about two weeks ago Sen Harkin made the point that there is no balance on american armed forces radio. I believe this is the perfect example of right wing media control. That there is no real liberal media, that it is basically a Miltiary Industrial Complex and Righty owned message out there with a few exceptions like AAR. I think Randi Rhodes would be a perfect VET without any criminal convictions or drug problems to be on the air. She was also a former outstanding serviceperson of the year for her branch.

Harkin



So the question for debate are,

a show like Rushs, does it fit the criteria for "fair and balanced" as required by mandate?

Is not one minute of any liberal show and 62 hours of conservative shows a demonstration that the media is right biased in another area?

Should the amount of time be equally split between the parties or is there a better way?

a show like Rushs, does it fit the criteria for "fair and balanced" as required by mandate?

What mandate? You must be thinking of O'Reilly. Here is the armed forces radio and television services home page. Find that "fair and balanced mandate" if you can. Should our military members be able to listen to Rush if they choose to? I think so.

Is not one minute of any liberal show and 62 hours of conservative shows a demonstration that the media is right biased in another area?

I don't understand this question. Military members are largely a conservative group. Their radio reflects this, as that is where the demand is.

Should the amount of time be equally split between the parties or is there a better way?

Not unless the military members themselves want it. It certainly shouldn't be forced on them by big brother Harkin.

a show like Rushs, does it fit the criteria for "fair and balanced" as required by mandate?
Here is what AFRTS has to say about it's program acquisition:

Rush's show fits the criteria of entertainment to be sure, and of popularity. Harkin states: “American Forces Radio is funded by taxpayers – conservatives, liberals and moderates alike, unfortunately, it is failing to provide balanced representation of political viewpoints on its airwaves to American service members around the world.” What exactly is the difference between AFN and NPR which is also broadcast on AFN? Like it or not for liberals, NPR is considered by many *ahem* 'rightys' and moderates to be of a left leaning.

Is not one minute of any liberal show and 62 hours of conservative shows a demonstration that the media is right biased in another area?
After reading Harkins amendment and reading the AFN Radio program lineup, I am left puzzled as to what he considers 'conservative' enough to garner 62 hours. I think that to an extent, AFRTS does what commercial radio does: Find out what their audience wants and try to give it to them. Rush is listened to by millions daily (though not normally by this poster), and I don't see a problem with his show being broadcast.
BTW, Rush is played on AFN Radio from 0906 to 1000 weekdays. Thats a whopping 54 minutes not including any breaks. Oh the humanity!

Should the amount of time be equally split between the parties or is there a better way?
I would actually support a 'lefty' program on AFN. I listen to AAR occasionally, mostly for comedic value, but I listen nonetheless. Randi is just as shrill as Rush, so she would be a fine choice.
In reality, however, this is just another occasion of 'have they nothing better to do?' Most soldiers who have the time and the tactical situation for leisure, often either plug into an MP3 player or log onto the 'net. AFN simply doesn't reach the audience that it thinks it does, thanks to technology. You can read many posts from and blogs by liberal servicemembers from combat zones today, showing that information of all stripes is pretty widely available. I know that doesn't jive with the whole 'military-industrial Complex and Righty owned message' theory, but speaking from experience, Rush simply isn't turning America's young men and women into Republican zombies.

so if they want to listen to David Duke do we pipe that in?

Someone made me back that statement up, so can you. But then should we use their numbers from the last election to to split the time by percentage. But if they actually heard other points of view is it possible they will know more and might vote more liberal? My brother a ex-grunt was always annoyed at the right wing propaganda that was peer pressured on him as a serviceman. That in his opinion troops are indoctrinated to hate americans.


so it is forced on them by big brother bush is Ok with you.

Only if NPR programming is split the same way. You seem to labor under this assumption that soldiers get no other information than from AFRTS. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines get the same information that you do, allowing of course for the time they get to spend perusing news.
Kudos to your brother for serving, but I am left wondering what formed his opinions of 'hating Americans'. Certainly it can't be Rush or NPR, maybe Paul Harvey?

Having met many military folks, I know first hand many of those folks I met have right leaning political philosophies. It would only make sense really that a military force of a particular nation be rather nationalist to a certain extent. The right of Americas political side claims utter patriotism and beats that drum almost constantly and uses a paintbrush to make other parties seem lesser in that arena. So if people then follow that line, they will by choice maybe want to listen to right leaning media or shows or so on.

I do know that not all military personal are of that particular culture though, and it would be rather lame to be constantly reduced to only having such as input if you are into television, or radio, or whatever else medium is used, so for that I could support such, but that standardization only goes so far.

If America actually practiced, or made federal every religions holy days, then I don’t know if kids would get much school time in, or if the work forces would ever see that much work. That’s also not taking into account every person or idea some would like to celebrate with a holiday. Basically the point I am trying to induce is rather simple, standardization takes away I guess individuality. If 95% of the military wants to listen to rush, then I guess that show should be played. I also know that the military, even though fights for American rights like freedom does not express such constantly. Like if you use a computer of theirs, you do become limited on what you can view, even if the computer is not used for work. Many things like what can be labeled the occult, or so on you cannot look at from a military computer, which I always thought was a bit odd., even like if it’s a common musical groups site.

Basically it was that which gave me a big turn off to the military, it does not seem to represent liberty and freedom in an internal sense, and I don’t mean simply because you signed your life away on a contract, just little things here and there I have heard about only.

