As long as we are dreaming of the near impossible—the reinstitution of the concept that the airwaves are a resource that belong to us all—let’s go whole hog, and imagine something else—the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine. Sure, this will never happen as long as the Republicans control Congress and the White House. But just as few Republicans, in the… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (55)Page 1 of 1 pagesGive the people what they want? Ain’t gonna happen. Now that the conservatives have a stranglehold on all aspects of American life, what makes the author think that they would give up the airways? THAT American “justice” is dead, along with all the rest.
Newspapers and magazines are following, and I wonder how long it will take for them to get hold of the internet?
Posted by Grace on Apr 14, 2005 at 7:45 AM Get on the telephone and raise some hell.
The conservatives have been doing it for years. They make a lot of noise, disproportionally so and it is effective. In the absence of any significant counterbalancing input, that disproportionality is not recognized as such, thus further compounding the magnitude of their message.
We need to speak up in defence our beliefs to provide that counterbalance.
Too often I have made the effort to express my concerns regarding slanted and/or omitted news stories just to be informed that I was the only one to present any objection and that the majority of comments were contrary to my position. I have little reason to doubt the veracity of the response.
Rather than involvement, too many that would identify with the left have surrendered to complacency, if not to out right disengagement.
That has to change and it begins with each individual doing what they can.
The old maxim still applies:
‘Qui tacet consentire’---Silence gives consent.
We mustn’t yield to despair.
Maintain Hope, and stand up for your beliefs
Posted by J H Bushwaw on Apr 15, 2005 at 5:05 AM Our society has been moving toward both the laissez-faire capitalism and puritanical fundamentalist revivalism of the nineteenth century in recent years. This trend has been particularly noticable since Raegan. The robber barons of the nineteenth century and their allies in government had not learned to harness the votes of the masses however with wedge issues to the extent that now prtevails. I have no doubt that the captitalists and corporations largely controlled the media then with little if any regulation in place, but corporate power has increased so much by now that they apparently own the state outright. Perhaps there’s nothing new about this, but the means of controlling the peoples’ behavior and thinking has developed with technology.
Theodor Adorno’s concepts of repressive state apparati and idiological state apparati are usefull in understanding what is going on. The repressive apparati are the military and the police and of course these as well as the idiological apparati(media) like the government itself, are controlled by capital. The state and the companies that basically own it prefer to use the idiological apparati to control the people because if they actually are effective in controlling what people think there will be no revolt or even the awareness that the government and the media are controlled by the corporztions. As long asd there is no general consciousness of this state of affairs there will be no uprising against the porporate power structure.
Controlling the public through physically coercive means, although frequantly practiced throughout our history would be ineffective and lead the people to revolt without the framing of the issues provided by the idiological state apparati. Both the repressive and the idiological might more properly be termend corporate apparati since the corporations are the interests normally served by them.
That there is any alternative media at all is actually quite encouraging. If the fascists ever shut down this source of truth, i think that will truely be the last nail in the coffin of democracy in this country.
Posted by Louis Rue on Apr 16, 2005 at 7:26 AM Don’t hold your breath expecting Johnny Lunchbucket to give a fuck about democratic media. Technically speaking, we own the airwaves, but all Lunchbucket ever wanted was more T and A.
Posted by Jimmy on Apr 18, 2005 at 11:54 PM Natalie,
Do you have an original thought? Everything you say is just neocon rhetoric. I find the sources online to be more reliable than FOX News. What I find out online through various domestic and foreign sources turns out to be verified in mainstream press (in the more major stories) between 1 week and a month later.When regulation means that both sides of a controversial issue must be presented to the public so they can make up their own minds, that is a regulation that maintains democracy. Sorry you’re not for that.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 19, 2005 at 11:01 AM I read this article with interest,but saw several flaws in it and found the comments interesting.
Margaret, I found your response puzzling, but I am new here. I actually understood more of what Natalie was implying with her comment/quip than I did with yours. Would you mind explaining in more detail?
Thanks
Roland
Posted by Roland Yarbrough on Apr 19, 2005 at 8:04 PM Margaret,
Do you ever have a coherent thought? Everything you say is just Neocom progaganda. (neocom...basically a communist, but lacks courage, and tries to hide their true identity behind nice sounding terms like “progressive”, or “social justice advocate”, because they know if they were honest about their true agenda, they would be rejected by the public at large)
I would assume you feel somewhat insulted by these assertions, as I was by yours. So what’s the point? What’s up with the nonsensical labels? (like my NeocoM above) What exactly is a neocoN to you? Is it meant to refer to someone Jewish? Is it meant to imply something evil? Or is it an easy way to minimize in your mind the value of an opposing view?
What exactly are your “online sources”? There are many, and they differ as much as do night and day. That’s the beauty of it all, don’t you see?
I assume what you mean is that what you read in the New York Times online is subsequently followed up on and embraced by Tim Russert on Meet the Press the following Sunday. Surprise, surprise.
But I could be wrong. You give me so little to go on.
I am not against vigorous debate and hearing all sides. But I am against debate by mandate. How would you feel if someone came to you and said that we’re imposing this new law, see?, and you are now required to post an alternative view to what you just posted about Natalie. You must try to see things from her perspective, and provide the stupid population who doesn’t know www from WD40 an easy to access across the board equalizing message so they don’t have to bother with seeking out their own information. Isn’t that a better way? Sure it is. Now type.
Posted by Natalie on Apr 20, 2005 at 1:29 AM You failed to answer to my statement of wanting a democracy or not, Natalie. A democracy encourages free press that provides both sides of the issue, not a one-sided Party mouthpiece, which the press has become. In that wonderful article in Vanity Fair this month by Robert Kennedy, Jr., he details how the American public was bamboozled by the press into believing that Bush would provide what they felt they were voting for. Read it and weep. The pendulum is beginning to swing back, so Republicans can begin counting their days in power.
