wildly liberal."


And the conservative response was to create their own media which doesn't even pretend to be objective...I don't see how that is productive.

Rather it has caused conservative rhetoric to descend into hyperbole and one sided debates. It's full of ad hominem. The hosts are a bunch of wusses that will only debate from a controlled environment because they'd be punched in the face if they were insulting a live person.

And a lot of people think talk radio is more news than entertainment, and indeed conservative media itself claims it is the only place to get the "truth."

Seriously though, for all its entertainment value, talk radio will hurt your ability to form your own opinions. Just say no.

Fair, Balanced MSNBC
"Good evening. A President who lied us into a war and, in so doing, needlessly killed 3,584 of our family and friends and neighbors; a President whose administration initially tried to destroy the first man to nail that lie; a President whose henchmen then ruined the career of the intelligence asset that was his wife when intelligence assets were never more essential to the viability of the Republic; a President like that has tonight freed from the prospect of prison the only man ever to come to trial for one of the component felonies in what may be the greatest crime of this young century."

— Keith Olbermann opening MSNBC’s Countdown, July 2.

Desu
Read your post again: "And the conservative response was to create their own media which doesn't even pretend to be objective...I don't see how that is productive."

I will give you this - your media DOES PRETEND to be objective. Pretending is good?

Here's an objective member of your media now:

"I got an idea, I got a solution. Pardon him (Scooter Libby) but send him to Iraq in uniform and put him on the front. Send him to the front. He supported the war, send him to fight it!...In the old days the judges would take a working class kid who got into a scrape with the law and say, ‘Junior, want to go jail or do you want to go join the Army?’ They should say the same thing to Scooter Libby. ‘Want to join the Army?’"

— MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on Hardball, June 21.

Print Media also Unbiased
Wow, only 125-16? That's not even 90%!


"Probably there should be a rule against it. But there’s a rule against murder. If someone had murdered Hitler — a journalist interviewing him had murdered him — the world would be a better place. I only feel good, as a citizen, about getting rid of George Bush, who has been the most destructive president in my lifetime. I certainly don’t regret it."

— New Yorker magazine writer Mark Singer explaining why he donated $250 to the liberal "Victory Campaign 2004." Singer was quoted in a June 21 online story by MSNBC’s Bill Dedman, who used FEC records to determine that 125 journalists gave to "Democrats and liberal causes" while "only 16 gave to Republicans."

desu
You're a plant right...just trying to stir the pot. Right?

No one is this silly.

SFASU
I'm sure AF has some sycophants somewhere. He's good enough, he's smart enough, and doggone it, people like him!

rtwgmooma
Desu is a beacon of light compared to Soothsayer (aka Jessica Lange), and the various incarnations of Kimberly.

AZPhil
Are they liberal missionaries trying to make converts?

So the only way to defend hyperbolic
conservative media is to raise examples of bias on the mainstream media?

Whatever. In any event, conservative media has yet to garner the respectability of a Walter Cronkite or Rather, so obviously you guys need to substitute real news for entertainment. If you want real unfiltered news, just watch C-SPAN. Or real the congressional record.

Billy Bob
I can't paste pictures here, but go look at Drudge. (http://www.drudgereport.com/) It looks like Harry Potter let Monica Lewinsky borrow his “cloak of invisibility”!

rtwgmomma
If they are, they're going about it pretty stupidly.

Desu
"conservative media has yet to garner the respectability of a Walter Cronkite or Rather, so obviously you guys need to substitute real news for entertainment."

You're missing the point, perhaps willfully so. talk show hosts are stating their opinions. they, and we, don't claim otherwise. What we don't like is a steady diet of "objective" news which is anything but.

And discussing the "respectability of Dan Rather" is like talking about "virtue among wh0res", to paraphrase a famous saying.

To ranjo65
Do you mean that you would have 50% of college biology courses taught from the viewpoint of Creationism? That would not be in keeping with mainstream scientific thought going back over the past few hundred years. Is the job of a college to reflect popular opinion? Minority opinion? Religious ideology? Or science?

Big Tent - O J Did not kill his wife.
The butcher did.

The park police investigation, was sophomoric at best. Forensic was mishandled from the beginning. The BEST, was not utilized to conduct this homocide scene. Proper investigation was stone walled from the beginning.

Mr. Big Tent, why did Vince kill himself? Why did the Foster family disappear from the scene? What were the Clinton's hiding about Vince's pre white house activities?

Why the infatuation of the left on weird science, the theory that Bush had his agents set explosives in the towers, that aids was let loose by our government, that aliens are stored at area 51, etc. etc. etc.

I'll take and accept those on the right that you say are kooks, and triple that on the left. Childs play.

Desu
Sorry, I didn't answer part 1 of your question "So the only way to defend hyperbolic
conservative media is to raise examples of bias on the mainstream media?"

No, the only way to demonstrate the bias of the MSM is by using examples.

We conservatives don't mind bias (like rush Limbaugh). we have just been screaming for years to the MSM "Just admit you're biased!" and they absolutely refuse. So we have to SHOW evidence of their bias, which we do.

It's gratuitous by now, but here's another:

"A lot of the film [Sicko] is about, is about the insurance companies and the condemnation of them. I just have to say, I don’t usually give opinions, but whatever — you’re Republican or Democrat or whatever you are, this is an amazing film. I thought it was — I think everybody should see it. When it premiered last night, you got a standing ovation. That’s unusual for you. Everybody loved you."