Now if something can be shown, that only shows with a politically right leaning were being showed, then I could give such more credit, or if most all the shows were of that then I might still also consider it wrong I guess. As far as NPR being liberal, ha! That show is moderate, at best. I do listen to it, and I know the diversity of stuff you can listen to on there, and the many points of view, which sad to say do not form some uniform opinion saying vote liberal. I think again its more of the psychological operation employed by the right, anything unknown or different is obviously liberal and then anti-American. Oh, last but not least, vote for the natural law party in your state!

I am disappointed in your view of anti-individualism in the military, as I find it not to be the case, but I want to clarify one point.
The restriction of using military computers for work only, and not surfing porn or occult sites, is akin to any corporate internet policy, and not some nefarious scheme to strip away free thinking. This is of course, an attempt to limit slacking during duty hours. In combat zones and some overseas locations, internet access is limited and supplied by the military primarily for official purposes. But, in most peacetime locations and stateside, a soldier can view whatever they wish to on a personal computer in their barracks room or on-post quarters.

The same premise goes for political websites. Computers provided in combat zones for soldiers to use, by and large are enabled to surf any political or news site one wishes. If these are located in an open area, pornography may be blocked, as is in public library's, so as not to offend other soldiers.

One would think that if there was such a devious plan at work to limit exposure to opposition views, this would also extend to soldiers internet surfing abilities.

Tom Harkin is a liar, so I'm not sure why I should listen to what he says about this or any other subject. For that matter, I've listened to Randi Rhodes and she continues to peddle long-discredited conspiracy theories, mis-stating even the most basic economic statistics and musing about assassinating the President,, so I guess that makes her "the perfect VET."

As for the bill, dtom is totally right - soldiers, in their free time, listen to sports, local news from home, even the wonderful Air America Radio! right on the internet through free high-speed networks on their personal computers. Complaining about the programming on armed-forces radio 'brainwashing' troops is like saying whatever is on ABC, NBC and CBS is 'brainwashing' America's Debate participants. May as well complain about the price of buggy whips.

If anyone here actually cares about our soldiers being influenced by the media, I suggest that you check out Project Valour - IT, which seeks to provide voice-activated laptops for injured soldiers who need them. That way, everyone gets uncensored information that they need.

a show like Rushs, does it fit the criteria for "fair and balanced" as required by mandate?

Not by the *proposed* mandate.

Is not one minute of any liberal show and 62 hours of conservative shows a demonstration that the media is right biased in another area?

Yes, this particular medium is right-biased.

Should the amount of time be equally split between the parties or is there a better way?

Stop government funding and let the radio stations sink or swim in the open marketplace. Sound familiar? What's good for NPR is good for AFRTS.

But wait a minute. Military audiences don't have the kind of money that civilian audiences have. So radio has to be government-funded in an economic situation that is all government-funded anyway.

Should AFRTS be balanced on politics? I don't see the point. As stated, choosing the military as a career path is pretty much going over to the right side of politics. Maybe some people don't think so, but consider why the military exists in the first place: nationalism (protect the nation), conflict (has to always be bad guys out there), limited civil rights (soldiers give up a bunch of them), strict lines of command (nature of military), conformity (uniforms, regulations). Well, it starts going into a chicken/egg argument.

Besides, we are eternally in a state of war. Nobody wants to hear someone ranting away about how the job is wrong. At the least, folks doing the job want someone to say that it's a valid job. If someone says that those criticizing the job are wrong-headed, all the better. And if it goes over the top, hooo-yah.

So, we know that AFRTS cannot exist without government funding, nor can the military. That's just how it works. And we also know that introducing Air America programs by mandate will just irritate the listeners. Therefore, what's the real point, if there is one? Liberalize the military? Isn't that like trying to change the leopard's spots?

Wait a minute again. Kerry served in combat. Bush did not, but he did serve in a way. Limbaugh did not serve, but Rhodes did. Reagan didn't serve, but Carter did, as a high officer even. So how many liberals really are in the AFRTS audience? Oh, I know, check out the voting trends for the military, if one can determine that in a system that's supposed to be a secret ballot. No, wait, do a survey! Except it might not be honest, given the environment. Or maybe folks turn liberal after experiencing combat.

Well, I suppose if balance is wanted, the AFRTS will hear about it. Or not, maybe it's smart to keep quiet in the military. On this bill, keeping quiet might be politically smart as well. Imagine, a liberal soldier. What could be more counter-intuitive?

I don't know anyone in the states who listens to AFRTS. THis media outlet is mainly for those deployed overseas. It is an entertainment and news source, so the military and their dependents can listen to (and view) one channel while living in a foreign country. It isn't like in the states, where we have a bazillion channels to choose from any time we wish. I think it should reflect the customer base, since it is (ostensibly) for them.

Frankly, I'm sick of the tampering. Frist, we have the 'Military Honor and Decency Act', so all "explicit" magazines were removed from military stores overseas. Now we have the call for "political balance on American forces media programming", regardless of what the folks themselves want. These are big boys and girls. While we are watching our satellite television and listing to any channel we want to and simultaneously sending them in harm's way, and stationing their families in third world armpit locations, the least we can do is offer programming on that one little channel that they like to listen to and watch. Howard Stern should be on, too....oh, wait! That would probably violate the aforementioned "decency act".