A neocon does not refer to a Jew. Yes, the original neocon base followed Leo Strauss’ teachings, which are basically a view of one-party domination with a melding of corporate, legislative and military power into a single moving body of control, were Jewish. But many more WASP’s make up the body, and there is not a ethnic label to define it now. How funny that you would try to turn my statement into a racist tome in order to invalidate my point.
I read the London Times, Le Monde, Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times, Salon, OldAmericanCentury.org, ITT, to name a few. I also look at the Nation to see what the other side says. I listen to BBC News, Canadian News, CBS, PBS and NPR.
Sorry you find my thought incoherent. Funny, never in my life has a genuine debator ever stated that they found my statements incoherent. I find your comments to be like reading “The Nation” or listening to Fox News. Just regurgitation of what Scott McClellan says.
If you are a patriot, you would be straining to stop the destruction of a multi-party system that will literally bring down democracy. You would be asking how can the current Federal Budget be considered “compassionate” or realistic. Why doesn’t the debt incurred in Iraq figure into the deficit? Why are all contractors in Iraq exempt from prosecution for theft or fraud? Why didn’t we work with local construction companies if our true goal was to rebuild their society. We didn’t because it was never our goal. We, as Mr. Bolton states, only concerned with things that benefit America, our interests are supreme, end of statement.
And, yet, your comments just reinforce the lies that were fed to the public. So, it’s your turn. What are you doing to save our country?
Write.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 20, 2005 at 10:21 AM Roland,
Go back to page one and read her statements. Also, maybe I’m remembering incorrectly, but she also responded on another article in a similar manner.
I am not new to this and I can advise you that Republicans actually pay people, who are called trolls (though not all trolls are paid), to come onto progressive sites and disrupt the dialogue. They generally just reiterate the Republican stance and will not listen to anything that doesn’t reinforce their beliefs. If Natalie had said one thing prior to the last blog that was not just support for the Repub. status quo, I wouldn’t have reacted that way.
As for her last blog, I do agree honest debate is a necessary thing and does a lot to help people in refining their arguments. However, trolls do not seek “honest” debate, only chaos. If she continues to make honest remarks like in her last blog, I will gladly honestly debate further statements in an honest way.
Hope that clarifies it for you.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 20, 2005 at 10:39 AM This does appear to be a very interesting site. Thank you for your clarification and comments, Margaret.
I first learned of this site from a newsgroup about Kurt Vonnegut, one of my favorite authors. One of the few fiction writers I read.
I am here to read and expand myself. To let you know up front, I am very conservative in many ways. On the other hand, I am very liberal in many ways. I think the majority of our politicians and professional bureaucrats have deteriorated our nation to something that would make the original founders flounder in their graves. In saying that, I am not saying our nation should have stood still and remained in its original state.
I think my visits here will be interesting and educational. I look forward to them.
Posted by Roland Yarbrough on Apr 20, 2005 at 3:35 PM Thank you for your comments, Roland. Please check out the archives for this site. Especially read the article called “A Corrupted Election” from Feb. 15th and the one from Chalmers Johnson from the beginning of this month regarding Washington’s foreign policy (don’t remember the exact title). Very informataive and interesting.
I agree with you, politicians are screwing royally. The GOP sure isn’t the party of fiscal responsibility anymore, and that is about the only way in which I’m conservative. Dems are too often anti-God, which doesn’t work for me. I guess it’s a bit like the Hippocratic oath--do no harm. When I look at it that way, the GOP is certainly doing far more harm at this time.I think labels are useful, but they don’t convey the nuances in a person’s political beliefs. To be truthful, I don’t think either party represents wholly what most people are looking for to mirror their own political beliefs. I vote cross-party, whoever’s the best candidate. But right now, I can’t envision voting Republican.
Best wishes for your journey thruogh blogland!
Posted by Margaret on Apr 20, 2005 at 5:35 PM Thank you, Margaret.
I will have some time to sift through the archives this weekend. I’m sure I will find them interesting.
A good friend of mine was a state senator in Georgia for a few years. He often would say he considered their best weeks as those in which legislation was in committees and no legislation of importance was voted on that week. He said the best work they did was not creating more rules and regulations. *S*
Thanks also for a little insight on you and your leanings/philosophy.
R
Posted by Roland Yarbrough on Apr 20, 2005 at 9:09 PM Actually, Margaret, I DON’T want a democracy. But neither did our founding fathers, so I feel I’m in good company. I prefer a representative republic. That is our system of government that has endured so long, not a democracy.
“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths”.—James Madison
But I think probably what you mean is simply that people should have a say in what goes on. Obviously I agree, it goes without saying, which is why I didn’t think it necessary to answer your question. Who wouldn’t want a voice? The people in Afghanistan want one, it turns out, and so do the people in Iraq. I get the same sense from the people in Iran, China, the Ukraine, and Lebanon. I think it just might be some kind of universal human need. How horrible that the President is focusing on this. He’s probably just doing it to somehow benefit his “oil buddies”.
“A democracy encourages a free press that provides both sides of the issue”.
No, people have a self-evident and assumed right to a press free from government content regulation, except for a few obvious exceptions. Yes, Ms. Jackson, I’m talking about your two big exceptions.
This is why I think the Fairness Doctrine is incompatible with a “free” press, or “free” speech. Now that I think about it, it sounds like one of the most unconstitutional ideas ever. Regardless of what you feel is fair or unfair about the media at the time, it’s essential that it remain free from someone telling it how it must behave. It should be ASSUMED that you will always have the absolute freedom to persuade people as to your point of view, and you will not have to worry about someone in power mandating that you can’t (CFR), or putting shackles on how you do it. (FD) In the article below, you will learn that both Kennedy and Nixon used the fairness doctrine to their own political advantage. This is NOT a good road to go down:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM368.cfm
If (when) the pendulum swings more to your liking, are you sure you want it to have gotten there by way of an artificial push, rather than naturally? By which method is it more likely to stay where you want it for any significant amount of time?
“How funny that you would try to turn my statement into a racist tome in order to invalidate my point.”
