http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080320/us_t...spoilthedemrace

IN the above story, it is quite clear that Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingram are moving past political commentary and into outright campaigning for the republican party- a charge which has really been true this entire time of his broadcast anyway-

Considering this type of behavior is pretty much what you see on Russian TV, advocating directly for a candidate, and so on- and we have claimed this as unfair behavior in elections in other countries- if you ever have watched Russian TV during the last elections- I would say Rush is actually quite a bit more outright advocating than Russian state controlled TV, and I am NOT exagerating- it is actually more low key in Russia.

Does thier broadcast cross the line into outright campaigning based on thier actually urging campaign strategy helping the republican party push these talking heads into an overt political action arm of the republican party>

Should the fairness doctrine be applied if you believe it to be true?

Does thier broadcast cross the line into outright campaigning based on thier actually urging campaign strategy helping the republican party push these talking heads into an overt political action arm of the republican party>

I am having a hard time seeing how. These two have radio shows. Hundreds of millions of advertising dollars are spent on these shows. People listen to these shows. The first amendment allows these talking heads to talk and share their opinion. Though I can see where some discontent in the democratic party would be felt, I don't see where anyone has crossed any line.

From the same story:

It doesn't appear that too many Republicans have crossed that line, but maybe the Democrats are getting more independents. Maybe it is just that Clinton has been able to reach out to more independents than Obama. That would be a more logical explanation to me.

Maybe if more "progressives" tuned out the conservative talk shows, they would start losing advertising dollars and be shut down:


I am sure Rush and Laura appreciate his support.

Should the fairness doctrine be applied if you believe it to be true?

I don't think anyone will ever be able to convince me that a law such as this should be passed.

It's called the "First Amendment", kinda like when trolls constantly spam message boards with stupid hate speech instead of thoughtful debate. If you don't like the message on the radio, turn it off or start your own radio program. Rush has the right to advocate issues every bit as much as the idiots at Moveon or DailyKos or Air America do. Maybe you should listen to them instead of coming here and whining about what Rush says.


Aquilla

I agree that Rush has a right to speak on politics- just like dailykos etc- BUT- there is a difference between political discourse and outright campaigning for a candidate or party- do you agree Aquilla?

For instance- for years, there were complaints and such about the "Voice of the Times" a section of our local paper that was dedicated to conservative editorials- but the outright advocacy of the "Veco Times" was pretty clearly just a non-paid campaign commercial- which they denied and fought. Took an FBI arrests of the staff and main writer of the VOA that finally brought the truth to light- under secret taping vids- they outright said it "we are here to get and keep the republican party in power" and then specified candidates as well.


Okay Aquilla, do you disagree with the fairness doctrine, believing the law itself to be unconstitutional, or you just dislike it when the truth is told about conservative commentators?

If so called "conservative" moralistic type want to listen to a drug addicted wierdo- more power to them- I don't like it, however, when "free" time is given simply for political gain of one party- I don't like it in Russia, don't like it here either.

The fairness doctrine itself, sometims I have a problem with it- I admit it, because I believe we have more overall choices for political discourse than Russia, and we need to either scrap it or enforce it IMHO.

BTW Scuba- the fairness doctrine already exists

There is an entire radio Network dedicated to nothing but Bush and Conservative bashing - Air America. I don't listen to it, it's quite frankly crap radio, but hey, if you want to join the other 3 people that do listen to it, knock yourself out. You might even get a chance to host a show! I don't have a problem with Air America being on air.


Aquilla

No, Aquilla, it isn't "First Amendment." Rush Limbaugh works for a private broadcasting service and is answerable to his bosses and sponsors.

Limbaugh is free to speak, but nothing in the constitution guarantees him, or anyone else, a microphone, podium or an audience.

It's amazing how some of you ignore private issues when it suits your purposes and wave them when it's helpful.