— Barbara Walters to left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore on ABC’s The View, June 19.



Speech Definitions
This is to lilly regarding her 11:40am post. You seem to define political speech rather narrowly. Who is to say it must be labeled "factual" "opinion" "entertainment" or even something else? Yes people lie and neither conservatives or liberals or Republicans or Democrats have a monopoly on this. And this occurs in all medias whether radio, television, newspapers or others. The solution is not to have the government control speech through something like the Fairness Doctrine but to allow as much freedom and openness as possible to all venues and points of view. Another poster above well said that if the liberal venues like Air America were winning the ratings this debate over the Fairness Doctrine wouldn't even be happening. I can sense your sour grapes when I read between the lines. I saw the result of the doctrine back in the 70's when I had friends who owned or worked at radio stations (liberal mind you yes conservatives can have liberal friends) who were afraid to do any kind of commentary or talk in fear of having to give the opposite viewpoint. So all they did was play music. Now I like certain kinds of music as much as the next person but it doesn't give you much information to be an informed involved citizen. In truth for too long the MSM on tv, in newspapers and magazines and yes sometimes on radio have slanted left. Now that the right has a successful voice or two it must be silenced. Let the open market decide.

To wildwest
You missed my point. Of course all citizens have the right to complain, and I couldn't agree with you more that much on TV is gross. My point is that the opinion of one conservative group was taken to represent the opinion of the general population. Not the same. Let's set up a parallel. There is a group called the Flat Earth Society that insists the earth is actually flat. If all of them (however many there are) conduct a very active and successful email blitz of Congress, should Congress react by passing a law that globes of the earth can't be used in classrooms? Or another parallel. Jehovah's Witnesses are against innoculating kids against contagious diseases. If they successfully bombard HHS and Congress with their opinion, should doctors who give DPT and measles shots be fined?

My point is that the extremist opinion of one small segment of society should not be used to control what the entire society does. That's not a true majority.

Toomuchsense
What does OJ have to do with the price of tea in China in regards to Foster. You made a claim which is (a) never been proven (b) speculate as well as any "truther" in trying to convince me you are right

You listened to Don't Stop Believing by Journey one too many times....

lilly & definition by example
lilly types, "As a citizen of a supposedly free society, I don't like to hear lies told for political purpose (that's called "propaganda")."

Propaganda: 2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect (from Merriam-Webster). Note the absence of falsehood as a part of the definition. A former English teacher should know that. (For everyone else, note the leftist "supposedly free.")

"And I have certainly heard them told on talk radio. The first time I ever tuned in to Rush Limbaugh he was stating unequivocally that Bill and Hillary Clinton had murdered Vince Foster."

This is an example of what you claim to dislike: a bold-face lie. Even MediaMatters.org doesn't back you up.

"Restoration of the Fairness Doctrine, unfortunately, would not silence the venomous voices of Limbaugh and Savage."

Note the leftist Freudian slip -- "UNFORTUNATELY" the FD wouldn't "SILENCE" Limbaugh and Savage.

"It would just allow the other side of the story to be told."

Having ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, the NYT, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, and Time magazine isn't enough, folks!

lilly
Thank you for making my point ahead of time. If Rush Limbaugh or anyone else went on the air and talked for three hours a day about how the earth is flat, or we never went to the moon, or Democrats are patriotic, do you think he'd have a big following?

The answer: no. why? Credibility. Common sense weeds out fanatics.

Back to your Flat earth thing, they may very well want to do what you say. Do you notice they've never succeeded? It's because they could never have a "successful email blitz of Congress", as you say, because they would be laughed out of town.


DocNoleCat
Good point. The liberals have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR*, PBS*, at least 90% of major newspapers, practially all college professors, Time, and Newsweek. We have talk radio.

Come on, liberals! I'm going to start thinking you're greedy!

*Funded by my taxes

May I kiss your ring?
Senator Barack Obama: "Let’s roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans, let’s make certain that those resources go to the people who need it....We’re not going to solve it by pretending that issues of poverty and struggle among working families are just going to go away magically because the stock market is going up."

Moderator Chris Matthews: "So much of what you say just grabs people like me, because it sounds like Bobby Kennedy. It sounds like the ’60s at its absolute best."

— Exchange at AFSCME Democratic candidates forum shown live on MSNBC, June 19.

To Wilson
You say that all points of view should be heard. Of course. That's what the Fairness Doctrine says---that if we have Rush Limbaugh, we should also have a liberal. By the same token, if we have a liberal, we should also have a conservative. (Of course we already have Lou Dobbs, who alternately sounds like both, so I'm not sure what he is...). But this means, we should have them in comparable format. If you have a straight-up report of what happened vs an entertaining commentary offering political opinion, these two are not two halves of a whole---they are different elements.

Personally I would like to hear both sides not only presented but IDENTIFIED, as in "This is FOX, the conservative voice of America". I would respect that. But to represent FOX as "traditional, mainstream, the heartland, the real America, just plain folks" and everything to the left of Ann Coulter presented as "looney, crazy, out-of-control, insane, anarchistic, bomb-throwing, San Francisco, atheist, wild-eyed, lying, nuts, America-hating, and terrorist-loving" is hardly fair and balanced.

