posted on June 21, 2007 06:38:35 PM new
Liberal radio talk shows have shown themselves to be worthless (remember "Air America"?). Their lack of success has prompted a new attack on Conservative talk radio. Liberal control the drive by media and cant stand the idea of not controlling all the news.
-------------
THE ATTACK ON TALK RADIO BEGINS IN EARNEST TODAY
This will be a big day for the left in its campaign to rid this country of their nemisis ... those pesky right-wing talk show hosts. Today we'll be hearing about a new study by the Center For American Progress, a Washington left-wing think tank. The man running this outfit is none other than John Podesta, the former Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton. This report will condemn what it calls a "massive imbalance" between conservative and "progressive" My guess is that the report will blame the preponderance of liberal talk radio shows on anything but the absolute failure of these shows to sustain themselves with good ratings. We'll also undoubtedly see the typical statements about the asinine concept of "the public's airwaves."
Now we all know that liberals -- and all-too-many conservatives, for that matter -- just love to use the police power of government to solve a private sector problem that vexes them. It's the liberal way. The liberal believes that this country is great because of its government, so why not use the government to make it even greater! At least in the eyes of the liberal elite.
Right now I would like to address this concept of the "public airwaves." Briefly put, it's utter nonsense. But where did it start? By the time radio broadcasting came along the elite -- that would be the political leadership -- understood the political value of controlling the flow of information to the people. A free flow of information was not desirable. The more exercise politicians could control over the dissemination of information, the stronger they were. And so it is today. You don't think that Hugo Chavez seized the nation's number one television station last month because he wanted to watch Sponge Fidel Square Pants, do you?
When our country was founded freedom was uppermost in the minds of our leaders. By the time Marconi got out his gun soldering gun and transmitted his first wireless signal around 1895 our Republic was already about 120 years old. By that time we had developed a political class that was perhaps more interested in preserving their positions of power than they were in preserving something so dangerous as freedom of the press.
Around ninety years earlier our nation's founders had decided that government should not interfere with the dissemination of information. Unfortunately, at that time there were only two ways to spread the word. One was verbally, the other was in written form. Both ended up being protected in the First Amendment to our Constitution. The First Amendment contained in the Bill of Rights was finally ratified on December 15, 1791. Can there be any doubt in your mind that had the authors of the Bill of Rights known of the role that broadcasting would one day play in conveying information, they would certainly have included broadcast freedom along with freedom of speech and the press? Certainly there is no good argument as to why they would not do so.
By the 1930s Marconi's little wireless telegraph invention was really taking hold, and our politicians started talking about government control. Now obviously there was a government role to play in protecting one broadcaster's right to the use of his broadcast frequency, just as there is a role for government to play in protecting your use of your own property. The government recognizes and affords you a means of protecting your property ownership rights. This is how it should have been with the government and broadcast frequencies. That wasn't the way it worked out. There was political power to protect.
Since there were no first amendment guarantees for freedom of broadcast, the politicians put their heads together to come up with some excuse to enable the government to step forward and take control ... FAST ... before this radio thing got to be a problem for them. After all, not only could information be shared with the American people through radio, but it could be done instantly, and at much lower cost than the printed media.
So ... what to do? Hey! Maybe this would work! We'll just say that the public owns the airwaves! And since the public owns the airwaves, we, as their loyal representatives in Washington, need to step forward and exercise control over what happens on those airwaves, just as we can manage access and behavior on any other government property!
I know most of you have never really thought about this before, but this argument is ridiculously easy to destroy. On just what basis does the public own the airwaves? Is there a purchase contract somewhere that I just haven't seen yet? Just when did the public acquire ownership of the airwaves? Did the public own the airwaves when there were no broadcast signals traveling at the speed of light from antennas to receivers? Or did that public ownership suddenly materialize when Marconi sent his first signal over the distance of about 14 feet? Maybe public ownership didn't happen until the KDKA broadcast some presidential election results in Pittsburgh on that night about 85 years ago. But, at whatever moment in time we're talking about, what even took place that suddenly granted ownership of all broadcast frequencies to the public? Did the public invest huge sums of money to develop these frequencies, or was this done by private entrepreneurs? Did the government go out and purchase or trade something for these frequencies as it did with the Louisiana purchase or Alaska? Just what happened? Where are the ownership papers? Where's the evidence that the public even had something to do with the very creation of these broadcast frequencies?