Of course Limbaugh is free to speak on issues and his bosses and sponsors are free to support his program or not. People are free to listen to his program or not. But, you see, BoF, when the government steps in and tells Limbaugh or his bosses or his sponsors that they have to follow a "fairness doctrine" and give some sort of equal time to the morons on the left.... then, you start getting into that pesky little First Amendment.


Understand now?


Aquilla

Rush uses broadcast radio. Broadcast radio licenses publicly owned spectrum from the FCC for a reduced price. The price is reduced in exchange for free air time for broadcasts in the public interest from time to time. I would argue that the standard should be higher for any programming that uses public spectrum.

Air America is on satellite radio (and streamed over the internet). Satellite radio does not use public spectrum; it is a subscription-based service. The standard need not be as high.

In 1987, the FCC abolished the "Fairness Doctrine". However, it still regulates language. Apparently, the FCC believes that honest, equitable, and balanced reporting of controversial issues is not part of its purview, but, if you drop the F-bomb, gods help you.

All I can say Aquilla, is that you've really elevated the level of discussion. Perhaps I should put this in my sig line.

Air America used to be broadcast over the airwaves until they figured out nobody was listening to it. Can't blame Rush for that.




By all means, BoF. Feel free to use it.


Aquilla

You are right, BoF, the First Amendment does not provide him with the microphone or audience. It does, however, protect him from over-zealous politicians trying to shut him up.

At least this was done in the open, On public airway. What about when the DEMS kept Nader off of many states ballots in 2004?
Don't you find that far more appalling?

Not that this is good for American politics or Democracy, but isn't Karma a B!^(+

Let's ask the question as to why Air America isn't on public airwaves? Why not go over the FCC controled airwaves? Anyone have an answer as to why not?

I don't listen to Air America, but I did find this link.

http://www.airamerica.com/

AT the bottom of the page there is a button for contacting Air America.

If you really want to know, why don't you email them with your question. When you get the answer, feel free to report back to us.

I was just making a point, frankly I don't care about Air America. I honestly forget about it until someone brings it up in situations like this. The point I was trying to make was that either they couldn't sell advertising, so they had to move to satelite; or they, ummm, I don't know. Why did they go from open air to satelite? It can't be because their content could be considered offensive like Stern. Anyway, it really doesn't matter does it?

They moved to satellite because they could make more money on satellite. It's no mystery.

It must be a mystery, I didn't know it. Get a poll started and find out how many people knew that. Now, since you have asserted that they can make more money, how is that? Has it worked? Are they rolling in the dough? How many listeners do they have? Do more "progressives" listen to Air American than that listen to conservative talk radio? You seem to have a lot of knowledge of why they switched, can you answer these questions?

Does their broadcast cross the line into outright campaigning based on their actually urging campaign strategy helping the republican party push these talking heads into an overt political action arm of the republican party?

Yes.

Should the fairness doctrine be applied if you believe it to be true?

It's not a matter of believing the Fairness Doctrine to be true or not - it doesn't exist. So it'd be sorta like believing in the Easter Bunny. The Fairness Doctrine, as incorporated into FCC regulations in 1967, was somewhat eroded by Reagan-appointed FCC chairman Mark Fowler, who spearheaded telecom deregulation throughout the industry and repealed a lot of the Doctrine personally. In 1986, in a case concerning teletext access, Appeals Court judges Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork ruled that the Doctrine applied to teletext, but didn't have to be enforced. The final nail in the Fairness coffin was Meredith Corp. v. FCC, in which the courts decided that the FCC did not have to enforce the Doctrine in relation to anything as it wasn't mandated by Congress. In the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the Fairness Doctrine into law. Reagan vetoed the law in June and the FCC abolished the Doctrine in August. So... there's nothing to be applied.

They haven't crossed the line Scubatim, so I think your right in your assertions. They are simply pushing forward a political opinion that is not shared by many in left wing America. That pushes some in left wing America to go as far as saying they crossed the line, which only makes sense.