I once did some work in the field of how information is communicated and believed. If you like and trust somebody, you tend to believe anything he tells you. This is dangerous. I once heard Bill O'Reilly say to a guest on his show who was also in the commentary business, "If they like you they will believe you". What this means is that you can have a population that doesn't read newspapers or news magazines and doesn't watch the evening news or CNN or even FOX, and gets all its information from such figures of "entertainment" as Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Savage, there is no way they're going to hear anything, ever, but very focused opinion. And I actually heard Limbaugh encourage this---he said "Watching cable will just get you confused Don't go there. Just come here and listen to me and I will explain everything to you".

Go to Washington DC and to the Jefferson Memorial. Inscribed around the rotunda are some of Jefferson's words. I like this: "I swear on the altar of Almighty God eternal vigilance against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Me too. And "Don't listen to anybody but me and I'll tell you what to think" sure sounds like a form of tyranny over the mind of man.

AZ Phil
How do you account for Limbaugh's following after he said that the President of the United States had committed a contracted murder? This was charged but not proved in a court of law, and yet I still see that townhall people are quoting this as fact. Because Limbaugh said so?

lilly at 2:42
Yeah good one. You disagree with someone's political philosophy so you try to discredit them by comparing them to flat-earthers, moon-landing deniers, UFO believers and so forth. Art Bell and George Noory at Coast-to-Coast AM must be having a good laugh today. As AZPhil said common sense will weed out the fanatics. They will not succeed because we would laugh them out of town.

lilly writes...
"...Is the job of a college to reflect popular opinion? Minority opinion? Religious ideology? Or science?"


I presume you apply the same principles to the current leftist hysteria, driven by the modern religion of fanatic and irrational environmetalism, over climate change induced by mankind (allegedly).


By the way, your earlier long post, devoid of facts but long on emotion liberally sprinkled with lies, is duly rejected as the extremist opinion piece it is.

Lilly
I don't really listen to Rush, so I can't say for sure if he ever claimed that (though I would put notihng past the Clintons).

"That's what the Fairness Doctrine says---that if we have Rush Limbaugh, we should also have a liberal. By the same token, if we have a liberal, we should also have a conservative."

Okay, then Perky Couric can anchor for a week, followed by Michael Savage. Half of CNN's reporters will be replaced with conservatives. Brian Williams can alternate with Sean Hannity. 50% of college professors must be registered Republicans. Are you sure you want the FD applied uniformly, or just against consveratives?

Lilly
How do you propose dealing with Newsweek?

"It’s her resilience and capacity to survive and thrive against all comers that partly fuels the haters’ fury....In-stalled in Washington, Hillary morphed into a comic-book villain for her detractors — a man-eating feminist, they claimed, who allegedly threw lamps at her husband, communed psychically with Eleanor Roosevelt and lit a White House Christmas tree adorned with sex toys. The narrative of depravity — a tissue of inventions by conservatives — was often hard to follow....The anti-Hillary industry has never managed to bring down Hillary herself — in fact, the more they have attacked, the higher she has risen."

— Newsweek’s Jonathan Darman and Mark Hosenball in "The New War on Hillary," June 18 issue.

Evil right-wing Fox
Check out this right-wing slanted story by Fox, the Republicans' #1 cheerleader and the most conservative TV news:



NEW YORK — Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton now holds a slight lead over top Republican Rudy Giuliani for the first time in a hypothetical 2008 presidential matchup. In fact, to varying degrees, Clinton and fellow Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama beat every Republican candidate they are tested against in the latest FOX News Poll.

Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from July 17 to July 18. The poll has a 3-point error margin.

President Bush can do little to give Republicans a boost as his own ratings remain dismal. Today, 32 percent of Americans say they approve of the job Bush is doing and 61 percent disapprove. His current approval is just 1 point higher than his record-low 31 percent approval received last month (June 26-27).

Another hurdle for Republican hopefuls is the perception that Democrats in Congress (38 percent) are more optimistic than Republicans in Congress (31 percent) about the direction of the country.


lilly
You seem to be saying that, without some sort of government intervention, I won't know what to think. The implication is that if I listen to Savage, Limbaugh, or a liberal show like Alan Colmes, I have no ability to analyze what I'm hearing, make judgements, and form my own opinions "correctly" without the nanny state making sure that I hear an opposing viewpoint. That's insulting! Anyone in Congress who supports the fairness doctrine, Democrat or Republican is guilty of an insulting elitism--"If the poor unwashed masses just had an opposing viewpoint, then surely they would agree with me." Yes, we're all such dummies that we need help forming opinions.

How far should we take this? Should the internet bloggers also be regulated? After all, it's almost like a public airwave . . . I could access an extreme left or right-wing website right now, completely (gasp) unsupervised, with no presentation of opposing viewpoints to make sure I hear both sides--scary . . .

Gee
Well said, not to mention that the FD is unconstitutional anyway.

You know how there used to be the "Big Three" on TV, and no choice of news except for tuning in at 6PM? In the 1972 election, if Dan Rather's made-up lie had been aired, nothing would have refuted it. In Liberal World, this is 'fairness'. Liberals always get to talk, and no one else does.

Basically, technology has produced competition in the form of cable and internet, and the Big three are about as relevant as covered wagons.

Predictably, having lost the battle through conventional means, they are now throwing a tantrum and demanding government intervention, aka the Democrats' solution to everything.