The answer is that there is no evidence of ownership. None. The public "owns the airwaves" only because the politicians in the early part of the last century said so. And that's it. They saw a new means of communication coming forward, a means of communication that had the promise of someday being more powerful than the Constitutionally protected printed word, and they wanted control. They wanted control, so they took it.
It would be easy to argue that government should control newspapers as it does broadcasting. Trust me, the left wing ideological tilt of the nation's newspapers is every bit as pronounced as is the conservative influence in talk radio. If it were not for the First Amendment, would these politicians be able to conjure up some sort of "public ownership" excuse to perhaps apply a fairness doctrine to newspapers? Well ... let's give it a try.
Let's see .... you can print a newspaper all you want, but it really doesn't do any good unless you get that newspaper to the people. You have to load those newspapers on to trucks and get them to the newsstands, the hotels, and to the people who deliver them to your front door. And guess what! To do this you have to use the public's roads! There! See how easy that was! We've created an excuse for government control of the content of your daily newspaper! All we had to do was show that the newspaper publishers use the public's roads and highways to get their news and opinion to your office or home!
It is so very much easier to make the case for public ownership of the roads and highways than it is to make the case for ownership of the airwaves. Unlike the broadcast frequencies, we actually paid for those highways through our tax money ... and we continue to pay for their maintenance year after year!
So .. why doesn't government step in with some control here? The answer is simple. The First Amendment. Government hands are tied when it comes to newspapers. Not so with talk radio, thus the left-wing study surfacing today.
Talk radio is conservative because that's what the listeners want. Don't give me this "corporate ownership" nonsense. WSB radio in Atlanta, my flagship station, is owned by Cox Radio, Inc. Cox Radio, in turn, is owned by Cox Enterprises which, in turned, is majority owned by people who have been stalwart Democrats since day one. In fact, Cox Enterprises was formed by James Cox, the Democrat candidate for president in the 1920 presidential election. (Defeated by Warren G. Harding) Interestingly enough, Cox's running mate was someone named Franklin D. Roosevelt. Does Cox Radio put me on their talk radio stations because I reflect the political ideology of the principals? Hardly. It's because I get ratings! And that means I make money for them. They've tried liberal hosts .... and they don't get ratings and they don't make money for the company. Simple as that.
So .. .the battle is joined. Liberals feel threatened by talk radio. They tried to succeed with their Air America, and all the George Soros and embezzled funds in the world didn't help them. So, in the liberal world, if at first you can't succeed, use the government to destroy your opponents.
This is going to be fun ... if not tragic. Let them get control in Washington and it will be the end of talk radio as we know it today.
Neal Boortz
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on June 21, 2007 10:26:39 PM new
Beats me why anybody would be threatened by conservative talk radio. They're all just preaching to the choir anyhow. A choir that by any measure was so busy listening to the radio during the last election that they forgot to VOTE
posted on June 22, 2007 05:41:19 AM new
Well. OBVIOUSLY since they're so DESPERATE to get control of....have it all be 'equal' they're VERY concerned. lol lol lol
Wouldn't want to FORCE themselves BY LAW if they weren't.
BREITBART.TV EXCLUSIVE: Appearing on John Ziegler's evening show on KFI 640 AM in LA, U.S. Senator James Inhofe says he overheard Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) saying they want a "legislative fix" for talk radio.
posted on June 22, 2007 07:21:20 AM newLiberal radio talk shows have shown themselves to be worthless (remember "Air America"?). Their lack of success has prompted a new attack on Conservative talk radio. Liberal control the drive by media and cant stand the idea of not controlling all the news.
The neocons complain about the liberal bias in the media but yet conservatives have the upper hand when it comes to talk radio. They are now complaining they are under attck and fear of loosing that majority.
If the neo-cons can not control everything they will complain and whine.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on June 22, 2007 08:14:19 AM new
The "neo-cons" do not control talk radio, the public does (it's called ratings). The PROBLEM is government control of media. That is not bias.
posted on June 22, 2007 08:35:55 AM newSo .. .the battle is joined. Liberals feel threatened by talk radio.
And conservatives feel threatened by the MSM. Big deal.
Let them get control in Washington and it will be the end of talk radio as we know it today.