Personally for me if someone like Rosie o'donnell pushes forward a left wing opinion, in her case largely based on things she cant prove, or doesn't know about, I don't even say she goes to far, she might make me roll my eyes, but its her right as a citizen to say whatever the hell she wants. This applies to liberals and conservatives, although some people will go on trying to push forward laws or bills, like the Fairness Doctrine because other opinions make them want to put a halt to free speech, but I say other than letting your opinion be known, let people like that bark, its all they ever do anyway is bark.

Excellent rundown on how the powers took over the airwaves. Yep folks, it all started in the 1980s and what has come about since was inevitable.

I have my doubts that the Rush show actually makes money any longer. Who listens to radio? I suppose people stuck in SUVs during their commutes to city offices.

But more people are working remotely these days. This means with broadband and a decently built home office computing infrastructure, you can live anywhere. No commute, no city. No Rush. NetFlix and YouTube, but only when you want it and only what you want. That's the emerging medium, not the airwaves.

When history is written 2008 will be seen as a pivotal year, much more important than a drug-addicted radio voice.

BTW CR-see post #19


Anything more substansive to support your position?


Shouldn't this post actualy be in a blog? I didn't know unsupported opinion counted as valid arguments on a debate board!

First, deregulating the airwaves isn't the same as powers taking over the airwaves, it is quite the opposite and should allow for anyone to produce any type of format..even liberal talk radio. The problem is that very few people want to listen to it, so it is rarely on the air. It isn't some conspiracy theory of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Get listeners and you will get shows. It really is that simple.

To your second point, if that is what it is; apparently millions of people listen to radio. It is nice that you generalize that only people in SUVs do, that was a nice touch of rhetoric!

I agree that more people are working remotely today than 10 years ago, but if they were to leave their abode once in a while and join society on a personal level and put the game controllers down for more than five minutes, you would realize that there are still tens of millions of people commuting everyday. I don't think I need a source for that, just look out the window.

So I guess the point to my post here is this: Do you have anything constructive to say, or not?

The "fairness doctrine" is pretty much toothless at this point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

New legislation and rulemaking would be required to change anything, and the SCt has been skeptical of the doctrine anyway as chilling First Am rights of free speech.

FYI--Rush Limbaugh has the most listened-to talk-radio show in the USA with 14 million daily listeners. Laura Ingraham is 5th at 5.5 million daily listeners. I guess lots of people still drive to work....

http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?opti...7&Itemid=34

I DO!!!!... although, I admit rarely political talk radio. It's the same ol' mess... Usually I listen to ESPN radio.

Seriously, even my boss, an SVP of a Multi-national company listens to talk radio. Maybe it's just Dallas, I dunno. WAIT- NO- Ever heard of 1010 WINS in NYC?

Talk Radio is still a viable platform. I don't have a clue as to how viable, but definitely still profitable.

I don't drive in an SUV, and don't commute really (about 15 min).

I personally don't listen to Rush, and haven't in years... but if Politics and that kind of jazz was what I was into, maybe I'd tune him in.

Finally, let's be honest. Has anyone ever heard of Ricky Smiley and his morning show? there is sincerely out and out campaigning for Mr. Obama. I don't care personally... usually there are a few good laughs... but the dude is a "no bones about it" supporter.

I'd imagine we could find examples all over the place. You don't like Rush. Frankly, I'm not to enthused with him either. Let it go.

Does thier broadcast cross the line into outright campaigning based on thier actually urging campaign strategy helping the republican party push these talking heads into an overt political action arm of the republican party>

I don't listen to Rush's show, but I think it's fair to say that he campaigns against Democrats. I doubt he's coordinating anything directly with the McCain campaign -- from what I've read, he doesn't much like McCain, he just hates the Democrats more.

Should the fairness doctrine be applied if you believe it to be true?