Using this "logic", we shouldn't use satellites to spy on Afghanistan because they don't have satelites.

So tell us Ms. Feinstein...
What shortage of facts was involved when talk radio, and only tak radio, reported that you spent several years on the MILPAC committee in Congress, which awarded numerous no-bid contracts to your husband's company while you served on it?

Liar. Hypocrite. Corrupt pol. (What's new?)

AZPhil
While we're at it, let's take it even further. Just because the govt. mandates opposing viewpoints, it doesn't mean that people will actually watch both viewpoints, so . . .

Let's have mandatory "political education" viewing/listening for every voting-age American. We could use "viewscreen" technology like that described in Orwell's 1984 to make sure everyone submits. After all, how can we take advantage of Big Brother's (err--I mean, govt.'s)assistance in forming our opinions if we're not watching or listening? This could lead to some people being informed and some people being uninformed . . . Wait a minute, that's how things are now! We should force the American people to listen of opposing viewpoints on all controversial issues starting today before it's too late!

Gee
Congress says: "we're afraid the American public will be uninformed".

Translation: "we're deathly terrified the American public will be informed".

Mr. Hansen, a problem w/your conclusion:
"...liberals should master talk radio and cable news. And conservatives should work harder at providing counter-voices in Hollywood, on the campuses, and amid the major networks and newspapers."

Liberals have every opportunity to compete in talk radio and cable news. Unfortunately, the same can NOT be said for Hollywood and university campuses. Their's are exclusively PC/liberal/McCarthy-zones and conservatives "need not apply".

Gee
Here's an opposing viewpoint: I think it was the Norwegians who felled the WTC towers, not Arabs. Should I get equal time?

Do you think it was the Bushes who did it? That's another 'fact' some nutjobs believe. But hey, if you think it was the Brazilians, I think you should get your radio time, too.

AZPhil
You seem to skinny on the folks who post here.

What is the deal with lilly?

rtwgmomma
I'm not following the question. I don't know anything about her, except that she's irrational. I notice she and Desu picked up their ball and went home. Maybe they overdosed on facts.

AZPhil
Thanks for that opposing viewpoint. I know have the ability to decide things for myself . . .

lilly
if the networks didn't violate the rules in place about show content they wouldn't have been fined for the program. The FTC did not fine them because conservs conplained, they fined them because of the rules in place did not allow bare breasts.

colleges and subject material
there is a big difference between teaching facts and fostering debate. Too many colleges allow their liberal arts programs to indoctrinate a socialist/marxist point of view. To disagree or question the professor is to fail the course. Where else but hollyweird and college campuses is their reverence for marxism and hailing castro as a hero. There are many reports of colleges requiring students to study alldull's global warming fraud as absolute truth. how does that foster debate

azphil
thanks for your service/ As a military man you can understand going into a battle without weapons. Libs think they can fight the war of ideas wearing their armour of emotion. Unfortunately this don't deflect the bullets of logic

Wildwest
There is no debate allowed in college. Che Guevara (sp?) is awesome, Birkenstocks are cool, and high taxes are nirvana. Anyone who disagrees, enjoy your 2.0 GPA.

However, I'm happy to say that 10 this is the only control the pointy heads will ever have, and 2) i've seen guys (myself included) who wrote the papers we needed to, laughed behind the professors' backs, and actually became MORE conservative as a result of exposure to them.

Then there's the credibility thing that keeps coming up. For 95% of college grads, by lunchtime on their first day in the real world, they have begun to suspect that their professors were idiots.

Wildwest
Thanks! I notice the liberals have fled. Wrapping yourself in toilet paper and writing "Kevlar" on it doesn't stop bullets in the real world:)

gee
No sweat. You know how militant those Scandinavian Lutherans can be!

lilly
You just did something that is very telling...you pointed out that Fox shouldn't be seen as the mainstream viewpoint and it should be clarified as a conservative channel.

By your logic should CNN, ABC, NBC, PBS, CBS, BBC, NYT should be identified as liberal outlets? Or are THEY the mainstream?

Black and White Brian
AL-FREDO GORE-LEONE!!!!
I spit coffee all over my monitor I was laughing so hard...

Chris
Granted, there is objectionable public funding of exclusively, unrelievedly left-wing advocacy in media and the academy.

But there is a remedy in freedom and our Constitutional rights for all the exclusivity you point out, even Hollywood's.

If the right is really serious about taxpayers not funding bias in universities, public broadcasting, and the arts, we need to approach those problems through legislative remedies. Frankly, I don't know what the federal government is doing coming up with political programming (NPR and PBS) anyway, much less supporting some "art" and not other "art" on behalf of the taxpayer. The feds retaining the privilege and capability of emergency broadcasting on radio frequencies and TV stations is the maximum we should be paying to have administered for us.

Federal and state money going to higher education is all approachable through the legislature, where the decisions to fund such programs are made.

As for Hollywood and the entertainment industry, I actually think the market is crying out for an alternative to most of what's hopefully presented to the public. Theater-released movies, for example, that have been losing their market for a couple of decades now, are battling not just price and convenience (and ghastly mega-theater consolidation), but the unbelievable crap that constitutes the average story. The special effects are awesome, the actors unnaturally pretty, but in terms of story, we're either being offered pap, offered prurient indulgence, and/or being preached at by having a tendentious dramatic sledgehammer swung at us.