There is a lot of misinformation floating around here. This whole issue arose because the Ed Schulz talk show had been selected to be carried by Armed Forces Radio and was suddenly cancelled the day before it was to begin being carried by AFR. Ed Schulz is a moderate progressive who began broadcasting out of Fargo, ND. His show is carried by some stations that are primarily outlets for Air America Radio but he is not part of AAR and is carried independently by other stations. (To bring up carrying someone like Randy Rhodes is a complete non sequitur). The sudden reversal of the decision for AFR radio to carry Ed's show was almost certainly an example of political interference in the decision making at AFR and prompted Senator Harkin's interference. His proposal was supported by a large number of letters from active military personnel and statistics on listenership.

A larger issue is buried in the above discussion. Throughout most of the history of the American Republic a large standing military was considered dangerous to the Republic. In the Cold War it came to be regarded as essential for defense but many like President Eisenhower warned against the domination of a "military industrial complex." When Nixon eliminated the draft to undermine the anti Vietnam War protests, many of us warned against the domination of the military by a narrow political viewpoint that might become dangerous to democracy without the check of a draftee base drawn from the general population. Now some of you are arguing that it is OK to narrow that political perspective even more by limiting the variety of opinion that volunteer troops have the opportunity to hear.

P.S.
Rush Limbaugh is every bit as extreme right as Randy Rhodes is on the left and far less factually based! He is also a "recovering" drug adict. Any true balance by AFR would drop his show or carry something to balance it from the left like Thom Hartmann. (Listen here).

I'd love to read what "right-wing" propaganda was pressured on anyone in the service. The military, as conservative as its members typically are, is generally apolitical as a group. For instance, there aren't pro-party flyers running around the barracks, etc. Your brother was an "ex-grunt"??? That's not a particularly encouraging label for anyone to wear... and to a certain extent insinuates bias in itself; as if people in combat arms units are ignorant?

Your statement about David Duke really doesn't make any valid point, in that Rush Limbaugh isn't an ex-Klansman, but rather just someone you disagree with. If Rush's show didn't garner listeners, it wouldn't be played. I would liken Rush to someone like Al Franken. Would you make such a comment if Al Franken was on the AFN? lol... come on. It's just not the same.

I think the inability for the left to garner military votes has nothing to do with radio broadcasting, but rather the history of military cutbacks, poor records on defense, and the overall subversive feeling that the DNC gives most veterans. The military, historically, attracts and propagates "conservative" valued people; in that it frowns on homosexuals within the ranks, is anti-drug use, requires a polished outward appearance, promotes nuclear families, is pro-religion (for obvious reasons),etc...

Rush Limbaugh didn't use drugs that are any worse than what JFK was using when he caused the Bay of Pigs... hmm....but JFK is still the flag-bearing liberal hero??? Oh, and Rush doesn't even hold public office...

Secondly, less factually based is purely your opinion, and frankly I'd love to see some objective information to prove your point. Good luck.

yes there sure is a lot of 'misinformation' out there - Remember, Tom Harkin's amendment to the 2005 defense authorization bill was a "balance" effort started to get rid of Rush Limbaugh, NOT to add Ed Schultz... and it happened in June of last year, not in response to the non-addition of Ed Schultz' show.



Hmm, the article I linked says that Jim Hightower, "The liberal Rush" and "America's #1 populist" is carried on AFR. I confirmed this by checking the schedule myself.

I'd like to echo Mrs. P's point on 'decency' - what a misguided attempt to ensure 'morality' among our troops. This has not seemed to have a measurable effect, as entire companies are torn apart as they impregnate half the female soldiers in theater overseas. Perhaps if the "grunts" had access to Playboy for a little relief, this would be less prevalent...

aevans176,

Phew, a lot of propaganda in that paragraph. Let's see,

1. How does anyone know which way the military vote goes in a system of secret ballots? Are military votes marked in some way? I suppose one can infer from absentee votes, but how does a civilian absentee vote differ in looks from a military one, especially when stationed states side? Can we say that most absentee votes from, say Iraq, are military when so many civilian contractors are now used in the military?

2. The Bush administration and the Republican Congress are okay with military base closings. The Colorado Springs area is about to enjoy an economic push due to relocated military from closed bases elsewhere.

3. What poor record on defense? President Bush's team is now reminding us that Democratic leadership was all for the war in Iraq, due to the threat of WMD of course, and that posed a clear/present danger, remember? Pretty strong record on defense there, don't you agree? Or were they all just taken for a ride, as most citizens now believe.

4. Most of the vets that I know don't feel that the DNC is subversive. Take a look -- more veteran leaders in the DNC than the RNC. Also, more sympathy for vets in the DNC than the RNC. By vet, I mean combat vet, not a states-side tour. Meanwhile, the Republican leaders who are combat vets seem to be McCain-styled moderates.

5. Frowns on homosexuals in the ranks, but everyone knows they are there; anti-drug use, yet feeds speed to pilots (present fact) and probably others in combat; requires a polished outward appearance when not doing the job, otherwise pretty piggish in the field for training or when actually doing the job; promotes nuclear families (?!) by paying so low that welfare has to be used; and is so pro-religion that the AFA had to be taken to task for proselytizing too much. Seems that some cadets aren't evangelical Christians and don 't like being harassed about it.

Well, this indicates to me that there is plenty of right-wing propaganda out there, and by propaganda, I mean promoting notions that are not supported by the facts. I have no doubt that military radio does this, but from other posts, I now doubt whether the listeners really appreciate being preached to in such a condescending manner. It might be different if all were bright-eyed 19-year-olds without a clue, but the age range runs upward past 50 years of age.