No. As Wertz pointed out, the Fairness Doctrine hasn't been in effect for over twenty years. I wouldn't support it being reestablished. I think it's fine for a station to tailor its programming to people with a certain political viewpoint. If listeners want Rush in the mornings, it's a good bet they wouldn't want Randi Rhodes in the afternoon. The station shouldn't be forced to "balance" programming like that.

This applies on the left as well as the right. Here in San Francisco, we've got Green 960 AM, which carries some Air America shows. (Contrary to popular belief, Air America hasn't abandoned terrestrial radio for satellite.) Should Green 960 be forced to carry half a schedule of right-wing shows in the interest of "fairness"?

More thoughts on your post:

So celebrities should not speak up about what they think Americans should do with their vote? Oprah, Sting, Chuck Norris, Bill Mahr etc would have to shut up. Is this what you are intending?



So you are saying that the decision of a private enterprise to broadcast whatever they choose because they have the legal right to do so it comparable to Russian controlled broadcasts? I can't think of anything that is more opposite. Help me understand this.

More to the point, is there anything more substantive to the question? Cross the line from what into outright campaigning? From objective journalism? from mere opinion? from advocacy politics? Limbaugh has never claimed to be objective and has clearly been an advocate for for the Republican Party, conservative policies, and specific Republican candidates. He is also unabashedly opposed to the Democratic Party, liberal policies, and specific Democratic politicians. The same goes for Laura Ingraham. It's also obvious that they are not official spokespeople for or representatives of the GOP. But that doesn't mean that their advocacy isn't part of a campaign in the broader sense.

It's a bit of a run-on question, so in its parts: Are Limbaugh, Ingraham, et al. campaigning outright? Yes. They are urging a specific political action in order to damage one party and benefit the other with the intent of ultimately affecting the outcome of the election. I'm not sure what the "helping the republican party push these talking heads" even means, so I'll skip over that bit. So, are Limbaugh, Ingraham, et al. an "overt political action arm of the Republican Party"? That should probably be a "no", due to the preposition. They are not of the Republican Party, but they are certainly for the Republican Party. And they are urging action with the specific intent of benefiting the GOP.

This gets back to my argument about Obama advocacy by people like Maureen Dowd, Keith Olberman, Markos Moulitsas, and Frank Rich. They, like Limbaugh and Co., are not part of any candidate's official campaign and, as Doclotus argued, the campaigns themselves have no control over them, but that doesn't stop them from having a direct impact on public opinion, how people register, and for whom they vote. To me, such activity is "campaigning". And it is a bit disingenuous to say that candidates or party chairs have no control over such advocates. They are often intimately, if unofficially, linked and could, with a word, curb some of their worst excesses (well, I doubt anyone could shut Rush up, but still). And they don't. Nor do they "reject and denounce" their tactics, as they easily could. The parties and the candidates may not "own" the Ingrahams and Dowds, but they sure appreciate their help.

If one feels the nonexistent Fairness Doctrine should theoretically be applied to Rush Limbaugh, it should most certainly be applied to Keith Olberman, as well. His behavior, too, is "what you see on Russian TV, advocating directly for a candidate, and so on - and we have claimed this as unfair behavior in elections in other countries - if you ever have watched Russian TV during the last elections - I would say [Keith] is actually quite a bit more outright advocating than Russian state controlled TV, and I am NOT exaggerating - it is actually more low key in Russia."

Whether or not the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated is another debate. But it's a tad hypocritical to suggest that, if it were, it should be applied to one set of advocates and not another, n'est-ce pas?

In your original response, you simply said "yes", which I read that you think Rush/Laura have crossed the line. This is why I asked for more substance. After your second response, I can't say that I disagree with anything you said. I think I am going to go check my temperature!

To be entirely clear on my response to what is an extremely awkward question: yes, I think they "crossed the line into outright campaigning"; I have no clue what the "pushing talking heads" thing is about; and, while I think another line has been crossed (from advocacy to activism), no they are not officially "of" the Republican Party. And the same goes for Obama activists (and, if one could find any strident, activist Clinton advocates, it would probably go for them, too).