Unfortunately, the right seems to think that making movies from the right's perspective means either filming Bible stories or filming best-selling Christian novels. There's nothing wrong with a good drama based on tales from the Bible, which cover an awful lot of meaty human territory, but the product too often is uninteresting dialogue, meandering piety, and one-dimensional cartoon characters of the same genre favored by left-wing screenwriters to depict "businessmen," "evangelical Christians," and "Republican senators."

There are good stories out there, worth telling without resort to caricature and heavy-handed partisanship. The left has just about lost the ability to bring that off. Some interesting things are being done now in animated and graphic-novel-type features of various kinds, outside of the traditional Hollywood assembly line. But it seems to me the field is wide open for non-leftists to take up the standard of compelling stories and good writing.

What is needed is not for the old-line studios to start funding projects that draw caricatures from the OTHER political perspective, but for non-lockstep-leftists (who encompass an interesting variety of views) to subvert the privately-controlled studio and network "systems" with better fare that sells.

We do see this on the margins today, with, say, some of New Line Cinema's offerings, and some of the drama programming on the cable networks. What it takes to get more of it is not political agitation about "fairness," but money. In a free society with free markets, the ultimate level playing field.

lilly,desu
We REPS(Americans) do wash our brains.
You have to have one to do this.
And remember, envy is a sin & so is lying, which
you Liberals have a natural talent for.
There is no way a normal person can make the statements you make and believe it.

Every post saying MSM is biased is a damn fact.
So be fair or shut up.

talk radio and the internet
actually these are two main arenas for idea exchange. The msm merely parrots the lib/dim mantra about how things should be and how it should be run and how people should think. The dims and their allies in the msm don't think ideas other than theirs have validity

wildwest
I disagree about the exchange of ideas you mentioned. The internet and blogosphere has thus far evolved to a point where there are sites that cater to one's political leanings. TH, DKos, HA and Huffpo are examples of this. If one posts an opinion that is counter to the general slant of that site, he or she can expect to be villified as a liberal or neocon as a minimum.

Like the TV news it is barely better at providing nothing more than the equivalent of fast food opinions one likes.

MSM
I wonder if the MSM employees get brainwashed to the point that they think they really AREN'T biased? Maybe they make them sit in a room and chant "I'm not biased" for hours with no sleep.

Big tent
True, you can seek out what you like, ut in the end, you will normally be exposed to varying viewpoints.

It's not perfect, but it's still an improvement over the days when your choices were liberal CBS, liberal NBC, and liberal ABC.

And again, credibility determines a lot. No credibility translates to no audience. Examples of this are anyone who wants to talk about the earth being flat, anyone who wants to talk about 9/11 being anything other than a terrorist attack, and Keith Olbermann.

talk radio...
So the conversatives seem to have the power of talk radio, and the liberals have the power of internet and u-tube. As the American voting population gets younger & younger, we'll see a change yet again. Soon views will be condensed to text messages. The GenX'ers don't have time for political debate...they just want it their way, and NOW. We'll be voting by cell phones or blk berries one day....
The immigration bill just proved that most of America was watching what was going on, and they called, emailed, and texted their elected officials....No media outlet can control our views. Polling will never be accurate, b/c there are a lot of opinions out there that never get counted......

AZPhil
I agree it is an improvement. But for me as you and I mentioned earlier, it gives me more access to written material from a variety of sources. I do like that aspect.
The amount of vitriol even at a fairly reasonable right of center site such as TH is a little discouraging at times.

To pandm
This afternoon I have been reading Richard Viguerie's book "America's Right Turn", the chapter on the growth of talk radio. He quotes Roger Craver on why the left fails at talk radio: " ...liberals have this Y chromosome that looks for balance and dignity and decency...they don't know how to go for the jugular" (p 197). Some of us don't think that balance, dignity, and decency are bad things in media communication.

When I (a liberal Democrat) starting coming to townhall to try and understand some of my fellow Americans that I didn't know much about, one thing that has just astonished me is how often conservatives believe a liberal is lying. I have never posted anything on townhall that I did not know or believe to be the truth, but I often get responses like " Another lying liberal! What a lie! That never happened!". Well, yes, it happened: it happened to me; if it hadn't, I wouldn't have said it did. What is this about, I wonder, this absolute conviction that anything said by a liberal is an automatic lie? Where does it come from?

PBS Catalog
Do you folks chain yourselves to your computers? Every time I absent myself to take care of other matters somebody complains that I post and run. Sorry; sometimes (to quote Dick Cheney) I have other priorities.

One of the things I went to do was pick up the mail. Today it included the Public Television catalog, and I note an interesting change. Once upon a time it offered all secular stuff, t-shirts and little gifts and so on, usually related in some way to the programs on PBS. Then came George Bush and the Christianization of the World, and soon he had appointed a right-winger as head of PBS. Instantly, the catalog was about 50% Christian merchandise---crucifixes, pictures of Jesus, Christian inpsirational sayings and so on. I notice today that in a 63-page catalog the Christian merchandise is now limited to two pages. Could this be the free market speaking?