Clever that you would turn my defense of your initial insult into an attack on you. All I did was illustrate how absurd and imprecise your label was with another absurd and imprecise label. You are the one who began the invalidation by labeling me a neocon parrot. A racist Tome? One sentence simply asking if you were talking about someone Jewish? Me thinks thou doth protest too much. You even admitted as much: “Yes, the original neocon base were jewish”. Most people (on the left at least) ARE talking about Jewish people or at least people that defend Israel when they use the term neocon. It’s not an unreasonable question and not meant in any racial way—sorry if you took it that way.
end pt. 1
Posted by Natalie on Apr 21, 2005 at 11:44 PM pt. 2
Your sources are pretty one-sided. All of them are liberal, and some of them extremely liberal. If you think The Nation is “the other side”, you are dangerously close to falling off a left-leaning cliff. (Unless perhaps you misspoke?)
I would suggest realclearpolitics.com for a comprehensive listing of all the day’s best-written editorials from the right and the left. This site is run by a conservative, (I think), but he recognizes good arguments from the other side when he sees them and links to them. (Voluntary fairness doctrine adherent)
Or the good news from Iraq and Afghanistan series @:
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/04/good-news-from-iraq-part-25.html
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/03/good-news-from-afghanistan-part-10.htmlOr perhaps VDH Private Papers @ http://www.victorhanson.com/index.html
City Journal....Here’s a good one: http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_2_compassionate.html
No, I don’t really think you’re incoherent. I understand you quite well. I was simply trying to illustrate that broad brush insults, like unoriginal and incoherent are meaninglessly subjective, since the other person can just say the very same thing, and who’s to say who’s right? I don’t find YOUR writings or opinions to be particularly original or unique—maybe mine aren’t either—but I wouldn’t dream of using that as part of some kind of rebuttal or argument. It’s just plain rude.
You really want to challenge my patriotism? Boy, the folks on the left go bonkers if anyone does that to them. They can project to the world that our nation is divided on foreign policy right and left, weakening our hand, and still they feel they are immune to criticism on patriotic grounds. They can march in the streets by the millions carrying signs our enemies must cheer at. But unpatriotic? No way.
Yeah, I know, the sky is falling. So says Robert Kennedy from aboard his private jet burning more fuel/passenger than 99.99% of the flying public. The sky’s been falling all my life according to some, yet our standards of living and our life spans keep improving. Our government spends trillions, wastes billions, and it’s never enough. A little cut in the rate of growth of a program and it’s “draconian”.
I don’t think our country needs all that much saving. What it could use, and what I try to advocate for, is a course away from government dependency, eternal victimhood, and focusing on the negative.
BTW, you still haven’t completed your assignment writing an anti-fairness doctrine essay. Boy, those rules are a bitch, aren’t they?
I’m also eager to learn where I can get paid for infiltrating ITT. I assure you—I’m no “rich” republican, and could use the money!
Posted by Natalie on Apr 21, 2005 at 11:49 PM Hey, Natalie,
Move to Iran. They have a great theocracy going there, and they operate as a Republic. You would fit in great there.
I will not respond anymore to you because I find your viewpoints so fascistic that they do resemble not federalism in any way. Go read the “Federalist Papers”. Democracy figures in quite well with those proposals.
If the press does not offer free space to opposing issues, then it is simply a mouthpiece for a dictatorship. But since that’s what you want, I would suggest you move. Real Americans don’t want that.
Why don’t you go post on a Right-Wing Site? No one, not one person on this site agrees with you or is impressed with you. You sound just like Ann the Bitch Coulter.
The pendulum is swinging back and the Republicans days are numbered, tick, tick, tick…
Posted by Margaret on Apr 22, 2005 at 9:06 AM p.s. I looked at your links. Not impressed. Doesn’t seem like either Afghanistan or Iran are working out. Seems Karzai can’t even leave Kabul because it’s too dangerous. The Iraqi’s are saying, go home, Yankee. It is not working out, and they never asked for “democracy”. Hey, I thought you don’t want democracy! Then why is it good we force it on these people who never asked for it?
By the way, how much are you getting per hour to do this?
Posted by Margaret on Apr 22, 2005 at 9:11 AM You seem confused Margaret, about the differences between a democracy and a republic to the point of incoherently ;-) equating an Islamic republic with an American one. My point was only to remind that although obviously there are many democratic elements to our system, we do not live in a pure democracy and the founders were explicit in their arguments against such a system, in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. Indeed, the Madison quote I used previously is from Federalist #10.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
If Iranian mullahs didn’t have death squads to control how that very pro-American population expresses their opinions, I think the fairness doctrine would sound pretty useful to them. Once you have the power, it’s relatively easy to hide the true reasons for using it, so knew Kennedy and Nixon. Maybe it’s you who should move; you could alert them of this potential tool in case simply killing the opposition starts to become politically untenable.
Your main argument for the fairness doctrine seems to be that you think it’s somehow within the government’s job description to mandate how and when people express their opinions. This would probably sound good to the mullahs, or any fascist dictator, but I would contend that this kind of control, this kind of power in the hands of our government—whether Republican or Democrat—is inappropriate, and is directly counter to the intent of the founders, whose main preoccupation lest we forget—was to LIMIT the power of government.
I seem to remember some kind of phrase, I think from some early writing that goes something like: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.” It makes a hell of a lot more sense to me to say that the fairness doctrine violates THIS premise than it does to say that ANY provision of the constitution allows that women have the right to end the life of their unborn children.
How do you explain why the “mouthpiece for dictatorship” that you imagine the mainstream press to be was so incredibly hostile towards the Swift Vets, who, had they been given the attention and respect they deserved instead of being ignored and then scorned would have been a geometrically greater weapon to the benefit of their master.....George W. Bush.
How do you explain why CBS’s 60 minutes and countless others entertained Bush bashing author after Bush bashing author to the exclusion of the relevant testimony of the Swift Vets? Why did Mapes and Co. exclude from their report knowledge they had of Bush indeed volunteering to go to Vietnam on more than one occasion and of the Texas ANG indeed not having a waiting list at the time of Bush’s enlistment?