I hope you're feeling better soon.

I pretty much only watch Tim Russert and Jon Stewart as far as the "talking heads" goes- I have never watched Olberman.

On job sites, I sometimes encounter all talk radio lately, but I usually change the station to one of the top rock station here if I am able to. When it is on talk radio, usually it is only one old dude that has it on there, he probably snuck over there to turn off that "damned rock music" or something.

The expletives that you hear when talk radio- any, talk, radio- turned on, probably means folks are starting to get tired of it.

I don't see many even middle aged men listening to it anymore.

There are campaign finance laws here in Alaska, as far as the local media go, that you have to count talk radio advocacy as part of your campaign disclosure, and APOC ( Alaska Public Offices Commision) had "dismissed" many complaints that the Voice of the Times was violating campaign finance laws in Alaska for being a policital action commitee ( I am not sure if that is the exact term ) for the republican party.

Now the new state legislature has put more teeth into the APOC enforcement arm, and extended to 7 years, I believe, the statute of limiitations on campaign finance violations- the lawmakers and the Voice of the Times editor can't be tried or fined by APOC because the statute of limitations was lowered by the very people that are now serving time in jail for bribery and influence peddling.

Ted Stevens and Ben Stevens and Don Young will probably be joining them in jail soon, as the FBI investigations continue.

But I had no idea that the "lower 48" actually allow outright advocacy, I mean, like the thing churches are being threatened with losing tax exempt status over, with no sanctions whatsoever.

I guess libertarian-ish republicans do know a few things that social conservative republicans don't know about morality and ethics.

First of all its not a news program like say NBC and NPR – get the difference? His opinions are his own and if you don’t like him (and I am sure you don’t – don’t listen)



Ya the ol liberal muzzle they have been discussing – Shall we use it on half the NPR ludicrously biased shows - How about NBC and CNN?

Fortunately there is no “fairness doctrine” that would allow you liberals to muzzling conservative talk shows – although I know you would love to do it right now.

Bigots, jingos, demagogues and psychopaths have always gotten high ratings in political radio, particularly if they have the ability to entertain. It's that ability to connect at a raw emotional often ugly level that is attractive. My feeling about the fairness doctrine is it should be available to challenge untruth, particularly wedded to personal attacks. The airways are public property. They belong to us, all of us. If I am libeled then at the very least I want the opportunity on the same station or network to correct the record.

The 1st Amendment is seriously undermined if expressing a defamatory POV on the public airwaves is by law protected from an on air challenge by the injured party.

As for the rest, the idea that the prevailing ideas are the ones that can attract the most money seems degrading of true democracy. But political talk shows are a commodity, I guess, like bananas. To make them fair would involve at least some level of indirect censorship. I'll settle for misrepresented groups or individuals being able to respond on the air.

.

Come on please – Nothing could be more base for ranting crap than Air America – and they are bankrupt. And do you really want the government listening to the media and trying to make it “fair” – What would happen to rags like the NYT?

I don't know if this thread is the correct place for this hilarious video clip, but here it is: Elizabeth Hasselbeck on Obama's pastor.

Remember, if we kept political opinions off of the airwaves, we never would have been able to enjoy this comparison of the pastor to Jeffrey Dahmer.

So her point was that just because he did great things for his community, doesn't make him any less of a racist. Just like Dahmer eating PBJ doesn't make him less of a canibal. Any dispute to this?

Well, when I posted this clip, I didn't think it was worthy of a serious response, but since you responded, I'll take the opposite side. Keep in mind that I don't know anything about this pastor or his speech.

If a man spends his life doing generally good things and being a worthwhile, useful part of society, should a bad moment (or a few of them) re-define his life as bad? Most people have their faults and their bad moments. My grandfather, for instance, was not a big fan of blacks, but in all other ways he was a prince. Had a camera been following him his whole life, that footage could have been edited to make him look like quite a demon. But he wasn't. I would hesitate to label someone a racist on the basis of a few comments. To me, a racist is someone who truly works at it - a David Duke type, who doesn't do much else.