I've noticed that people past this age don't appreciate the condescending attitudes of propagandists. I think it actually starts at 30 for many, and earlier for some.

DTOM;



Well, if you read what I posted then you may not feel like that to a certain extent. First I said non work related computers were like that, not work related, but I guess being they are owned and offered up by the army they can put any stipulations on them. Its not porn, thank you for the reference though. I also said I did not like the bill as much as it would strip individuality that is lost on many levels already, more so if you happen to be deployed in some form. I also never said some devious plan, or some conspiracy. I did ask for stats or something factual to be displayed, like percentages of those that like the current lineup and the lineup, in the form of I don’t know those facts.

As far as the DNC and the RNC, what does that have to do with this directly. Its about what troops are able to listen to when restricted to certain mediums for information, which does not directly related to the internet, save for some small things. Plus, the experience for those in the military will differ, simply from the aspect of maybe what installation you have been assigned too, to who happens to be your chain of command in reaction to the soldier, but that is also not totally related to the thread.

whyshouldi, maybe we are suffering from some miscommunication. My point was that in the military, computers that are either for official use only, or personal computers that a soldier hooks up to the internet using official phone or broadband lines, are subject to the same level of restriction that is in place in numerous companies. In other words, one is restricted from shopping Ebay, surfing porn, using Peer to Peer programs, etc...
When government provided computers are supplied for morale purposes in combat zones, some of those same restrictions may still apply. Personal computers in barracks or on post quarters are not subject to any of those restrictions, no matter what installation one is assigned to.

In either above case, whether official or personal, the only restriction I have seen regarding perusing political sites, news sites or blogs, are that they may not be surfed during duty hours depending on the unit, if on a work computer.
I'm still left puzzled as to how so many people have outdated, or narrow views regarding the information available to troops. AFRTS is simply not the factor that Harkin or others would like to think it is. The television provided is far more popular because in many cases, it is the only english speaking channel available, but AFN radio is a throwback to the days before nearly every soldier deployed with walkmans, CD and MP3 players. I am accused on occasion of making more out of a subject than is reasonable, and I think that is the case here, from my perspective.
Rush being broadcast for 54 minutes a day during the week, on the radio, when not forced to or likely have the time to listen to it, is clearly not a threat to liberal soldiers. Usually, even while deployed, a normal work call formation takes place around 0900 to start work for the day. Rush comes on at 0906 until 1000. Who exactly, other than night shift personnel, is able to listen to Rush in large numbers?


I did not mention the DNC or RNC, but the devious plan remark was in reference to the opening post, not yours.

My statement about Duke was not saying I am aware Rush is a racist, but where do we draw the line. Should we let them listen to convicted criminals? If it is anti drug you would not have a recovering drug addict on. getting the lions share of the vote is possible, in many cases they enter the military from poor backgrounds which tend to be more liberal in nature. As was the case with my brother he was upset with the method of them teaching them to hate some Americans.

I have said this before, I have a university of illinois frat brother who is a officer in the air force presently running missions in Iraq. He stated to me if you out yourself in the military as a liberal it is basically the end of your career. I believe this to be meant as an officer. My frat brother hates liberals. And I agree it is about 9-1 ratio there vs enlisted.

as far as my brother being a grunt he is darn proud of it. And I of him. As well as every generation of my family has volunteered, from grandfather, father, all uncles and my brother. I can say my for sure my father and brother would have hated to listen to Rush. We are liberals, father PhD, brother/grunt has masters degree.

Your argument of it didn't generate listeners could be used with the righty always saying the media is liberal. that same argument could be turned your direction. But I have posted in other threads the ownership is right wing of the vast majority of the media. And the right wing uses this to fire liberals in the media and control the message. That is why the MIC has purchased so much media.

Rush Limbaugh once said "if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up." His addiction and illegal procurement of Oxycontin should meet his own criteria but of course he wasn't talking about rich people like himself.

Here are a few more examples of Limbaugh's distortions. I will be glad to debate any one of them.

"Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical and insensitive corporations in history.... Mankind can't possibly equal the output of even one eruption from Pinatubo, much less 4 billion years' worth of them, so how can we destroy ozone?"

"Don't let the liberals deceive you into believing that a decade of sustained growth without inflation in America [in the '80s] resulted in a bigger gap between the haves and the have-nots. Figures compiled by the Congressional Budget Office dispel that myth." (Ought to Be, p. 70)

REALITY: CBO figures do nothing of the sort. Its numbers for after-tax incomes show that in 1980, the richest fifth of our country had eight times the income of the poorest fifth. By 1989, the ratio was more than 20 to one.

"It has not been proven that nicotine is addictive, the same with cigarettes causing emphysema [and other diseases]." (Radio show, 4/29/94)

REALITY: Nicotine's addictiveness has been reported in medical literature since the turn of the century. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop's 1988 report on nicotine addiction left no doubts on the subject; "Today the scientific base linking smoking to a number of chronic diseases is overwhelming, with a total of 50,000 studies from dozens of countries," states Encyclopedia Britannica's 1987 "Medical and Health Annual."

All examples are from Limbaugh Errors.