AZPhil
Olberman is the anti-O'Reilly. That's what he's for. Yours is an old familiar tactic of the Right: they employ such as Limbaugh and Savage to say whatever then hide behind the fact that these men are just entertainers; they employ such as O'Reilly and Hannity to say whatever then hide behind the fact that these men are just commentators; and they demand that the mainstream media move toward the right (like your hint that Olberman should be more fair and balanced). So the Washington Post starts mounting rightish editorials and putting up a daily column called On Faith, and the LA Times hires a conservative editor and Michael Kinsley leaves, and little by little the MSM aren't sounding so M any more but a good deal more R, but meanwhile the right-wing media are still blasting away very far right. So the way this works out is, everybody talks Right and nobody talks Left. Is that the objective, maybe? One America, one voice?

To SFASUetc
Don't worry about the loss of Christian merchandise from the PBS catalog---tonight's TV news told us all about the new line of toy Christian action figures that's going to be carried by Wal-Mart. Now Jesus can go at it with Batman.

Lilly
In previous posts relating to this subject you have admitted to rarely, if ever, listening to Rush. As such you have no standing to opine on this matter and your post today confirms your opinion cannot be considered credible in the least.

Desu
you wrote: "Literally the same talking points and catch phrases over and over, repeated multiple times a day for extra brainwashing."

As opposed to the libdrool talking points regurgitated here every day?

"Ironic you criticize Air America since it was a blatant copy of the conservative talk radio format. The difference is, liberals don't like to hear some angry jerk off try to shove opinions down their throat. They are free thinkers, good for them."

No the difference is liberals don't think at all. How else could Franken or Garafelo ever be considered to be credible voices of political commentary?

lilly writes:
"I notice today that in a 63-page catalog the Christian merchandise is now limited to two pages. Could this be the free market speaking?"

Maybe the Christians are unable to buy as much because they've given away so much to charity. A concept I'm sure you and you ilk are unfamiliar with.


Lilltard
Perhaps the liberal direction PBS has found itself heading toward has turned off the Christians. Their refusal to air documentaries that tell both sides of a story, "Islam vs the Islamists" and "Roots of War" come readily to mind.

Desu II
You wrote: "So the only way to defend hyperbolic
conservative media is to raise examples of bias on the mainstream media? "

Are you for real dude - nobody could be this daft for real could they? Read your own post. You are proving our point. Conservative talk radio (created by the marketplace and the demand for it) does not present itself as news as the MSM does. There is never an illusion that talk radio is anything other than what both you and I see it as. The MSM on the other hand is disingenuous and presents itself as balanced. You guys attack the only network to give both sides of a debate on a regular basis. Fact it whenever the viewpoint is in opposition to yours it is wrong and it needs to be controlled. Again another instance of libdolts failing to admit to reality.

Freedom to Assemble
Isn't the fairness doctrine jeapardizing two of my rights, freedom of speech and freedom to assemble?

By eliminating talk radio they are interfering with my freedom to assemble. Just because the media hasn't traditionally been interactive doesn't mean it can't be.

What do freedom to assemble and freedom of speech look like in 2007? Not the way they looked in the 1700's. Freedom to assemble to me means church, talk radio, townhall.com, blogging etc.

What Mr. Hanson said is right...what is talk radio, entertainment? political opinion? How can you call a form of entertainment fair or unfair?

Liberals are here talking to conservatives and it's because radio killed the video star...radio broke the media monopoly. Radio introduced dialog and discussion again in America. I think that's amazing.

If they take away talk radio they've taken away not only free speech but my freedom to assemble.

lilly
you wrote: "Do you mean that you would have 50% of college biology courses taught from the viewpoint of Creationism? That would not be in keeping with mainstream scientific thought going back over the past few hundred years."

Just a heads-up Lil: the viewpoint of Creationism (as you put it) has been around a lot longer than mainstream scientific thought so there goes that line of reasoning. Of course the fact that you even had a line of reasoning is amazing in itself.

Lilly again fails to channel her
thoughts and questions internally, before sharing her wit. Instead she verbalizes things she knows little or nothing about.

Just one simple example. Lilly's comment on PBS and their sales catalogue.

If Lilly was a mature thinker and most important of all, an honest thinker. She would realize a number of reasons, none or little of which would be sinister in themself as to why possibly, PBS started to include religious material in their catalogues, and then eventually dropped the number of pages of religious offerings downward to just a few pages.

1) PBS needs funds. They, like a lot of other organizations, such as the Sierra Club for one. Uses sales catalogues to bring in additional needed funds. So they include cd's, clothing items, figures, books, photos, prints, etc. etc. etc.

2) If PBS is to be run in a fair and professional way. They will attempt to offer for sale, products that are found to be succesful in other organizations. They do this to get a piece of the pie. For you Lilly, that mean $$$$$$$

3) So why has the amount of religious offerings per page or products offered, gone down in PBS? Will Lilly, since you are a simple thinker. I'll raise one possible solution.

Most conservatives, of which a goodly percentage are religious. For you Lilly, that means they actually attempt to walk the talk. They may actually show up for religious services, besides for christmas, easter and a wedding or funeral. Those conservative believers, do not trust the liberal establishment, one of which is the PBS. So they don't buy products from PBS, when they can obtain those products from an organization that fits their personal view. Thus supporting or non supporting based on their value system.

4) It's possible that those liberals that control PBS, received all kinds of flak, from those fair minded liberals that throw dollars their way. Telling them to stop and desist from polluting their fine catalogue with products that would only be found in the homes of religious bigots. Thus, it's possible that dollars are left out there, and not in the coffers of PBS, so as not to contaminate this pristine catalogue.