On the other hand, if you kill and eat just one human being, you can safely be portrayed as a cannibal, and a bad guy.

Does thier broadcast cross the line into outright campaigning based on thier actually urging campaign strategy helping the republican party push these talking heads into an overt political action arm of the republican party

No.

I think it's disgusting, but I don't think it makes them an overt political action arm of the Republican Party. I disagree with Wertz, the Party can do nothing to prevent it. Should they? Why? Are they required to stop it? No. Again, it's disgusting. But... it's the way open primaries work. When I was younger, California had a measure on the ballot to open the primaries. Thankfully, someone told me why that shouldn't happen. He said, if they open the primary I will spoil it. If there was only one Republican on the ticket, he would vote in the Democratic Primary for the weaker candidate. Opened my eyes. Now, I'm undeclared and I admit that I enjoy being able to vote in a party primary - a relatively recent development for me when I moved from California to Illinois, but I think open primaries are a bad idea for this very reason.

You can't blame the Republican Party for this type of behavior... you can't blame Rush or anyone else suggesting that people take advantage of an open primary; you can only blame the folks who allow them.

If you read my post through you would see that I thought the broader consideration of fairness was impractical. However publicly libeling someone should allow the libeled party to answer. If you were publicly libeled as a wife beater wouldn't you want air time to refute those charges?

For that kind of defamation, I think you'd owe more than free airtime for rebuttal. But that's not really the kind of speech we're talking about, is it? Your earlier quote was:


I've got some problems with this formulation. Who would decide which "misrepresented groups" had a right to free airtime?

If Rush goes on a rant about "libruls," and says they all worship Al Gore and have made abortion a sacrament in their new church of Gaia... Should some liberal group get an equivalent amount of airtime to rebut?

Would you force Pacifica or Air America to run a response from conservative Christians if they felt they'd been slandered as stupid racists who only enlist in the military so they can kill brown people?

I can understand if you'd say "yes" to both of those hypotheticals. They're pretty bad. But do you think it's possible to design a system where both groups are equally protected? Who's going to decide what constitutes misrepresentation of a group, and at what point it rises to a level where the original speaker is forced to give airtime for a response?

When I said "misrepresented" I threw that out as a kind of discussion point. Obviously it is too open ended. Libel comes closer. Generalities about liberals or conservatives or other broad categories is an unfortunate but unavoidable part of the political landscape. I meant specific mistated facts that are seriously derogatory to officially named groups or individuals. For example saying the ACLU is an advocacy group for NAMBLA which would misrepresent their relationship should they be defending their right of free speech. If one said Republicans were racist then no you couldn't demand a refutation. If you stated the Republican party had a platform that employed racist language you are dealing with a real political entity and you are dealing with matters of fact, true or not true. In that latter instance the right of response would seem to be indicated.

As to who would make the determination that air time to respond should be offered, I imagine some determinative body could be appointed, just like a court.

Here I thought that when you posted your little video, you had an idea of what the conversation was about. Here is just one video of the Reverend's teachings. Notice that each time he changes topics, he is in a different outfit. This isn't just one little speech, this is a collection of his comments. I don't have the CD that is sold at his church that I have read about, I don't have transcripts of his sermons, but I also doubt that these are the only times he made these comments. Sure he has done great things, and I don't think I have ever said that he was a bad guy. I said that I think he is a racist. He may just happen to be a racist that does good things for his community. Just like white racists may do. I doubt there is any evidence that Rev. Wright has done much to help poor white kids, but that is just an assumption.

I know I'm coming in late to this. I had this wonderful post all laid out, and then my computer froze up.

(Which will definitely be opinionated in the Mac vs. PC thread....)


Absolutely not.