Without writing a book, simply why is it that the mainstream media, populated primarily by Democrats as reporters AND editors, did everything conceivable to prevent Bush from being reelected? Margaret, your premise about the press being somehow in Bush’s corner is simply wrong. Your foundation is unstable.
For someone who advocates for the fairness doctrine, you seem very resistant to hearing an opposing point of view. You’ve called me unoriginal, a neocon, a troll, fascistic, implied I’m unpatriotic, compared me to a bitch, and told me to shut-up and leave the country and that nobody here likes me. The last one I’ll gladly wear as a badge of honor, but the preceding I think are evidence as to your inability to defend your position on the merits, and of your need to distract from that inability.
I’m off now to that famous bastion of ultra-right wing opinion, “The Nation”. I’m gonna ask Katrina why she poses as a liberal on all those talk shows, and also why I haven’t gotten my check yet this month.
P.S. I wouldn’t venture onto certain streets in L.A. or New York either, and if I did I’d probably be told to go home, or worse.
(I know, you’re not responding)
Posted by Natalie on Apr 24, 2005 at 5:16 PM Yes, I misspoke. I meant the National Review. I have always found William F. Buckley and his son, Christopher, to have a lot of interesting viewpoints. I also like George Wills and Tony Blankley. But only agree with small portions.
As a Christian, I am called to answer to a higher authority, and the current GOP model is completely contrary to commands of Jesus. We are supposed to “care for the least of them”.
As far as my Iran comment, the People’s Republic of Iran is definitely a republic, but is constrained by a theocratic, fascistic group of mullahs. Not too far off from our country, as time is showing. But if the Libertarian idea of a “peaceful anarchy” where this no government regulation turns you on, I think you would do well in Iran. I mean, they recruit from mosques, we recruit from churches. Very little difference between the two anymore.
I just argued the Bush TANG thing on another article here, so don’t want to spend much time on it again. But Steve Gardner was shown to be a big liar. He was only on the boat with Kerry during a very short period of time (1st Purple Heart). The rest of Swift Boat got the boot from many in the media because their testimony conflicted with soldiers who actually served with Kerry. The only soldier to serve with him that protested was Gardner, and the other crew supported Kerry’s statements. And Gardner was a Republican supporting Bush. Marian Carr-Knox also stated that the documents were frauds, but the content was 100% correct. Gary Killian was a minor at the time and only went onto the base for brief periods with is mom. Marian said Killian did not discuss busy at home and they couldn’t have known what they claim. Just another whirl on the GOP spin machine. Boy, they are masters of that, I will give them that.
Anyway, best of luck persuading anyone on this site. Don’t think you’ll have much luck and are truly wasting your time. In the meanwhile, the clock ticks down for DeLay, the Americans public is pissed at the GOP about Terri Schiavo, Wall Street is pissed at the deficit, wages are flat, prices are up...boy, W sure is a “swell” president. So fun to watch the pendulum swing back to me…
Posted by Margaret Billard on Apr 24, 2005 at 6:01 PM p.s. Liberal media? On FOX News, opinions are interjected 73% of the time, on CNN or PBS, approx. 3%. Which one is trying to manipulate the news? Seems pretty obvious for the non-neofascist zombie brigaders.
Posted by Megan on Apr 24, 2005 at 6:07 PM Seems like we already have fairness… the public grew weary of the same tired, old, liberally-biased major market sources, and now we’ve got minor market conservative alternatives everywhere.
If you don’t like it, don’t tune in. What’s unfair about that?
Posted by Lee on Apr 26, 2005 at 1:48 PM Lee,
A recent media study showed that until 2004, 80% of all talk shows on the radio were conservative. I also believe that both should be available. I would like to give the American people the information and the opportunity to make up their own minds. But what talk radio has become is a major party mouthpiece, infecting pure reporting by interjecting opinion instead of fact. In another study, FOX News interjects personal opinion that leans to the far-right 73% of the time in their news coverage. In the same study, PBS and CNN were found to interject their opinion 3% of the time.
That is the complaint here. The “liberal” press was dead long ago, but it has been a political tool of the right to decry everything that contradicts their plans as liberal. It is simply not true. We deserve to hear both sides and allow Americans to make up their own minds. Don’t you agree?
Posted by Margaret on Apr 27, 2005 at 9:13 AM Margaret,
I really don’t see how the fact that most radio talk shows is interferring with anybody’s opportunity to make up their own minds. If I want a more liberal point of view I turn on TV and read the newspaper (the major papers in my area have an obvious liberal slant). When I want the other point of view I turn to radio. I, along with everyone else, are free to get two sides of the story, and make up my own mind.
I’d like to know what studies you are referring to. I did a quick google of “political bias fox abc cbs nbc cnn pbs”, and I’m having a hard time finding any study that shows the major networks (except Fax) to not have an obvious liberal bias.
The point that 80% of all talk shows on the radio are conservative is irrelavant--the companies that produce these shows saw a huge untapped market and are now producing product for that market. And as we have seen, the market happily responded.
There is nothing stopping anyone from producing more liberal talk shows to serve that market. However, so far it seems the market just isn’t there. Maybe because the market is already served via TV?
Posted by Lee on Apr 27, 2005 at 9:54 AM The fact that Air America is outperforming all conservative shows except Rush in many of its markets is proof enough that the market is there. Keith Olbermann’s show also performs quite well. No, the market is not served by the TV. The problem is that most major media owners (Murdoch, Sinclair, etc.) are unmittigated in their openly public support of conservatism. The opportunity and funding for liberal shows has not been there until recently. Now, they are starting to pop up and are, in fact, doing quite well. It’s just that when conservative misinformation is being spread on such a wide scale, it is not good for democracy. Just good for the “bottom line”.
Yes, they saw a market on jumped on it. And pure reporting of information went down the tubes. That’s why some 37% of Americans still think Sadaam co-authored 9/11.
