Are radio and TV hosts causing hate crimes?

[ShowerBench]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/23/obama-rush-limbaugh-lou-d_n_103315.html

At a fundraiser in Florida Thursday night, Barack Obama accused anti-immigrant crusaders Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh of "ginning things up" to such an extent that there was a rise in hate crimes against Hispanics last year.

"A certain segment has basically been feeding a kind of xenophobia. There's a reason why hate crimes against Hispanic people doubled last year," Obama said. "If you have people like Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh ginning things up, it's not surprising that would happen."

[joethebartender]

Curtis has me on the lookout for those "mobsters with the lobsters"...

http://www.talkjunkie.com/wp-images/freedom07/curtis.jpg

[scottinnj]

i blame gta 4. them illegal russians have to be stopped.

[BoondockSaint]

I heard that a Limbaugh fan blew an airhorn in a Mexican's ear.

[scottinnj]

linger longer!

[Franklyn]

Anyone, black, white, blue or green that uses fear of a group of people to rally others has some responsibility when more extreme people head that rally cry using violence.

If there is a recent jump in violence against Hispanics I wouldn't doubt it is because of all the talk of a wall to protect us from the Mexicans. Are we building a wall against Canadians? If people are told we should be afraid enough some people will act on that fear.

[Bulldogcakes]

Anyone, black, white, blue or green that uses fear of a group of people to rally others has some responsibility when more extreme people head that rally cry using violence.

If there is a recent jump in violence against Hispanics I wouldn't doubt it is because of all the talk of a wall to protect us from the Mexicans. Are we building a wall against Canadians? If people are told we should be afraid enough some people will act on that fear.

So I guess if some wacko who's been listening to the one sided, unfair coverage from Air America or Democracy Now decides to take a gun and shoot it at GW Bush, then by your reasoning Amy Goodman is to blame somehow. I couldn't possibly disagree with you more. If you can only handle people you agree with, then I'm sorry but you're a hypocrite.

Free speech means accepting and tolerating speech you don't agree with. All thats going on is people giving their political opinions (however angry or wrongheaded) in a public forum. If we want to start prosecuting people for that, then I guarantee there will be lots of people you are sympathetic to who will be headed to jail.

The only "rallying" going on is to get people to vote for one political party or another. It's not exactly the radio led, direct coordination of attacks like what happened in Rwanda. If some loser decides to be a hero for the cause and do something stupid, then thats his problem.

[Bulldogcakes]

When I was growing up, folks on the Left used to have a saying "I may not like what you're saying but I will fight and die to defend you're right to say it".

Funny, but I don't hear many of them saying stuff like that anymore.

[Dude!]

Anyone, black, white, blue or green that uses fear of a group of people to rally others has some responsibility when more extreme people head that rally cry using violence.

you mean hillary clinton, right?

isn't her message : shoot da niggah ?

[topless_mike]

i blame the media for everything. from hate crimes to inflation to unnecessary (sp) hysteria.

fuck the media. hope most of them die.

[scottinnj]

i blame big oil. and viagra pills.

[scottinnj]

When I was growing up, folks on the Left used to have a saying "I may not like what you're saying but I will fight and die to defend you're right to say it".

Funny, but I don't hear many of them saying stuff like that anymore.


but did you really want them fighting for you? c'mon, really their defense system is like putting up crepe paper for a football team to run through onto the field at the homecoming game.











(wakka wakka!)

[MichiganJim]

Bulldogs -

I'll always defend your right to say anything even though I disagree with most of your political stands.

My problem with right wing radio is the MONOPOLY they hold on the public airwaves. I am a salesman and am in my car 10 hours a day. Prior to purchasing an XM radio I could not find a station in Michigan that carried anything but Limbaugh, Liddy, and Hanniday.

De-regulating the airwaves and letting corporations own multiple local stations was one of the most disastorous moves Reagan made. Local station ownership meant that those owners programmed to their demographic. They were required to serve the public interest. Right wing talk doesn't.

Sure I can change the channell whenever I want, but right wing propaganda is all thats on here, and we aren't exactly a Conservative bastion. The public airwaves belong to the people! But the FCC has allowed conservatives with an agenda to own multiple stations, even in the same city. CHOICE here is Laura Ingram on one am station and Rush Limbaugh on the other. Both have ANEMIC ratings but the owners can absorb the losses by mutiple station ownership.