One could go on endlessly. Their is a whole literature devoted to his distortions of facts. As this site states,



JFK is not my "liberal hero." I know there is controversy about his health and drug treatment but it was all under doctors' supervision and aside from the Bay of Pigs invasion, his judgement appears to have been sound. If you want to debate the invasion itself we will need another topic. Suffice here to say that it was organized in the Eisenhower Administration with heavy involvement by Nixon. In any case, JFK has nothing to do with Limbaugh.

That is quite plainly false. Could we please put this myth to rest? Officer and Senior NCO promotions are conducted at Department of the Army/Navy/AF level. An officers promotion packet does not contain political information, and it is highly unlikely that a member of the promotion board has ever set eyes on those who's file appear before them. Evaluation reports likewise contain no room for ambiguity. If a commander tried to falsify performance ratings based on political views, then it would be caught by the Senior Rater and/or the Reviewer, if not appealed by the rated officer themselves. Performance must be quantified. Maybe, just maybe the Air Force works differently and fraud and corruption are rampant, punishing those who hold certain political views, but I would bet Mrs Pigpen could verify that it doesn't.

If a leader 'outs' themselves as either a conservative or a liberal, then they deserve to be ostracized. Professional leaders do not espouse their political views to subordinates or attempt to convert, persuade or coerce. If someone does this, they should be reprimanded and their career should take a hit. Anecdotaly, the only time in 19 years that I received *ahem* 'guidance' as to how I should vote, was while attending Equal Opportunity School, and was told that we should vote for Gore because he supported Affirmative Action. I did what any good soldier should do and reported this to her superior, as an example of unprofessional behavior.

Having said all the above, I will reiterate that I would likely listen to Randi Rhodes before Rush, and don't have any issue with the inclusion of a liberal talk show. Rush's impact on soldiers is virtually nil.

Not to nit pick and be contrary, but I really don't think this is true. Yes, the military folks in higher ranks are largely conservative, but the lower enlisted (in my experience and dh's) are probably at least 50-50...and with the situation as it is in Iraq, more and more of those young undecided enlisted folks who are currently seeing what's really going on over there are leaning toward the left. This is from dh's mouth, so that's about as "from the horse's mouth" as I can get.

As for the main topic, I think it's pretty darn obvious that the military EXPECTS you to be both conservative and Christian. I mean, liberal views aren't exactly in line with the majority of what the military stands for. And all of the religious talk at ceremonies...and then the jabs at non-religious folk that I hear constantly - it's pretty clear what the military WANTS of its servicemen and women (not to mention a Don't Ask Don't Tell policy that really means 'if we find out, you're out' ...you don't actually have to tell anyone to get kicked out). I think more and more military folks are realizing that they aren't exactly being well-served by the right, though. I find that incredibly promising.

But, I am not at all surprised that liberal ideas aren't exactly found on AFR...doesn't mean I think it's right at all, but it doesn't surprise me in the least. To me its just another way of making sure servicemen and women know what is 'expected' of them.

As an update to this story, the current issue of Army Times has an article stating that liberal radio talk show host Ed Schultz will be included on the AFTRS lineup.
His show was intended to air on Oct. 17 but will be on air as soon as scheduling is completed. An agreement was reached on an amendment sponsored by Sen. James Inhofe, R-OK, with a 54-44 vote. The amendment recommends but not requires AFRTS to maintain a cross-section of popular shows. The Pentagon only considers shows with an audience of 1 million listeners or more.

Along with the addition of Schultz, AFTRS is pursuing the rights to broadcast Hannity and Franken. No word yet regarding Harkin's happiness with the bill.

kmsouthern, other than a short benediction at change of command ceremonies, I've never had religion, much less christianity shoved in my face in 19 years. Including combat and peacetime, I as a non-christian agnostic, have never been made to feel like I wasn't 'in line' with the majority. In my opinion, that is an erroneous generalization of what the military expects of a soldier.

I'm not sure if anyone would consider this pertinent, but apparently there are allegations of imprpriety at least regarding Kenneth Tomlinson, the former Chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. On Morning Edition this morning it was reported that he had subversively hired a White House staffer as an advisor, had been communicating with Karl Rove for unknown reasons and had sought out secret associations with major corporations that are friendly to the republican party.

He had announced his plan to undo the scourge of "liberal bias" on NPR but appears to have been fixing the mission of public broadcasting in a much grander way.

It seems to me that the White House had an interest in more than than the conservative talking points expressed on their military radio stations....

- I'm quite happy to hear that, as it's not been my experience. Maybe I've just been going to all the wrong ceremonies!

Hopefully we've just encountered more than our share of this - I certainly can see that happening as my hubby's had more than his share of evil bosses who'd stop at nothing to keep him down (for no reason, I might add). He's had two bosses (both 1SGTs) who've been relieved of their 1SGT duties because of their conduct toward him and other soldiers, so I guess maybe his experience has been quite atypical!

My hubby's Christian, so the religion issue really wouldn't apply to him...it's just something I've noticed over the years at all sorts of military functions. Maybe it's not 'expected' that you're Christian in the sense of "supposed to be"...maybe assumed would have been a better word to use because I do think there is an assumption that you're Christian (and anti-gay, and pro-Bush...I think those two are far more prevalent - at least in my experience - than religion). I must say that the Chaplain who is currently presiding over dh's unit in Iraq is very good! I don't have much experience at all with military chaplains, but he's great. He impressed me immensely at the FRG meetings and deployment briefings and he always has great advice and words of wisdom in his portion of the newsletter from over there. The religion issue I've seen has mostly been coming from the higher ranking people during speeches. Maybe I'm just hyper-sensitive about it, too! Could be a combination of all of those things!