I will look for that link for you. I read it last week, probably on oldamericancentury.org. It may take a while, but I will find it and post it.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 27, 2005 at 10:19 AM Then it should only be a matter of time for things to even out, because like you say, what’s good for the bottom line is what will be produced.
I agree, pure reporting of information has gone down the tubes. And it’s not just the conservatives dealing out trash.
I’m definitely no fan of the war, but curious that native media outlets over there tend to show far more support for our troops and efforts than the outlets here. This alone speaks volumes.
Posted by Lee on Apr 27, 2005 at 11:11 AM I forgot to add… Thanks for looking for the link! Digging through Google for truely objective studies takes a while. (No surprise.)
Posted by Lee on Apr 27, 2005 at 11:16 AM Did you serve over there? I see links for Al-jazeera online via liberal sites and it doesn’t appear there is much support. I realize they are biased to the nth degree against us, but I had several experiences in reading their “news” and then seeing it come out in our “news” weeks, months later. I have Canadian tv as well as US and the Canadian news doesn’t seem to either support or condemn the war much. BBC, of course, mostly stands up for Blair.
I haven’t found that link, but still looking. I did find this interesting article on the subject, however, not the one from last week. Will keep trying to find it again. A bit of the needle in the haystack.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/cablenews/textonly.html
Posted by Margaret on Apr 27, 2005 at 12:42 PM Just found this site, after reading a piece on the media at AlterNET. Bookmarked.
It seems to me that the Republican’s sudden indignation over the Fairness Doctrine is pretty transparent. It’s their latest offer of the classic Progressive trap. Our enemies accuse us of intolerance, so we open the doors to them (with the Fairness Doctrine). Then they use their horse-choking wads of cash to take over the property. When we point out that our views are not being treated fairly, they speak highmindedly about deregulation and the Constitution and like that. And whine occasionally about the “Liberal Media” which is roughly as big a threat to contemporary American as Genghis Khan’s Golden Horde (all dead, Neocon history buffs).
We see it in the Nuclear Option, being used because the Republicans can’t get their last 5% fisted into the courts. It was “patriotic,” a few years ago, for them to filibuster to “protect” the Constitution on 16% of Clinton’s nominees.
We see it in the shrieking and torch waving about “unpatriotic” progressives who want Tom DeLay investigated, despise George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Tony (the Finger) Scalia, and make fun of Rummie and John (No Boobs) Ashcroft. The shriekers are the same people who called the former president Slick Willie and adore a woman who suggested that someone should kill the Clintons and Tim McVeigh should have bombed the NYT. Patriots: They smear the word with ordure.
Double Standards. That’s what democracy (whether in a democracy or a republic) is NOT about. Principles are tested by applying them to things you don’t like, and Neocon “principles” fail that test every time. Freedom for MY religion, Freedom for MY press, Freedom for MY way of life. What a pretty picture it presents of the future.
Sometimes, there are consolations to being old.
Posted by Mick McAllister on Apr 28, 2005 at 6:29 AM I’m glad you responded after all, Margaret. I’m glad to learn that you’re not, after all, in danger of falling off a left leaning cliff. I like your choices in conservative commentary and thought. Hey, I even listen to Al Franken on the way home from work. He sometimes scores some points against the right, and we’re all better off for the competition. However, I think the fairness doctrine would be counter-productive in Al’s quest to expand his influence and audience. I doubt he supports the FD.
I certainly share your concern “for the least of them”, as most conservatives do. I entertain probably 3 or 4 calls a month—everyone from the Special Olympics to the food bank to the women’s shelter. I always give what I can. But I don’t think I’d be near as generous to someone calling from the Federal government asking for contributions, especially after he disclosed that approximately 90% of my contribution will need to be used for administrative costs.
The real question is how to best address our common concerns. Where we differ, it seems, is in what we think is the proper role and proportion of the federal government in the equation. I think it’s been fairly well demonstrated in U.S history and Europe today that an impersonal, removed and inefficient central bureaucracy is an ineffective and unhealthy vehicle for helping the needy. I’m no theologian, but I don’t’ think Jesus would have been for endless entitlements, given without regard to the effect such unearned largess has on one’s self-esteem, and on one’s ability or desire to ever earn his or her own way.
Your version of the Swift Vet story is far different from what I remember, but that’s beside the point. You earlier claimed that the media is a “mouthpiece for dictatorship”, and that they bamboozled us into voting for Bush. But now you rush to defend their treatment of the Swift vets. I’m growing confused.
I asked why CBS and others were so one-sided in presenting the TANG story, and how that could possibly equate with shilling for Bush. You don’t answer my question, but instead again rush to defend their anti-Bush position. More confused. You seem to be confirming my and the majority of American’s suspicion that the media is indeed biased against the right.
As I recall, Gary Killian was in his early 20’s at the time of the controversy. Marian knew what Jerry discussed with his wife at home? That’s either one nosy or one perceptive lady. And Marian’s quite partisan, you know:
“She added that she does not support Mr. Bush as president, deeming him “unfit for office” and “selected, not elected.”
Is it OK for Marion to be partisan and NOT OK for Mr. Gardener? Where’s the fairness doctrine when we need it?
I believe Gardener served longer with John Kerry than did any of his other boat-mates. Other Swift Vets, while not on his boat, were on adjacent boats a few yards away, and were in a unique and quite possibly more objective position from which to judge Kerry’s actions.
To sum up the controversy, one needs look no further than the fact that John Kerry has still not signed form 180, even after promising Tim Russert a few months ago—kind of—to do so. If he ever does that, as GWB and John O’Neil have, I will be suprised.
I don’t think I’ve ever said I didn’t want ANY government regulation. I only prefer that this country resemble what it was formed to be.....of and for the people. Not of and for and in order to increase the power of and in order to become more dependent on....the government.
No government regulation in Iran? Tell that to anyone who tries to criticize it. You’re right, Iran is a republic. Just not one that resembles ours in any way, shape, manner, or form.