XM and Syrius offer BOTH sides of the story. Thats why eventually am terrestrial will die.

I'd be interested in your thoughts

Jim in Michigan

[scottinnj]

hey jim,
conservative complaints 20 years ago was that the media had a liberal bias, so talk radio was the medium used to counter argue the rest of the news/analysis market.

now that am is dominated by conservatives, i don't think anyone can say that the media is biased.
but i disgree with your argument that somehow because one point of view is being presented by a specific type of media, it's a monopoly.

[TheMojoPin]

It's not exactly the radio led, direct coordination of attacks like what happened in Rwanda.

If you read up on exatly what the Border Patrol and groups like the Minutemen get away with down along the Mexican border, it's definitely a step on that ladder.

The "free speech" stuff sure started pretty fast here. Definitely, if Obama starts talking about government legislation or actions against media hosts, he's completely wrong, but what he's done so far is point out that he thinks point A is helping to lead to result B. That's not exactly trampling on anyone's "right to speech"...it's nothing of the sort.

[Furtherman]

Are radio and TV hosts causing hate crimes?

I don't know about hate crimes but O'Reilly caused a sex crime.

[foodcourtdruide]

So I guess if some wacko who's been listening to the one sided, unfair coverage from Air America or Democracy Now decides to take a gun and shoot it at GW Bush, then by your reasoning Amy Goodman is to blame somehow. I couldn't possibly disagree with you more. If you can only handle people you agree with, then I'm sorry but you're a hypocrite.

Free speech means accepting and tolerating speech you don't agree with. All thats going on is people giving their political opinions (however angry or wrongheaded) in a public forum. If we want to start prosecuting people for that, then I guarantee there will be lots of people you are sympathetic to who will be headed to jail.

The only "rallying" going on is to get people to vote for one political party or another. It's not exactly the radio led, direct coordination of attacks like what happened in Rwanda. If some loser decides to be a hero for the cause and do something stupid, then thats his problem.

BDC,

I agree with your post in theory, however I don't think you're seeing the whole picture. I think you've touched on an argument outside of Obama's comments. As Mojo pointed out above, Obama was making a correlation between the two. Saying: "Person A is a hate monger, and they cause Action A" is much different from saying "We need to eliminate Person A's freedom of speech to stop Action A".

As someone who is extremely interested in media, I think there is a growing problem in our society and it's relevant to your argument. The influence and misinformation being disseminated by our media has a huge impact on voter trends in this country. As media, government and big business become more intertwined this can become a serious threat to democracy.

The whole "the left does it too!" argument is really a strawmen argument. If you look at cable news and talk radio ratings the right-wing DESTROYS the left. Furthermore, even the left does not question hegemonic ideas in this country. Nothing could have illustrated this more than the lead-up to the Afghani/Iraqi wars. (almost) ALL media was screaming that congress should fall in line with what the President wanted to do because it was the proper thing at the time of war. Dissenting voices were shut down and because of that, REAL debate in this country was prohibited.

I don't think we're being intentionally brainwashed, or that there's 12 industrialists in a dark room smoking cigars planning this all out. I do, however think that there needs to be some serious discussion in this country to ensure that talking heads and media figures ALWAYS with media conglomerates and their advertisers best interests in mind don't shape our government.

[ChrisBrown]

When I was growing up, folks on the Left used to have a saying "I may not like what you're saying but I will fight and die to defend you're right to say it".

Funny, but I don't hear many of them saying stuff like that anymore.

There are still a lot of us on the Left who not only say that but serve in military and as civilians in the DoD. I have known a lot of liberals during my eight years as a 35D in the Army.

[TheMojoPin]

When I was growing up, folks on the Left used to have a saying "I may not like what you're saying but I will fight and die to defend you're right to say it".

Funny, but I don't hear many of them saying stuff like that anymore.

It's funny, people love to hate on groups like the ACLU for easy jokes, but then hate when they do exactly what you're talking about across the social and political spectrum on a daily basis.

[FUNKMAN]

i'm not surprised... it was the media that created a "racial issue" around the Duke's boys lacrosse team accused of raping the girl

none of the people in town felt there was a "race issue" but the media kept trying to push it to sensationalize the story...

when a news organization attempts this they should be held accountable

[WRESTLINGFAN]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/23/obama-rush-limbaugh-lou-d_n_103315.html

At a fundraiser in Florida Thursday night, Barack Obama accused anti-immigrant crusaders Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh of "ginning things up" to such an extent that there was a rise in hate crimes against Hispanics last year.