But, again, that's only been my experience. Hopefully mine isn't the norm! I have a tendency to be hard on many aspects of the military based upon the crappy way my hubby has been treated, so I'm sure I'm just a LITTLE biased

As an example, he was finally allowed to go to the SSG promotion board a couple weeks ago (long story...he's been held back for no reason for a year - has always done his job and then some, and has gotten great evals, was even told by his superiors that they would send him "next month" - that's gone on for a year with no reason/counseling telling him why he's "not ready") and the issues surrounding that have left me with an awful taste in my mouth, yet again. One of his superiors actually said to him "whatever you do, don't embarrass us", as if he'd given them any reason to think he would! I thought that was really uncalled for and rude. He ended up going to the board immediately after a 12 hour shift (they didn't allow him time off). He got a 150/150 though And the promotion board members were ticked because his Captain wasn't even there supporting him (he was the one who made the rude comment...he sent another SGT with less seniority than my hubby to represent him. The board was extremely displeased with that). It certainly hasn't made me feel any more warmth toward the upper ranks, and has no doubt clouded my judgment at least a little...

Kim, your story is not the exception but I believe more the rule. It is human nature for this. I hope your husband is seen by them as a asset for his ability to be different at some point vs a lemming. And I thank you for your and his service.

I have more stories to support it, as I have said my brother had problems because of this, again here he is with a masters degree. My father an officer had way worse problems because he was a liberal. He basically lost his pension and was not dishonorable discharged. And again he is as smart of a human as you will ever find, undergrad journalism, masters engineering, PhD in Physics, I challenge you to find many in the services that have that ability. And later as a scientist he would receive phone calls at home from a cabinet level person asking him for opinions and advice as well as to write position papers for the government. As well as he was asked by the military to deal with issues in other counties that he could do because other countries like Russia did not trust our military. But he was not good enough for the military when he was in it.

As I said my fraternity brother is an officer and I believe his statement was more of the officers and I believe the prejudice is more blatant with officers. I will state another example to support this. I was invited by the Patent Office to a Inventors/patent holders meeting in DC. They had set up a special rate at a hotel near the PTO office, which was in Crystal City of VA virtually next to the pentagon. The hotel I was in when I arrived was filled with a ton of officers because of the proximity of the pentagon. It cleared out as the weekend hit but what struck me was in the bar at that hotel. On the back wall of the bar was two signs/banners, the only two not alcohol/bar related. One had to do with trashing Jane Fonda/Hanoi Jane. And the second one was very disturbing to me, I can not remember the exact time frame but it was I think the first year after Clinton had been elected. It was attacking Hillary and Bill, thus very political rudeness. I found that this really made a powerful statement of what the customers allowed to be placed up there in my book. I found it to be very offensive that officers in the US military would allow and encourage /condone such a thing. To me just as bad as that I think General that gave that speech to his men after Clinton was elected that the president was a disgrace to the country, I believe he was reprimanded, but I bet he was patted on the back by the officers with a wink as he was disciplined. I would have looked into a court marshaled of him which from what I remember could have been done. (On a side note I would have fired most of the secret service at about the same time when position papers of Clintons showed up with Bush senior. I would have cleaned house right then, including the white house like partisans like L. tripp, but they were already in a spotlight because of firings in the travel office.)

I find a parallel to this overt propaganda in the bar and the propaganda of one position on the radio to the troops. It has a sense of belonging to a group mentality.

what should the officers have done at the bar that tax payer money is paying for their stay;, character is when no-one is watching doing the right thing. The right thing would have been asking for it to be removed. BTW I have been removed from the CES trade show for voicing my opinion on a company in a international trade show showing disrespect to a US president. There was no reason for them to be having Clintons life size cut out and allowing people to put items in personal places on it. I stood there and glared at it, and the salesman came out to me and asked if I wanted to deface it more and told them this was not professional of them. Then it proceeded into them and the booths next to them arguing with me, and security was called in and I was removed from the trade show, for them engaging me in debate. In the security office they said I could go back to the trade show if I did not go back to that area, and I said I did nothing wrong. That if they engage me in the subject I have a right to respond. I said I would not engage unless they started first as I did before. thus the police were called and I was removed, not cuffed. I heard they did remove the defacing part from the full size cut out. to me that is the character that an officer should exhibit. Kind of like only having 0 hours of another sides point of view, character would have been the military itself stepping up to the plate. Does anyone think they are dumb enough not to know what is fair.

Wait, so your proof is some hotel put up a couple posters in their bar because they thought it would appeal to the officers who stay there? Perhaps the owner/operator of the bar was right-wing. And perhaps the officers, who swore to uphold the Constitution, knew free speech when they saw it and that it's not their place to tell the hotel what they can post, especially "as members of the military." And yes, perhaps some agreed with the posters.

Now, I'm "only" in the Coast Guard. Anecdotally I can say that I meet more conservatives than liberals in the service, but the VAST majority are apolitical, and don't even like talking politics, much like the rest of their generation. I've never known someone to bad-mouth another for their political leanings. I've talked with both liberals and conservatives, and met a fair share of informed, thoughtful types, and those more extreme.