I still think it should be you that should move to Iran. :-) They hate John Bolton just like you and talk just like American Democrats. You might feel right at home there.
http://tinyurl.com/d5dls
Posted by Natalie on Apr 28, 2005 at 9:24 AM Hey, we’ll put Rush on ABC News and Hannity on Fox News. We’ll put Laura Ingraham in charge of the New York Times, and Hugh Hewitt will run the L.A. Times.
50% of all college faculty and public educators must be Conservative. And all Unions must have an equal number of “Righties.”
Now that would be a fairness doctrine.
Posted by Brad on Apr 28, 2005 at 10:26 AM Natalie,
Go to this link and see what liars the Swifties were. The press treated them badly because they were slanderers whose stories did not check out. By the way, Kerry said he’ll gladly sign that form when the Swift Boat veterans do and then all of America can compare. I think that is only fair. Why should he be the only one to be put on display well after the fact. And if you check your timeline on Bush’s signing off on that, it was AFTER the press released that dozens of pages were missing from his records. It is well-known that he was AWOL on at least one occasion and admitted to his professor at Harvard that he used “daddy’s friends to avoid service in Vietnam”.
You can say what you want, bottom line--Kerry served in Vietnam and Bush avoided the draft as well as being AWOL. And really, isn’t this just a red herring for you people anyway? Let’s talk about the horrendous budget that just passed. As someone involved deeply in theology for the last 35 years, I can guarantee that this budget is so Christ-contrary, I don’t understand how the Christian Right can square with it. Jesus said to give them the shirt off your back if they asked for it, and your coat for good measure. He said if they ask you to walk half a mile with them, walk a whole mile. I would rather please God than man, so I don’t have a problem with the US spending apprx. 1% of the budget on welfare programs.
Also, why should I go to Iran? You are already facilitating a theocratic, one-party dictatorship here. Soon, we will be unable to criticize as well, I’m sure. They are a republic, just not a democratic one. We are a repulican form of democracy, but eliminate democracy (which you support), and what do you have? A theocratic, republic, just like Iran. Can I make this any clearer?
But as the numbers show, the Republicans are tanking and will take their lapdogs, the Libertarians down with them. That will be a fine day for democracy.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231
Posted by Margaret on Apr 28, 2005 at 2:31 PM Thought a little clarification on what’s really spent helping the poor would be good:
“The share of the budget going to Aid for Families with Dependent Children, the core welfare program, was less than 1 percent. Adding in food stamps, housing subsidies and other low-income programs could push this figure close to 4 percent. Less than 0.5 percent of the budget went for anything remotely resembling foreign aid.” See “Numbers Before Politics” on this site.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 28, 2005 at 3:07 PM “The fact that Air America is outperforming all conservative shows except Rush in many of its markets is proof enough that the market is there.”
Actually, Air America is struggling in most of its markets. You’d think they would be a slam dunk in places like New York and San Francisco.
- Air America’s flagship station, WLIB-AM in New York, garnered a 1.2 share in the latest quarter, down 0.1 from the year-ago period. By comparison, WABC-AM, New York’s leading conservative station, garnered a 3.8 share, up 0.1 from the year-ago period. WOR-AM, another conservative station, posted a 2.1 share, down 0.1 from the year-earlier period.
- Air America’s Boston station, WKOX-AM, got a tiny 0.6 share in the latest quarter, compared to a 4.3 share at WTKK-FM and a 4.0 share at WRKO-AM, both of which are conservative.
- Air America’s San Diego station, KLSD-AM, got a 1.9 share, up from 1.5 in the year-ago quarter. A respectable performance. By comparison, KOGO-AM, San Diego’s conservative station, garnered a 5.5 share, up from 5.2 in the year-earlier period.
- Air America’s Philadelphia affiliate, WHAT-AM, garnered a 0.8 market share in the latest quarter, down 0.1 from the year-earlier period. By comparison, Philadelphia’s conservative station, WPHT-AM, posted a 4.1 market share, up smartly from 3.2 in the year-earlier period.
- In Providence, Maloney reports, ratings at WHJJ-AM plunged after it replaced its conservative line-up with Air America, from a 3.5 share of the 12 and older audience to a 2.6 share. Meanwhile, Maloney says Providence’s conservative station, WPRO-AM, “saw a surge during the survey period from a 4.4 to a 5.1 audience share.”
Arbitron figures released this afternoon (March 2) show Air America’s San Francisco station, KQKE-AM, garnering a 1.0 share in the latest quarter, down sharply from a 2.4 share in the same quarter a year ago. The slot switched from oldies to Air America last fall.
Posted by Campesino on Apr 28, 2005 at 4:19 PM “Keith Olbermann’s show also performs quite well”
It does? These are this weeks numbers:
Wednesday Ratings: Raw Numbers
For all the talk about CNN’s ratings successes, Wednesday’s numbers show FNC’s clear dominance:Total day, total viewers: FNC: 845,000 / CNN: 372,000 / MSNBC: 175,000
Total day, 25-54: FNC: 291,000 / CNN: 93,000 / MSNBC: 52,000
Primetime, total viewers: FNC: 1,851,000 / CNN: 780,000 / MSNBC: 307,000
Primetime, 25-54: FNC: 481,000 / CNN: 172,000 / MSNBC: 90,000
MSNBC is limping in a poor third. Prime time, when Olberman is on Fox has six times the number of viewers he does.
Posted by Campesino on Apr 28, 2005 at 4:30 PM Tell me, is ClearChannel well-known for its liberal perspective in the media? I listen to Air America daily and frequently you hear a new station opening up and people calling in so delighted to have non-neocon radio. Yes, I heard they moved the morning show to nights in SF. But it’s still on. Also, who are they polling, and where is your substantiation? Provide the data, in detail, please.
And also, you completely changed the subject.
I have noticed that you righties feel very threatened by this site. Thanks for letting me know that I’m in the right place. I’m not worried about Air America, MoveOn, CommonCause, etc. When trolls like you spend days on a progressive site, when you watch Republican approval ratings tank, you know you’re on the right path. Thanks, Campesino!