"A certain segment has basically been feeding a kind of xenophobia. There's a reason why hate crimes against Hispanic people doubled last year," Obama said. "If you have people like Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh ginning things up, it's not surprising that would happen."

Where is Obama getting his numbers from? Thats like that radio host on Hardball saying that Chamberlain appeased Hitler without backing up his comments with proof or facts. The latest numbers are from 2006, but this was a recent article from USA today. Hate crimes against hispanics rose at a much slower rate than gays or the disabled.

Obama said that hate crimes doubled from 2005-06 in which he is wrong. It was up 8%. Dobbs has no hate for hispanics and his crusade is against illegal not legal immigration.

Any hate crime is inexcuseable but Obama is wrong on his numbers

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-19-hate-crime_N.htm?csp=34

[epo]

A. Do Dobbs or Limbaugh have a right to say what they say? Yes.
B. Will the ACLU defend their rights? They do all of the time.
C. Are Dobbs or Limbaugh responsible communicators? Not even close.

At the end of the day, the Limbaughs, Hannitys or a Dobbs (singular issue though) congregate their audiences by scapegoating a weaker target that they can be superior to. This plays to their audience and makes them seem like a voice of reason, when in actuality they are playing to the rhetoric of division.

[epo]

For those of you talking about media ownership and how deregulate has hurt, here is a great resource that Columbia Journalism Review has to see who owns what. Link here. (http://www.cjr.org/resources/)

And for the record, ownership does has an effect on content. It has since the Catholic Church bought printing presses in the 1600's. This is not a new problem.

[Bulldogcakes]

BDC, I agree with your post in theory, however I don't think you're seeing the whole picture. I think you've touched on an argument outside of Obama's comments. As Mojo pointed out above, Obama was making a correlation between the two. Saying: "Person A is a hate monger, and they cause Action A" is much different from saying "We need to eliminate Person A's freedom of speech to stop Action A".

...and what is the next logical step for a legislator to take? To pass legislation. If you're arguing that these are just empty words, or that he just wants Americans to have a dialogue about this, then fine. But someone who seeks the power he aspires to hold is in a position to pass laws to back up his words, and thats dangerous to free speech rights.

Also, if you think he would ever come out and actually say "I want to take away so and so's rights" then maybe you're new to politics. No politician ever says things that bluntly. But in the end, the result is the same if this is backed up with legislation. Freedoms will be compromised further.

As someone who is extremely interested in media, I think there is a growing problem in our society and it's relevant to your argument. The influence and misinformation being disseminated by our media has a huge impact on voter trends in this country. As media, government and big business become more intertwined this can become a serious threat to democracy.


If you're referring to the consolidation of the media biz, then you're referring to a world which no longer exists. Between the internet blogs, satellite radio, internet radio, explosion of content/channels on cable TV, etc there are more voices being heard than ever before. The old rules made no sense anymore, and to be honest the Feds were (as always) 10 years behind the curve. Television ratings have dropped steadily every year for the past 10 years. Terrestrial radio has seen ad revenues decline for years. They're dinosaurs. Who cares if terrestrial radio is owned by 4 companies, they're increasingly irrelevant.

The whole "the left does it too!" argument is really a strawmen argument. If you look at cable news and talk radio ratings the right-wing DESTROYS the left. Furthermore, even the left does not question hegemonic ideas in this country. Nothing could have illustrated this more than the lead-up to the Afghani/Iraqi wars. (almost) ALL media was screaming that congress should fall in line with what the President wanted to do because it was the proper thing at the time of war. Dissenting voices were shut down and because of that, REAL debate in this country was prohibited.


Reread my answer. I never said that (although of course they do). All I did was ask how he'd feel if the shoe was on the other foot. Thats it.

The rest of your answers are so obviously wrong I don't know even where to start. Pedantic, condescending, snotty lefty wing types can't attract an audience and its the audience's fault? The Left doesn't question the hegemony? Real debate was PROHIBITED? Sorry, you're just way, way off.

I don't think we're being intentionally brainwashed, or that there's 12 industrialists in a dark room smoking cigars planning this all out. I do, however think that there needs to be some serious discussion in this country to ensure that talking heads and media figures ALWAYS with media conglomerates and their advertisers best interests in mind don't shape our government.