I would expect that AFRTS radio would tend to carry those programs that are highest rated in the states, thinking these would be most popular. Since the highest-rated talk-radio programs are largely right-wing, it would not surprise me to find these are what AFRTS is carrying. Just like I would expect AFRTS to carry Friends, Desperate Housewives, and whatever top-rated shows it's able to get a hold of. That appears to be their programming strategy. So I fully expect the same approach to their radio programming. (See here.) Lo and behold, they carry a whole bunch of stuff, including NPR's Morning Edition and All-Things Considered, Clark Howard's personal finance show, Kim Kommando's computer show, and Art Bell! Hardly propaganda programming. Any of you that have heard Art Bell's program would have to think a government that is trying to serve its own interests would not want his ideas to be spread to the troops. But it's a very popular show, so no surprise, it's carried.

Thanks for including the schedule link. I couldn't find it, and it certainly says it all. NPR plays for four hours (3 and 4 AM Pacific US time is around 7 and 8 in the morning in Korea if memory serves, and then ltwice later in the day) and Rush for one. According to Harkin, "Though these broadcasts are intended to provide a cross-section of what is heard by stateside audiences, not one minute of progressive talk radio programming is scheduled on any of AFR’s 33 individually programmed radio stations." Well, from what I can see of that schedule Harkin is either egregiously uninformed for someone who is trying to push through this legislation, or a boldfaced liar. Nice was to spend tax dollars and create paperwork.

Edited to add: To TedN5 and anyone else afraid that the vast Military Industrial complex will overtake them if our troops are permitted to listen to Rush. You, through your vote, have infinitely more impact on the lives of our military members than they have on you. And no one is suggesting we screen your listening material.

Let's stick to the facts here. JFK was using non-prescription drugs, of which are of the same vain as those used by Rush Limbaugh.

If Rush Limbaugh is a criminal, by your standards, a doctor giving non-prescription drugs to the President should be no different. If you're taking non-FDA narcotics from the man on the corner or a man w/ a Phd, the crime is no different.

The stark contrast lays in the fact that Rush Limbaugh is just a pundit, but not the leader of the known free world...

And a pundit who made some pretty harsh remarks about drug addiction. Its not because of the druguse I personally am critical of Limbaugh, it's because he is so hypocritical about it. As far as I am concerned Limbaugh and everybody else should be allowed to use almost any drug they wish for in any quantity, as long as they don't harm others, but at least he should have the decency not to preach one thing and then do another. When they do that they lose all credibility in my book, and I would think most other normal people don't like it either.

I have never heard about the JFK story before, so I can't comment on that, but I doubt he made the same scorching remarks about drug addicts as Limbaugh did, so Limbaugh is still the biggest hypocrite.

Rush is not only being charged/accused with illegal drug purchasing on the street which he and the rightys says support terrorism but also for doctor shopping. Rush was as posted an outspoken person against drugs, how do we say hypocrisy, I have no problem with putting people in jail that say they are against drugs and then break the law to get them. Same with to me we should have a law on abortion, if you are of a certain religion and believe it to be murder, then it is illegal to use any form of birth control or have an abortion and only charge religious people with this belief with the crime. And for any miscarriage of any kind the person should be charged with murder. If they would have stayed home on their back the probability of the miscarriage would have been much lower, so that is murder by their definition, they intentionally put the life in harms way.

Cocaine was a legal drug in coke a cola when coke a cola was on the market, I think in the 20s. It is illegal now.

If rush can break the law and doctor shop what laws should be enforced.

Pudrik,
Thank you for your service,

Not that I know if you are in the enforcement area of the CG in most enforcement areas it is generally conservatives.

FYI this hotel is one of the very nice ones probably closest to the pentagon and is primarily used for military, that bar was packed with officers, I mean packed on a weekday. Again I can tell when something is there for their patrons directly, again if just a freedom of speech I would not stay there if I was demonstrating character. How long do you think they would not object if M Moore owned the hotel or there was a sign M Moore is a hero. Or have a KKK emblem up or confederate flag. Geeeee I hope you can understand this better with this added info.

If we only listened to the things that made the most money or highest rating we would see a lot of pornography and trash Howard Stern out there. Remember Howard got at least 2 or 3 rightys elected in the NY, NJ area.

And again NPR is not liberal, anyone that thinks that is brain dead or has not listened to a real liberal; listen to Air America radio and you can hear some real liberals, at least as someone pointed out as partisan to the liberal side as Rush is to the righty side.. I remember when Rush was in his first few years(yes I listen to him and others for years) that callers would call in and tell him he was a liberal. That is how ignorant some rightys are. That is just again a stupid righty propaganda like saying the media is liberal; only if you are brain dead. Again repeat it enough and the lemmings will believe it, in the real world we call that marketing 101. Some call it Hitlers-Gerblings method.

Whatever it takes to stick up for Limbaugh I suppose, hey Aevans?

A show like Rush’s, does it fit the criteria for "fair and balanced" as required by mandate?
Everything Rush stands for is the antithesis of “fair and balanced.” Then again Fox News is just as unbalanced with anchormen and women that can’t simply report the news, they need to educate the viewer-ship like Ron Reagan does on MSNBC News. But this question is a setup to…

Is not one minute of any liberal show and 62 hours of conservative shows a demonstration that the media is right biased in another area?
It’s been demonstrated that progressive, or moderate shows if you prefer, receive more than one minute. This debate could last longer if the questions were worded more neutrally.