Republican had 6 years of being in control and they wanted to take away our freedoms, but that was ok with the neo-cons. Now they are afraid of loosing "talk radio". The conservatives led the movement with the FCC to clean up the airwaves after the Janet Jackson Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction. How ever this did not stand up in a court.
Neo-cons have no problem giving up their rights and freedoms but they don't want to loose their "monopoly" on talk radio. What a joke.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
Squirrel says, "The "neo-cons" do not control talk radio, the public does (it's called ratings). The PROBLEM is government control of media. That is not bias."
The PROBLEM is corporate control of media. Huge corporations control television, radio and newspapers...even magazines. And that corporate control leads to right wing, conservative bias.
posted on June 25, 2007 07:51:54 AM new
On the June 24 edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace reported on Sen. James Inhofe's (R-OK) disputed claim that he had overheard Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) discussing a "legislative fix" for right-wing talk radio, but Wallace did not note that Inhofe had altered a crucial element of the story since his allegations were first made public. Wallace said Inhofe "says that he overheard Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton three years ago complaining about talk radio and saying there should be a legislative fix." Wallace was referring to comments Inhofe had made during a June 22 interview on Fox News' Your World. However, as blogger Greg Sargent observed, Inhofe had first asserted during a June 21 interview on Los Angeles radio station KFI 640 AM's The John Ziegler Show that he had overheard the conversation between Boxer and Clinton "the other day" but then said on Your World that the conversation had occurred "three years ago."
As Wallace reported and Media Matters for America has noted, the offices of both Boxer and Clinton deny that the conversation ever took place.
Inhofe asserted during his June 21 appearance on The John Ziegler Show that "I was going out to vote the other day" and he "was walking with two very liberal gals," later identified as Clinton and Boxer, who "were outraged by something" a conservative talk radio host said. Inhofe claimed that Clinton and Boxer stated: "We've got to do something about this. These are nothing but far right-wing extremists. We've got to have a balance. We have got to have a legislative fix to this."
But during an interview with host Neil Cavuto on the June 22 edition of Fox News' Your World, Inhofe claimed to have "told this story well over 100 times on the radio, on TV, in the last three years." He continued: "[T]his is about three years ago. ... They are yelling and screaming and complaining about right-wing radio. 'They're all right wing, we can't let them keep doing that. There has to be a fix to this.' "
By contrast to Wallace's reporting, during the June 22 edition of Fox News' Special Report, guest host Bret Baier accurately reported that Inhofe had altered the timeline of his story:
BAIER: And Republican Senator James Inhofe said on Fox this afternoon that a conversation he overheard between Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer about wanting a, quote, "legislative fix" for conservative talk radio actually occurred three years ago. Inhofe told a Los Angeles radio station yesterday that he overheard the senators complaining about something they had heard on the air, quote, "the other day". Inhofe quoted the two senators as saying "We've got to do something about this. These are nothing but far right-wing extremists. We've got to have a balance. There's got to be a legislative fix to this."
But the offices of both Senator Clinton and Senator Boxer had the same response to Fox News, saying the conversation never happened, and today, Inhofe clarified the timeline on this story, saying he's recounted a three-year-old conversation well over 100 times on radio and TV since then.
In a June 22 interview with Scott Baker, a correspondent for the online news portal Breitbart.tv, Inhofe claimed that he knew immediately that he had originally misrepresented the timeline of his alleged account, but decided not to correct it: "Well, I thought about that right when I said it, but I've told this story so many times I thought, 'Well, if the other day's not today' -- no, this is a long time ago." Breitbart.tv was founded by former Drudge colleague Andrew Breitbart.
From the June 24 edition of Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Let me bring in Senator [Dianne] Feinstein [D-CA]. Oklahoma Senator Inhofe says that he overheard Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton three years ago complaining about talk radio and saying there should be a legislative fix. Both of them deny it ever happened. But let me ask you about yourself. Do you have a problem with talk radio, and would you consider reviving the Fairness Doctrine, which would require broadcasters to put on opposing points of view?
FEINSTEIN: Well, in my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information. This is a very complicated bill. It's seven titles. Most people don't know what's in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty, we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that, nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system. This bill fixes those flaws. Do I think there should be an opportunity on talk radio to present that point of view? Yes, I do, particularly about the critical issues of the day.