I have no problem with having a discussion, I guess it would make some people feel better but to be honest we would be better off sitting home and masturbating. At least then we'll have something to show for our efforts. Who holds the power is where the rubber meets the road in politics. Legislation is how you force people to do things they won't do on their own. Thats reality.

[Bulldogcakes]

It's funny, people love to hate on groups like the ACLU for easy jokes, but then hate when they do exactly what you're talking about across the social and political spectrum on a daily basis.

I'm not one of them. Although the people they defend largely skew greatly to the left and when they do take far right case they seem to keep it low key. You didn't see them publicly defending the Westboro church (though I believe they did some work for them), but you'll see them front and center on a police brutality case, defending anti-war protesters, etc. But I guess they have a constituency to please like any other activist/special interest group.

[Crispy123]

Where is Obama getting his numbers from? Thats like that radio host on Hardball saying that Chamberlain appeased Hitler without backing up his comments with proof or facts.


Its nothing like that. Chamberlain did appease Hitler, the jackass on Hardball didnt know what appeasement meant.

Obama has an opinion, a valid one, and expressed his without infringing on anyone elses civil rights.

[foodcourtdruide]

Ok, I'm gonna try to do this point by point, I hope the formatting works out.

and what is the next logical step for a legislator to take? To pass legislation. If you're arguing that these are just empty words, or that he just wants Americans to have a dialogue about this, then fine. But someone who seeks the power he aspires to hold is in a position to pass laws to back up his words, and thats dangerous to free speech rights.

Also, if you think he would ever come out and actually say "I want to take away so and so's rights" then maybe you're new to politics. No politician ever says things that bluntly. But in the end, the result is the same if this is backed up with legislation. Freedoms will be compromised further.

So Obama is going to attempt to pass legislation against everything he disagrees with? I really don't buy that. You're making a huge leap. And I can't even fathom the legislation he would propose. You're jumping to a conclusion.

If you're referring to the consolidation of the media biz, then you're referring to a world which no longer exists. Between the internet blogs, satellite radio, internet radio, explosion of content/channels on cable TV, etc there are more voices being heard than ever before. The old rules made no sense anymore, and to be honest the Feds were (as always) 10 years behind the curve. Television ratings have dropped steadily every year for the past 10 years. Terrestrial radio has seen ad revenues decline for years. They're dinosaurs. Who cares if terrestrial radio is owned by 4 companies, they're increasingly irrelevant.

I will emphatically disagree with you here.

1. The influence of internet blogs/satellite radio and internet radio are MINIMAL compared to cable news and radio. Also, doesn't satellite radio usually just carry news from major corporations?
2. Most of the heavily visited online news sources are owned by major corporations anyway. How much of the news Americans get is not disseminated by Major Corporations? Where are these sources? Drudge Report? BBC? Slate? Salon? Politico? NPR?

I completely agree that independent online news is gaining more prominance every day, but I disagree that they'll have more of an impact than the current mass media or that they will anytime soon.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/part3/stats.html
http://blogs.jobdig.com/diggings/2007/12/12/where-do-americans-get-their-news/


Reread my answer. I never said that (although of course they do). All I did was ask how he'd feel if the shoe was on the other foot. Thats it.

The rest of your answers are so obviously wrong I don't know even where to start. Pedantic, condescending, snotty lefty wing types can't attract an audience and its the audience's fault? The Left doesn't question the hegemony? Real debate was PROHIBITED? Sorry, you're just way, way off.

I'm obviously wrong? How? How does the media question hegemony in the United States? Real debate WAS prohibited because if anyone bought up that the Bush administrations arguments were flawed they would have been banished by the mainstream media as un-American and un-Patriotic.

I have no problem with having a discussion, I guess it would make some people feel better but to be honest we would be better off sitting home and masturbating. At least then we'll have something to show for our efforts. Who holds the power is where the rubber meets the road in politics. Legislation is how you force people to do things they won't do on their own. Thats reality.

So you think there's no point in talking about it?

[Bulldogcakes]

So Obama is going to attempt to pass legislation against everything he disagrees with? I really don't buy that. You're making a huge leap. And I can't even fathom the legislation he would propose. You're jumping to a conclusion.

I can. Its called the Fairness Doctrine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine) Its been proposed and shot down numerous times by Democrats in the House over the past 20 years. If Obama gets elected, expect him to get behind it and push it through. His FCC chairman can do it parts of it unilaterally. Thats what he's doing, laying the groundwork for passing legislation, like I said.