Posted by Margaret on Apr 28, 2005 at 4:36 PM “I am not new to this and I can advise you that Republicans actually pay people, who are called trolls (though not all trolls are paid), to come onto progressive sites and disrupt the dialogue.”
Do you really believe this? I hear it alluded to all the time on liberal sites. What would the GOP hope to accomplish by something like this? It would seem to me to be an utter waste of time and money. What would it really accomplish? Also, I have never read the counter allegation made on conservative sites: ie that the Democrats pay people to troll on conservative sites.
Have you ever seen any factual corroboration of this? I have seen this referred to so much it really intrigues me.
Posted by Campesino on Apr 28, 2005 at 4:49 PM Tell me, is ClearChannel well-known for its liberal perspective in the media?
Actually, ClearChannel put Air America on the air here where I live.
Posted by Campesino on Apr 28, 2005 at 4:52 PM Also, who are they polling, and where is your substantiation?
Those are the Arbitron ratings that the whole industry uses. Ask them who they poll.
Posted by Campesino on Apr 28, 2005 at 4:54 PM Do you really believe this? I hear it alluded to all the time on liberal sites. What would the GOP hope to accomplish by something like this?
Absolutely. They can accomplish exactly what every other troll who comes on a progressive site does--break the continuity of discussion and throw out red herrings to make sure real facts that would be damaging to their cause are not seen. Take Condi’s little, “gonna hide these statistics” trick yesterday. Or the “gee, the Prez never signed any such papers” regarding the plans for possibly invading Iran after this June, when it was verified from a top-ranked cabinet member to Scott Ritter.
That’s what they hope to do, lie, cover up, take off track and deceive. And everyone on this site is well aware of that.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 28, 2005 at 5:06 PM No, I mean something like someone claiming to having been paid by the GOP to do it. Not just an assertion that it happens.
Posted by Campesino on Apr 28, 2005 at 5:26 PM “There are lies, and then there are statistics”
Everyone knows that. Arbitron ratings are industry standard and used to calculate advertising rates.
Posted by Campesino on Apr 28, 2005 at 5:29 PM “And also, you completely changed the subject”
I did? I thought this was about the Fairness Doctrine and I was replying to your earlier post that asserted Air America et al. were doing just fine in their ratings.
Posted by Campesino on Apr 28, 2005 at 5:32 PM “In New York during April, Air America attracted more listeners in the 25-to-54-year-old demographic from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. than did WABC, where the popular Limbaugh is heard. Air America also beat WABC among the 18-to-34-year-old group. That’s specifically intriguing to many in the business because talk radio typically draws an older audience. “
That isn’t the recent poll, but I would not count Air America out yet. I think, as Republicans will tell you after the last election, polls don’t mean a lot. Of course, if you follow the paper trail on that one, Bush didn’t really win anyway. See “Corrupted Election” on this site. You know how you can tell he’s lying, right. His lips are moving.
You may be a anti-democracy individual, Campesino, but I believe both sides should be able to discuss their beliefs without harrassment from the opposing view. That’s why you should move on. Go to Salon, where they have right views posted on the right, and the left...If you want to know what we believe, go there where you can follow it instead of trying to destroy it.
In our local paper, they often have Ann Coulter and Molly Irvins on the same page. But they, in an effort to provide both sides, don’t interview them live and together. You should take a hint from that. I read both, though I have no respect for Ann. She is crass beyond belief.
So, if you want a one-party dictatorship, continue to support the Republicans. It’s clearly where they want to go. Shame on you.
Yes, you changed the subject because I was talking with Natalie about her distorted Libertarian viewpoint. If you don’t want democracy, leave.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 28, 2005 at 7:46 PM The first thing I noticed when reading this thread is the loose if not completely useless definition of the phrase “free press.” Everyone seems to think their opinion of what the media should express is what a free press would look like.
Arguing a point is useless if everyone in the group on the face of their arguments wants the same thing. Arguing a point is nearly impossible if nobody in the group agrees on what exactly the words in the arguments mean. Let’s settle this once and for all if we wish to have any sort of coherent discussion.
Free speech and free press means anyone has the right to say or publish anything not considered a “speech act” directly inciting the comission of a crime (in other words yelling fire in a crowded theater or telling your followers to murder Sharon Tate)
The blog itself is set up to be a liberal/leftist media outlet. Therefore as a proponent of the fairness doctrine Margaret should be the first to thank Natalie and Campesino for sharing their conflicting viewpoints. Without them, her media outlet would be free but “unfair” by her own standards.
Natalie and Campesino should think for a second about that. You claim free speech is the right to say exactly what you want in your own media outlet so long as there is a sufficient audience to keep the outlet supported by the free market.
There is clearly a market to keep this outlet functioning as liberal/leftist, so by your own standards you should either not offer your contrasting viewpoints or accept it as well as take satisfaction when the hosts delete your posts immediately. Of course, I don’t think that actually happens but I’ll take your word for it since you say it has. What gives you the right to come into this media outlet and promote contrasting viewpoints, or complain if you aren’t allowed to do so, considering your viewpoint is that media outlets shouldn’t have to take contrasting viewpoints?
I think that’s what Margaret meant by “internet sources” vs. FOX News. The internet doesn’t have call screeners or preset programs where people selected for their viewpoints are given the freedom to express those viewpoints without interuption for hours on end. And yes, FOX News does have better ratings than whatever liberal stations might be on in your neighborhood. OK. And?
So long as there’s enough of an audience to keep a station alive, it’s just as valid and has just as much of a right to its own views as every other station. In each and every city in America Rap and Hip Hop stations are more popular than all the rock and roll stations combined. Spanish language stations are more popular in most large cities than all the other non-Spanish stations combined for both tv and radio. Does that mean they’re better? Should we all like rap and speak Spanish like Gerardo because that’s what a free press must be? A press where only the majority and those who own the station or paper have a right to their preferences and opinions?
No Way! Free press means Everyone who wants to may express whatever they want. What you can say is unlimited, but nobody said it was always going to be without conflicting opinion. You want to argue on this blog about how you don’t like conflicting viewpoints? Great if not contradictory. You want to get rid of dissenters to your blog about how dissent is patriotic? Same problem.