As for my own take on AFRN’s lineup… good God I hated it almost as much as the Far East Network (more commonly referred to as the Forced Entertainment Network by squids and jarheads). It’s nice to see NPR has been added. It used to be Rush, Rush, and Rush.

At least, I don’t remember hearing progressive radio shows like NPR. However, AFRN censorship at the local level was totally arbitrary and more sensitive towards the male audience. One day a caller asked the DJ why the PG version of Short $^@& Man, popular at the time, was no longer playing. Apparently some short $^@& man took issue with the lyrics, while songs like Steve Miller’s The Joker (“Really love your peaches want to shake your tree”) continued airing unmolested.

Should the amount of time be equally split between the parties or is there a better way?
I don’t think you’ll be able to approach this fairly outside the states given that the nature of AFRN, being in most cases the only English radio available overseas, makes a ratings system useless.

I want to third what Mrs. P said about the Military Honor and Decency Act. I can’t remember being angrier with the 1997 Congress at the time for slipping that last-minute provision into the defense budget and overhearing the dependent’s club (made up mostly of women) voicing approval. The result was Christian and housekeeping rags replacing the porn shelf. As if American porn was responsible for military husbands engaging in un-marital bliss.

Maybe I should wander into the prostitution thread…

The hyper-generalizations and stereotyping of service men and women, replete with name calling is not only off topic for this thread, but very amusing, especially when spouted by those who have not served.

I have once again culled the AFRTS program line-up, trying to find, nay.......hoping to find Sen. Harkins 62 hours of conservative, 'and not one minute of progressive talk radio' programming per week. I would hate top think that a United States Senator would embellish the truth......
We have Rush who engages in political talk from the right (for 54 minutes a day) and James Dobson (3.00) and Dr. Laura (42.00) who ply their strange brand of self help shows. I'll throw in Dr. Laura as a bone, though her show is not political. 99 minutes a day for my math of what liberals would deem conservative programming.
On the other hand we have NPR's Fresh Weekend, All things Considered, Morning Edition and Commentary (including Diane Rehm) running a good 120 minutes a day. Jim Hightower (4.00). Not to leave out The Tavis Smiley Show, while he was on the air last year, but including The Ed Schultz Show any day now. Assuming that Ed will get his 54 minutes on par with Rush, that's around 178 minutes of what is considered liberal programming by conservatives.

I'm sorry, where was the disparity again? Some time or another, we're going to have to figure out if liberals get to decide what constitutes conservative programs, or if conservatives get to decide what constitutes liberal programs....or we're just going to keep going around in circles. Let's at least agree that to the left, Rush is conservative (more Republican than conservative ), and the right NPR leans liberal. Whether you personally agree with it or not doesn't really matter for the purposes of this debate, it's commonly accepted.

I'll write off Sen. Harkin as just another politician, but I'm curious if the author of these debate questions will agree that there is indeed some parity.

You are certainly correct that the majority of military members lean right in their politics. Lean right, mind you. That's not surprising given the background of most military members, and their reasons for joining. Those of a liberal persuasion tend to go hand-in-hand witha distrust of the military and other sorts of "mindless" authority. But, like my uncle told me, he was sure glad my cousin had met me and my other military friends so she could learn that all military guys weren't ignorant jar-heads (the preconception she seemed to acquire while attending college).

Yeah, you are right. A Michael Moore poster would probably not last one night in a bar near the Pentagon. That may have more to do with his prtrayal of the military than being a democrat. Their are plenty of democrat officers, and especially veterans.

I'm also inclined to agree that NPR does not balance Rush Limbaugh. NPR, especially of late, is much more thoughtful and balanced in their coverage, with a goal of journalistic integrity. Rush Limbaugh, while also dedicated to integrity (at least, so he says), is clearly, and openly, one-sided. He is also a single-source, and thus subject to more bias, than NPR, which employs multiple reporters and commentators.

But like I said, AFRN's goal seems to be programming what is popular. There are few, if any, high-rated liberal talk-radio shows in the US. An obvious missing person, though, is Howard Stern, so clearly their are some editorial decisions as well.

As for the bias demonstrated by them not carrying the short-**** song, this would only be proof if some woman had called in to complain about a chauvinistic song, and it was not pulled. Clearly, they responded to the male's complaint. If no female complained, then their playing of chauvinistic songs is not proof of bias.

Ultimately, AFRN is a service provided for the troops, and their programming should reflect the interests of their listeners. If surveys of listeners show a greater interest in some Air America programs versus Rush Limbaugh, or say, Kim Kommando, than it would behoove them to make the change. Any programming decisions should be customer-driven.

my father has a PhD in physics spoke 5 languages, and brother masters degree, grandfather spoke more than 7 languages, all were in the military. So I agree there are smart people in military. From what I was aware many (not officers) join the military before 9-11 for the education benefits.

seems you missed the point what would they have done with a KKK sign? Or Kerry, or draft Rush sign. Draft John Wayne or John Wayne was a wife and child abuser.

We are in agreement here seems others just can not understand it with NPR. Again my point of callers saying Rush is a liberal is again a perfect example of how some can not gauge things in perspective. It was tooo funny to hear these guys. Just as some people on the right can not accept that Tim McVeigh is a hero to many on the right.


Not on my dime, if you are going to spend US taxpayer money if a political show is put on there needs to be equal opportunity to the opposing side in my book. By the way I say get rid of NPR for all not just the military.