I know its presented as all touchy feely, 'lets get together and talk about this'. But what actually going on is establishing the rationale for a piece of legislation. He's a politician, thats what he does for a living.

[foodcourtdruide]

I can. Its called the Fairness Doctrine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine) Its been proposed and shot down numerous times by Democrats in the House over the past 20 years. If Obama gets elected, expect him to get behind it and push it through. His FCC chairman can do it parts of it unilaterally. Thats what he's doing, laying the groundwork for passing legislation, like I said.

I know its presented as all touchy feely, 'lets get together and talk about this'. But what actually going on is establishing the rationale for a piece of legislation. He's a politician, thats what he does for a living.

That's a great point. I forgot about the ole' Fairness Doctrine. I wonder if he'd push it, I don't know that. I couldn't find any quotes from him about it and I think it's completely unrealistic in modern media to enforce such a thing. I had honestly forgot about it because it seems so irrelevant. Also, maybe I'm naive, but I think discussion without legislation could be effective.

[Franklyn]

So I guess if some wacko who's been listening to the one sided, unfair coverage from Air America or Democracy Now decides to take a gun and shoot it at GW Bush, then by your reasoning Amy Goodman is to blame somehow. I couldn't possibly disagree with you more. If you can only handle people you agree with, then I'm sorry but you're a hypocrite.

Free speech means accepting and tolerating speech you don't agree with. All thats going on is people giving their political opinions (however angry or wrongheaded) in a public forum. If we want to start prosecuting people for that, then I guarantee there will be lots of people you are sympathetic to who will be headed to jail.

The only "rallying" going on is to get people to vote for one political party or another. It's not exactly the radio led, direct coordination of attacks like what happened in Rwanda. If some loser decides to be a hero for the cause and do something stupid, then thats his problem.





Yes, I definitely believe there is a responsibility. When extremist (right or left) leaders (hosts, clergy, govt official) of people preach hate, followers of those people do react with violence.
It has happened time and time again. Matthew Hale claimed to be a supporter of the white people but in reality he caused the murder of people. This isn't my opinion but that of a jury of his peers. The world is filled with these kind of people who prey on fear and unfamiliarity to widen the gap between people who already don't understand each other.

If you have ranch owners on the boarder, already angry at boarder jumpers, listening to radio and tv that says these people are a threat to our way of life is just going to egg them on more.


Also Free speech doesn't come with out responsibility.

[TheMojoPin]

I'm not one of them. Although the people they defend largely skew greatly to the left and when they do take far right case they seem to keep it low key. You didn't see them publicly defending the Westboro church (though I believe they did some work for them), but you'll see them front and center on a police brutality case, defending anti-war protesters, etc. But I guess they have a constituency to please like any other activist/special interest group.

This doesn't seem realistic at all. It seems more your perception. I don't see how they're anymore "front and center" on these cases...except in how they're presented by outside media coverage. How do you seem them being so much visible on those type of cases sans the media coverage they receive and have no control over?

[K.C.]

To tell the truth, I think Obama is wrong in making that statement, and it's just another example of why he doesn't connect with the Johnny Lunchpail type of voters.

First off, lumping Limbaugh and Dobbs together is inaccurate. Limbaugh demonizes the immigration issue to drive a wedge in the white working class, and swing them to vote Republican.

Dobbs uses the immigration issue as a representative problem in American economics.


If Obama wanted to dismiss the Limbaugh, that's fine...it's basically a political tactic Rush uses designed to create fear.

But, right or wrong, I think there's a hell of a lot of working class Democratic voters who think along similar lines as Lou Dobbs on the immigration issue. All you have to do is go to a union hall, and you'll hear it.


I'm not saying Obama has to appease those people, but he can't dismiss the issue as people with an agenda, promoting fear, which inspires hate crimes. That's such a belittling statement to a particular point of view on a very important issue.


It's like dismissing the losses in PA, and WV, and KY as being 'demographically favorable' to Hillary, and just putting out this whole confident aura of 'they'll fall in line in the general.'


If his campaign has a hole in it, it's this...he needs to find a way to have a productive dialog with these working class, baby boomer democrats, or that could be a problem for him.

[epo]

I can. Its called the Fairness Doctrine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine) Its been proposed and shot down numerous times by Democrats in the House over the past 20 years. If Obama gets elected, expect him to get behind it and push it through. His FCC chairman can do it parts of it unilaterally. Thats what he's doing, laying the groundwork for passing legislation, like I said.