Freedom of speech is the freedom to say whatever you want. Its antithesis is the freedom to go unchallenged. We all say we want free speech, have at it by all means. Just please do it justice by actually saying something.
Posted by Tina on Apr 28, 2005 at 8:30 PM Very well put, Tina. I agree with you.
It just gets frustrating when conservative talkshows, newspapers, and tv news rule the media. There are precious few places to connect with other progressives. One can debate all day long with conservatives just in daily life. So finding a place where you can get input from other progressives, see what they’ve found out lately, is not easy.
Then you get disingenuous conservatives coming on who really just want to muddy the waters, disrupt the thread. It’s just irritating because they bully. So, it’s not that I mind rational discussion of viewpoints, I just don’t like people whose prime motive is chaos.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 29, 2005 at 9:03 AM “There is clearly a market to keep this outlet functioning as liberal/leftist, so by your own standards you should either not offer your contrasting viewpoints or accept it as well as take satisfaction when the hosts delete your posts immediately. Of course, I don’t think that actually happens but I’ll take your word for it since you say it has. What gives you the right to come into this media outlet and promote contrasting viewpoints, or complain if you aren’t allowed to do so, considering your viewpoint is that media outlets shouldn’t have to take contrasting viewpoints?”
1. I have never had a post deleted here and have never said anything about it.
2. I have never said that In These Times should publish conservative articles in their print or on-line versions of the magazine if they don’t want to. I do believe in freedom of the press. The comments section of an on-line magazine, like this one, is more like a letter to the editor section of a newspaper. If you are going to keep the forum open like this, you should be prepared for contrasting viewpoints. If In These Times wants to set up a registration screen and keep some posters out, such as dKos and DemocraticUnderground, they can do that too.
I find it somewhat sad that many commenters here only want to talk to people that they agree with. I find it interesting and stimulating to talk to people who don’t agree with me.
I always do my best to be respectful and polite here and never use profanity. I try to make my comments fact based. I find many commenters here asserting “common wisdom” that just isn’t true and try to point that out in a polite way.
Posted by Campesino on Apr 29, 2005 at 10:20 AM You want to argue on this blog about how you don’t like conflicting viewpoints?
I have never said that and don’t believe it
Posted by Campesino on Apr 29, 2005 at 10:21 AM You may be a anti-democracy individual, Campesino,
I am not an anti-democracy individual. Just because I disagree with you on some issues doesn’t mean I don’t believe in this country as a democratic republic. I would not accuse you of being anti-democratic for diagreeing with me
Posted by Campesino on Apr 29, 2005 at 10:32 AM Margaret said “righties feel threatened by this site"…
heh heh.. man, I can’t help myself, I wish there were 100,000 sites exactly like this, and I wish writers like Susan Douglas were on TV 24/7 airing their viewpoints..
because if there were, the liberal minority would become so much more minor, you’d have to wear hats with lights on them…
Why do you suppose liberal radio suffers and conservative radio prospers? Is it an evil plot?
snort.
if people listen, radio works, and if they don’t listen, it doesn’t. Conservative radio draws a usefully large audience, liberal radio draws flies. End of story.
There are all kinds of reasons why, but they don’t matter. The story ends with the audience figures… conservative radio 10,000, Err Amerika 000.0001.
Posted by dave on May 2, 2005 at 4:31 PM As Tina said,
So long as there’s enough of an audience to keep a station alive, it’s just as valid and has just as much of a right to its own views as every other station. In each and every city in America Rap and Hip Hop stations are more popular than all the rock and roll stations combined. Spanish language stations are more popular in most large cities than all the other non-Spanish stations combined for both tv and radio. Does that mean they’re better? Should we all like rap and speak Spanish like Gerardo because that’s what a free press must be? A press where only the majority and those who own the station or paper have a right to their preferences and opinions?
Numbers don’t matter, Dave. Conservative shows have been gaining audience for over a decade, Air America, one year. Don’t compare apples to oranges.
The fact is, you Republicans are doing an EXCELLENT job of shooting yourself in the foot right now. Thanks for doing so much work in our favor!
Posted by Margaret on May 3, 2005 at 10:33 AM Margaret, bless you for fighting.
But these guys lie and spin.
Arbitron ratings “expert” doesn’t know what he’s speaking of (or understand the radio business).
That said, Margaret, quit hawking George Will and other “thinkers” on the right.
You don’t help your own cause.
Al Franken’s an idiot.
The sooner we (the left) send him packing, the better. He’s the Drag King version of Cokie Roberts, a useless tool minus the pearls.
The fact that some of your right wing challenger’s like him should demonstrate to you how watered-down and weak he is. (Truly the worst thing about Air America.)
Susan J. Douglas is a great writer. Margaret, ignore the trolls who try to trash you or throw out phoney “statistics.” They lie.
It’s what they do.
Posted by Dona on May 5, 2005 at 11:41 AM “throw out phoney “statistics.” They lie.”
What’s phoney about Arbitron?
“Al Franken’s an idiot”
I think he is very bright, but he comes across as boring on the radio, too low energy for that medium
Posted by Campesino on May 5, 2005 at 5:08 PM Dona,
Thanks for the kudos. I disagree, however, about not reading “right” viewpoints. Every general will tell you, to fight effectively, you must know your enemy. That’s how I prepare.
Not only that, George Will has, as of late, been very critical of the conservatives’ approach and is stating he thinks they are on the wrong foot with trying to legislate a theocracy. In an editorial I read the other day, he said he was irritated with the drive to “corrupt” the Constitution.
In a battle like we’re currently involved in, you need to take defectors from the enemy into your troops when you can. WE need to utilitze attacks from within their own ranks.
Now journalist wannabee’s like Rush and Ann, forget it. They never say anything that doesn’t stink like a week old fish. Wouldn’t waste my time.
Posted by Margaret on May 6, 2005 at 9:45 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Susan J. Douglas
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