From the June 22 edition of Fox News' Your World:
CAVUTO: On to politics: Who is lying here? What is the big question right now after Democratic Senators Clinton and Boxer flatly deny having a conversation that this guy swears they did? If he's telling the truth, the Sean Hannitys and Rush Limbaughs of talk radio could be big targets. On the phone with us right now, Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma. Senator, the senators I just mentioned say they never had this conversation where they more or less implied they were going to go after right-wing radio. What do you say?
INHOFE: I never said that. What I said was, and here's the funny thing, Neil, I've told this story well over 100 times on the radio, on TV in the last three years. I was going up the elevator with them -- this is about three years ago -- to vote. They are yelling and screaming and complaining about right-wing radio. "They're all right wing, we can't let them keep doing that. There has to be a fix to this." And I said, "You girls don't understand, it's market-driven, and there's no market for your liberal tripe." Now -- and I've said that story so many times because it is funny, and people -- liberals don't understand that.
From a June 22 interview on Breitbart.tv:
BAKER: Well, let me ask you this, because I believe, in the account that you gave on the radio last night, the one that we put up on Breitbart.tv, you said this happened the other day, so now you're saying it was a little bit longer ago.
INHOFE: Well, I thought about that right when I said it, but I've told this story so many times I thought, "Well, if the other day's not today" -- no, this is a long time ago. And the reason I know how long ago it was, Scott, is because when I keynoted the Republican convention about a month ago, this was the Oklahoma convention, I was talking to someone who had had the, what I had said in the past, and I said, "Now tell me what stories not to tell, that I've told before." And they said, "Well, you ought to tell your elevator story again, even though you've told it twice before at two other conventions. It brings down the house." And so I said -- so it's been at least that long.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on June 25, 2007 08:14:48 AM new
Well look at the terrified , vindictive, REPUBLICAN/CONSERVATIVE government attempt at controlling what Americans hear:
Armed Forces Radio Tunes Out Liberal Show Host
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 18, 2005; Page C01
Liberal radio talker Ed Schultz was eagerly anticipating his debut yesterday on Armed Forces Radio, which agreed last month to carry his program to nearly a million soldiers around the world.
But at 7 a.m., Schultz's producer got a call from Allison Barber, the Pentagon's deputy assistant secretary for internal communications, who said without explanation that the deal was off.
Ed Schultz thought he had a deal to broadcast to U.S. soldiers, but the Pentagon now says otherwise. (Democracy Radio)
Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
Simple Future
Everything Between
WireCan
Full List of Blogs (42 links) »
Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web
Perhaps, Schultz said in an interview, it was just a coincidence that he spent the end of last week chastising Barber for coaching a group of U.S. soldiers in Iraq before a teleconference with President Bush.
"It kind of floored us," Schultz said from his studio in North Dakota. "The fact is, they don't want dissenting voices or any other kind of speech unless it's going to be promotional for them. Obviously, these people are making sure they're not going to have any opinion other than the Rush Limbaughs of the world."
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) won approval last year for a nonbinding resolution urging Armed Forces Radio to offer more political balance in programming. Limbaugh strongly objected, noting that the network carries National Public Radio and declaring, "I am the political balance."
Late last month, Manny Levy, chief of the radio division for Armed Forces Network, told Schultz's distributor, Jones Radio, by e-mail: "AFN Radio has squared away everything on our end to begin carrying the first hour of 'The Ed Schultz Show' each day, beginning Monday, October 17, 2005."
Levy added: "I'm sorry that there were so many panicked, 'I need an answer soon' calls, false starts and unexpected delays on our end. An awful lot of people in the government had (or tried to have) a hand in [the] program selection process that ended with the decision to add 'The Ed Schultz Show.' "
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said last night that Levy "got ahead of the process" and that no decision had been made in a review of which programming to add to the network. When asked about Schultz's insistence that his criticism of Barber played a role, Whitman called that "an unfortunate misperception on his part. That has nothing to do with this."
Barber was seen repeatedly on television last week asking mock questions to soldiers in Iraq, who generally gave responses similar to those they would momentarily provide to the president. Schultz played some of these clips on his show. The Pentagon said the soldiers were not rehearsed but apologized for "any perception that they were told what to say."
Barber was traveling and could not be reached yesterday. Schultz says Barber told his producer she could not say when, or whether, Armed Forces Radio would carry the show.
"""