I know its presented as all touchy feely, 'lets get together and talk about this'. But what actually going on is establishing the rationale for a piece of legislation. He's a politician, thats what he does for a living.

I personally have stated this before, but I have no issue with the re-installation of the Fairness Doctrine, in fact I favor it greatly.

At the end of the day, corporate media will claim that the government would be cramping their "rights". Of course that will be utter b.s., as they are broadcasting on the public airwaves.

If the public chooses those leadership legislation to present multiple sides of an argument, then that is the public's right.

[TheMojoPin]

I personally have stated this before, but I have no issue with the re-installation of the Fairness Doctrine, in fact I favor it greatly.

At the end of the day, corporate media will claim that the government would be cramping their "rights". Of course that will be utter b.s., as they are broadcasting on the public airwaves.

If the public chooses those leadership legislation to present multiple sides of an argument, then that is the public's right.

Ehhhhhhh...I respectfully disagree.

I think the Fairness Doctorine is a steaming load.

[badmonkey]

I personally have stated this before, but I have no issue with the re-installation of the Fairness Doctrine, in fact I favor it greatly.

At the end of the day, corporate media will claim that the government would be cramping their "rights". Of course that will be utter b.s., as they are broadcasting on the public airwaves.

If the public chooses those leadership legislation to present multiple sides of an argument, then that is the public's right.

If progressive radio would concentrate on being entertaining instead of taking down Limbaugh, maybe people (including conservatives) would listen to it. Air America was their best shot at a comparable medium and they fucked it up by hiring big names with no talent. It doesn't matter what your message, if you aren't entertaining, nobody's going to listen. Do an entertaining show and people will listen. The Limbaugh comparisons will come later, after you've built up a comparable audience over years. It wont happen overnight and it won't happen by shrieking anti-conservative tirades into a microphone.

Why should conservative radio be forced to suck just because progressive radio does?

[scottinnj]

I personally have stated this before, but I have no issue with the re-installation of the Fairness Doctrine, in fact I favor it greatly.

At the end of the day, corporate media will claim that the government would be cramping their "rights". Of course that will be utter b.s., as they are broadcasting on the public airwaves.

If the public chooses those leadership legislation to present multiple sides of an argument, then that is the public's right.


this is the disagreement the left and right have regarding "public airwaves"
as a conservative, i understand the need for an fcc to regulate bandwidth between radio stations, and to promote a standard of conduct regarding language. but anything else, the market will decide what is to be broadcast. a fairness doctrine only allows the government to have programming control over the hosts and guests. it may not be fair for some that am radio is full of conservatives, but that doesn't negate anyone from calling in to challenge the host, or have someone start their own network.
besides, if you are to apply the fairness doctrine, you can't aim it at only one form of media. you would have have to apply it to all sectrums, tv, radio and the internet to cover all the bases. the internet is merely a section of bandwidth, so especially with the onslaught of wifi and cellular internet, it could be classified as "the peoples airwaves" as easily as radio. would you want kos or the huffington post to have to allow the other side's point of view? their spot on the internet may be funded privately on a privately owned server, but the data goes through publicly owned dns servers.

[Gvac]

I've been actively seeking out and pummeling Hungarians ever since Ronnie voiced his displeasure with them.

[Bossanova]

I've been actively seeking out and pummeling Hungarians ever since Ronnie voiced his displeasure with them.

Here here brother. Fuck them and their big hungarian noses, and their bizzare goulash

[BoondockSaint]

But if it wasn't for them I'd have no Iran to Turkey because I was Hungary jokes.

[Bossanova]

But if it wasn't for them I'd have no Iran to Turkey because I was Hungary jokes.

HAHA! this is true

[epo]

this is the disagreement the left and right have regarding "public airwaves"
as a conservative, i understand the need for an fcc to regulate bandwidth between radio stations, and to promote a standard of conduct regarding language. but anything else, the market will decide what is to be broadcast. a fairness doctrine only allows the government to have programming control over the hosts and guests. it may not be fair for some that am radio is full of conservatives, but that doesn't negate anyone from calling in to challenge the host, or have someone start their own network.
besides, if you are to apply the fairness doctrine, you can't aim it at only one form of media. you would have have to apply it to all sectrums, tv, radio and the internet to cover all the bases. the internet is merely a section of bandwidth, so especially with the onslaught of wifi and cellular internet, it could be classified as "the peoples airwaves" as easily as radio. would you want kos or the huffington post to have to allow the other side's point of view? their spot on the internet may be funded privately on a privately owned server, but the data goes through publicly owned dns servers.