The correct answer may not be one of those presented by this writer. But I did pose reasonable possibilities. Instead of merely whining and complaining, and allowing diarrhea of the keyboards to vents ones emotional deficiency.



AZPhil
Good to have you back - haven't seen any of your posts for a while. you wrote: "I wonder if the MSM employees get brainwashed to the point that they think they really AREN'T biased? Maybe they make them sit in a room and chant "I'm not biased" for hours with no sleep."

Its not that they are brainwashed it is just that they are never exposed to any differing viewpoints. Its like the liberal writer who wrote after Bush's 2000 win that (and I paraphrase) "Bush had to steal the election because I dont know anyone who voted for him." Libtards think their worldview is the only view and anyone who has a differing opinion is stupid, evil, or both. LOL. They are pathetic aren't they?

Feinstein
Typical Liberal response. The *uninformed masses* have no brains and must be led like sheep.

Thursday Evening Television
PBS, "America at the Crossroads", two hours. The first hour was one of the best things I have seen on Iraq. Its focus was the frustration of training Iraqi police and army. On this conservatives and liberals will agree---it is very frustrating as their loyalty isn't to Iraq but to their own group. An excellent description also of how the different elements of Iraq (Sunni, Shia)have been operating against each other. See if this is re-run, if you missed it. The second hour will please conservatives as it is devoted to Richard Perle's version of the war, without other points of view being represented. Just now he was showing how lovely everything is in Afghanistan (doesn't mention that the opium poppy crop there increased 43 percent in a single year and is funding the Taliban).

Toomuchsense
Like many conservatives you are 'way behind the time. Bush re-staffed PBS, which then fired many of its liberal people, and appointed a Bushoid director. The Board of Directors was replaced. You might google "The Battle for PBS" to see what happened to PBS after Bushification began. Meanwhile, right this very minute as I sit writing this, PBS is running one hour of Richard Perle justifying the Iraq war, without rebuttal. And if you watched PBS you would know that nowadays quite often the Saturday evening BBC comedy shows have been replaced by The Hour of Prayer and such.

I assume the appearance of Christian merchandise in the PBS catalog was part of the Bushification process. Apparently it didn't work, since they've now cut back the Christian stuff to two pages out of 63. I used to order from them but when they started pandering to the Christian Right I started throwing their catalog in the garbage.

To kadima
If you have an apple and I give you an orange, you will then have two pieces of fruit. If talk radio has a conservative speaker, and it is required to add a liberal speaker, you will then have two speakers. Nobody will have been silenced. Talk radio will not have been eliminated. Free speech will be even freer since diverse points of view will be represented. Where do you people get these ideas? Let me guess: from talk radio?

To bobbit
I would gladly listen to Rush Limbaugh (geez, I come to townhall, don't I?) but can't tune him in on my home radio. We used to be able to get him sometimes on the car radio but we no longer drive or keep a car (we are old). If it's any consolation to you, we could barely tune in Air America either. We even bought an extra antenna but it didn't help. Our TV reception is good but our radio reception is lousy.

You suggest that I have no standing to be in this discussion since I don't regularly listen to talk radio. This is like telling a person that he has no standing to discuss religion because he doesn't attend church. Talk radio is a hugely important phenomenon touching on many fields, politics and sociology and communications to name a just three. I'm currently reading a book that devotes quite a lot of space to talk radio (see previous post for details). Surely I ought to get some points for that? I'm here to learn. Why are conservatives so exclusive? Liberals are always opening doors, and conservatives are always slamming them shut and moving the chest of drawers up against them.

Lilltard says
"right this very minute as I sit writing this, PBS is running one hour of Richard Perle justifying the Iraq war, without rebuttal."

You may have to sit there a long time before you see the documentary "Islam vs the Islamists" now why do think that is?

lily,
I would say education, especially higher education, teaches fact based on opinion. Perhaps if educators would stick to just teaching, our school system would stop turning out illiterates.

Lilly thanks again for making my point.
Lilly, when conservatives get 50% of the mainstream media, including the New York Times, plus 50% of the professorships, then your request for equal radio air time will have more merit. Until then, try to attempt some honesty. It's not becoming to be so unfair.

As far as your point about all those evil evolutionist amongst the biologist. We'll let you keep 85% liberal membership in that field. But it's 50% split down the middle with all the other fields.

Then I will personally contact Rush and the others to give up half their time.

I'll be waiting.

P.S. Aren't you a little old to be afraid of those bad christians.

P.S.S. One should read and view all that one comes in contact with a grain of salt. Your current reading material is fine and good. But decernment, is a sign of maturity. It does not always come with age.


Lilltard says
"If you have an apple and I give you an orange, you will then have two pieces of fruit."

Why should I be forced to take your orange when I would prefer two apples?

desu, lilly, anyone?
desu,

The Left doesn't read the Congressional record or the Constitution without heavily redacting it for content. And then they deny doing so.

Lilly,

You criticize talk radio for being "entertainment" disguised as fact. But AZPhil at 1:49 proves that Al Gore uses "entertainment" for the VERY SAME REASONS! Now what were you saying...?

So, have you read 1984 by George Orwell? I heard that liberals tried to add a subtitle, "The Way Things Ought To Be," but someone had already used that...

Anyone,

If Feinstein criticizes conservative talk radio for "[pushing] people to...extreme views without a lot of information," how does that explain MoveOn.org and Code Pink?

Unfairness doctrine
Is the Fairness Doctrine for balance or is it a Hush Rush operaton? If put into place will this doctrine eventually morph to the internet. If put into place who will identify which speech is liberal and which is conservative? How can we trust any individual to make such determinations fairly?

It is only human to want to shut someone up. I recall a college course in which we were shown a film clip of a group of think alikes discussing a matter. One individual was planted in the group with instructions to disagree with the group. He was initially just irritating to the rest of the group. He was asked to back off on several occasions. Threatened on one occasion with expulsion from the group and then asked to leave. Any group might act the same way.

Boromir/Old Whig
Boromir--So is this your way of saying that you don't want diverse voices to be heard, but only those with which you agree? (And I will have to respond tomorrow as I'm going to bed now.)

Whig---I do not criticize Limbaugh for being entertainment, only for pretending that his political propaganda is "just" entertainment. However entertaining Rush Limbaugh may be, surely nobody can dispute that his product is political propaganda. I think people ought to admit what they are. FOX is a conservative, pro-Republican channel. Limbaugh and the other talk radio people, Hannity and O'Reilly and Gibson and the other FOX commentators are political propagandists. OK fine. Just say what you are.






Brujo Blanco
The example you cite illustrates a principle of group theory---that the group will try to expel the member that makes it uncomfortable. But, then, how do you account for people reaching out to those who are different and wanting to hear what they have to say? Suppose you are Christian, married and with a child, and a Jewish family with a child moves next door. Will you forbid your child to play with Jewish child? Some folks would, but others welcome the opportunity to share and teach experience and customs. Santa Claus would leave a present for the Jewish child, and there would be a Hanukah present for the Christian child.

Last week somebody posted on townhall that ethnic diversity is unnatural and that segregation is natural. But some people find joy in diversity. I don't agree with you that it's natural to try and shut people up. I think people are naturally curious about one another and find enormous rewards in getting to know one another. (But I accept that others find this dangerous---how could I not know that, after reading townhall posts for a while?)

lilly
Having listened to both Rush and Hannity for a long time, I testify that they freely admit to being political commentators who use entertainment to spread their message. And why not? The American public loves to be entertained. Why else would we have an entire city devoted to making movies? Where else in the world will you get over 500 television channels available to you at any given instant?

Conservative talk radio has raised the level of political discussion ten notches on the awareness scale for the general public. That's a bad thing only if you fear the loss of the ideological monopoly that has held sway in this country for most of the last century.

You say Rush and Hannity are political propagandists. I think you must define propagandist. The definition I choose is one who engages in "the systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." Fair enough?

Is this not what the MSM also does? Why must only Conservatives talk show hosts label themselves as propagandists, when propaganda originates at least equally from the nightly news?

If you insist that the MSM does not engage in propaganda, why do they disagree with the Conservative viewpoint, and why is talk radio decidedly a Conservative medium? If the MSM were not engaged in propaganda, the traditional media outlets would be equally a source of Conservative and Liberal ideas. And if I understand your argument correctly, you don't believe that to be the case.

Furthermore, if Conservatives were given equal time on the MSM outlets, talk radio would not have exploded like it has in the last 20 years. There would have been no demand for it.

The "Fairness Doctrine" is nothing more
than affirmative action for Liberals.

As Mr. Hanson so eloquently pointed out Liberals dominate the other form of broadcast media (TV). Many Liberals despise the fact that despite such domination those who have a differing opinion have a place where they can be heard. If the Liberal calls for the "Fairness Doctrine" work for radio then the other "public" domain is next...the Internet.

The problem with the "Fairness Doctrine" is that it is not fair. If you suggest to a pro-"Fairness Doctrine" Liberal that under such a doctrine conservatives should get equal time on broadcast TV they back away from the idea and suggest that it is already "fair".

Lilly is a perfect example
of someone with some writing skills and education, but lacks the ability to make consistent honest judgements. Her discernment is weak, thus allowing herself to make what she feels are brillant pronounments. But due to the lack of a consistent honest base, she actually lives the life that she condemns in others.

For Lilly actually supports censorship. Censorship of those that she disagrees with. But since she feels that she has the high moral grounds and superiority, she is entitled to make the rules and enforce her demands.

Opinions and Fact
Lilly and others...if you want to see the fairness doctrine in action, go to Europe and try as you can to find any other than the prevailing opinion, mostly leftist on the air, in print or especially on radio. My European friends marvel that we actually have places where contrary ideas can be presented and fought out. They see the MSM copying the BBC, but the BBC has little or no competition, they dominate British opinion and the formulation of thought, much like the NYT used to do here. Those days of groupthink have ended here...never to reappear unless the Feinstein crowd have their way.

VDH
VDH hits over the fence again. Lilly,just a little secret here;Rush will be the first to tell you the main reason he strives to put out a good program is this:" So I can charge confiscatory advertising rates,to maximize the potential profit to my self and my partners." In other words,Lilly dear,Rush has figured it out:Put out a good product,the people will buy it. Pretty simple,if you ask me,Rush took a mostly moribund business,and made it fly. You know Lilly,THE AMERICAN WAY? Personally,I believe those who can do it best should reap the rewards. Now,what was that about Air America? Can't get an audience? Maybe they should not have tried to compete in a saturated market.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.