1. You don't need to follow the old rules of the Fairness Doctrine for it to work.
2. There are two basic arguments about media between the right & the left. The first (and most important in IMO) is deregulation and the consolidation that has occurred as a result. The send is the Fairness issue.
3. You could apply a Fairness Doctrine that only applies to licensed over-air broadcasts. This eliminates newspapers, interwebz, cable television. This gives you network television & old school radio.
4. Just as important, the matter of localization for over-air broadcasters should be re-looked at.

Honestly the specifics of a new version of a Fairness Doctrine could be opened up for discussion, but remember that the licenses for those over air entities includes the phrase "serving the public good" and in no way states that the "free market" is the first order of business.

Yes, the free market is important, but one could argue that 24 hours of one point-of-view doesn't seem to serve the "public good". I would like our electorate to vote according to a balanced, factual point-of-view, rather than Hannity's "thoughts" on the world.

[foodcourtdruide]

1. You don't need to follow the old rules of the Fairness Doctrine for it to work.
2. There are two basic arguments about media between the right & the left. The first (and most important in IMO) is deregulation and the consolidation that has occurred as a result. The send is the Fairness issue.
3. You could apply a Fairness Doctrine that only applies to licensed over-air broadcasts. This eliminates newspapers, interwebz, cable television. This gives you network television & old school radio.
4. Just as important, the matter of localization for over-air broadcasters should be re-looked at.

Honestly the specifics of a new version of a Fairness Doctrine could be opened up for discussion, but remember that the licenses for those over air entities includes the phrase "serving the public good" and in no way states that the "free market" is the first order of business.

Yes, the free market is important, but one could argue that 24 hours of one point-of-view doesn't seem to serve the "public good". I would like our electorate to vote according to a balanced, factual point-of-view, rather than Hannity's "thoughts" on the world.

Epo, I think upholding the Fairness Doctrine in today's media climate would be impossible. The Fairness Doctrine essentially states that you must devote equal time to differing opinions. Even if you only apply it to over-the-air broadcasts (wouldn't that include old-school radio?) because of media consolidation, it would have very little impact. Media companies have so many entities, that they could probably get around these rules.

[Zorro]

Bulldogs -

I'll always defend your right to say anything even though I disagree with most of your political stands.

My problem with right wing radio is the MONOPOLY they hold on the public airwaves. I am a salesman and am in my car 10 hours a day. Prior to purchasing an XM radio I could not find a station in Michigan that carried anything but Limbaugh, Liddy, and Hanniday.

De-regulating the airwaves and letting corporations own multiple local stations was one of the most disastorous moves Reagan made. Local station ownership meant that those owners programmed to their demographic. They were required to serve the public interest. Right wing talk doesn't.

Sure I can change the channell whenever I want, but right wing propaganda is all thats on here, and we aren't exactly a Conservative bastion. The public airwaves belong to the people! But the FCC has allowed conservatives with an agenda to own multiple stations, even in the same city. CHOICE here is Laura Ingram on one am station and Rush Limbaugh on the other. Both have ANEMIC ratings but the owners can absorb the losses by mutiple station ownership.

XM and Syrius offer BOTH sides of the story. Thats why eventually am terrestrial will die.

I'd be interested in your thoughts

Jim in Michigan


by "corporations" do you mean Jews?

[Bulldogcakes]

If the public chooses those leadership legislation to present multiple sides of an argument, then that is the public's right.

TRANSLATION-If we can't get people to listen to us of their own volition, then we will force them to.

And in Washington "public" somehow always translates into meaning "far left". When the reality is most of the actual public at large is unaffiliated with ANY political party. Right or left. If you were truly representing the "public", you'd force NPR to play a Morning Zoo type show. Because thats what most of the "public" actually listens to.

[TheMojoPin]

"Left" = buncha artsy fartsy stuff, amiright?

That sonuvabitch Garrison Keillor and his commie agenda.

[badmonkey]

"Left" = buncha artsy fartsy stuff, amiright?

That sonuvabitch Garrison Keillor and his commie agenda.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k105/captaindinobot/Homer.jpg

Less artsy more fartsy!