Oprah endorses Barack Obama. Should she have been FORCED to have all the other Democratic Candidates on HER show? I don't agree with Oprah, but I sure don't want her to be forced to highlight all of the other dim bulbs because someone got their feelings hurt. And while I don't agree with her, I support her right to have whatever guest she wants on her show, at whatever time, in whatever order, with the rights to cancel whoever she wants. It's her empire. Let her run it without some legislative political bullcrap.

Shows are businesses. If the ratings fall because we had to have 3 or 4 (or 10) people on the show JUST FOR EQUALITY, people would tune out. Why should a government law require the demise of personal enterprise?

I don't agree with opinions expressed on the errorneously titled "The View". Four women (one being Conservative) in a roundtable is not the "end all" deserving of the "THE" title. But you know what? It caters to a demographic of which I don't belong. If those four women wanted to bash on men all day, that's their perogative. Should I be able to sue because my wife becomes a man hater as a result of being influenced? No. Should I demand an equal show with men? Oh god, I'd never watch that either. It doesn't make sense to "equalize" every view. So in that sense, it's "inequal". Okay, so what? The ratings are good, and someone's business is working. It's nonsense to try to compensate and jeopardize that.

QUOTE

Should the fairness doctrine be applied if you believe it to be true?

Of course not. It's an invention by the Democratic Party to stifle free speech in small rural towns. WIKI IT, if you don't believe me. It's a bully tactic, used almost SOLEY by Democrats, targeting an overwhelming Conservative medium.

Talk Radio is predominately on AM radio. With all of it's 32 kilo-bit-per-second-quality glorious bandwidth. You have to muddle between farm reports, public access and spanish programming to find it.

If customers wanted "Progressive" talk radio, and it is a viable business, then why is Air America struggling? Soros had to dump millions of his own money to get it rolling, which I have no problem with. But if it's what he said it was, why isn't it taking off? They would be the ONLY network with almost no competition. ClearChannel has to compete with CBS, Citadel and local and regional conglomerates as well for the Conservative audience.

Air America is unchallenged. And still barely hanging on. And now they want to "get half" of what ClearChannel, CBS and Citadel broadcast FOR FREE?

On what basis? "Fairness"? Hey, why not let Fred Phelps run a noon timeslot on Air America. Let's see how that rolls, and then we'll talk. What would Soros think of THAT happening to his investment? (And no, I'm not REALLY suggesting it, so loosen up). I would rather let Soros, as much of a putz I think he is, run his business the way he wanted - bashing the President and all - than suggest a government regulate free speech and try to equalize it.

The government can't even build bridges right. You want them to control the airwaves?

It's strongarming with the "fairness" label, and it's nonsense. Free speech was never meant to not offend. In fact, free speech was designed so that unpopular concepts can come to light. A point that is "regularly pointed out" and "forgotten" by the same group all to often.

Edited to add: "Free Speech" as outlined in this nation's documents is not the guarantee that you'll get a big audience, or any audience at all. It simply means you have the right to say it. You have to convince the guy who built and owns the megaphone to let you use it.

Funny that I see a wider range of opinion on C-SPAN than I ever see on the commercial media. The commercial medium stays well within the mainstream so views that exist on the margins seldom get a hearing. Although I'm not arguing for a broad use of the fairness doctrine - I consider it impractical, I find it troubling that most of those who argue against it do so almost strictly on the basis of a kind of profits uber alles philosophy. Often it is the ideas that do not appeal to the mainstream and are least likely to attract advertisers that are the most pregnant with insight.

I do want the marginal folks to have some foot under the tent. Negative statements that are factually questionable as applied to specifc individuals or groups would seem to be a fair basis for instigating a correction and letting the often left out folks offer their own self-description. A one minute response to a 3 hour fact challenged Jihad is not I think asking too much.

By the way, it is kind of ridiculous to assume that Air America offers some kind of radical alternative. It is basically mainstream democratic party radio.

I want to also remind folks once again that the airwaves are in the public domain and adding requirements that ask that they protect the public good is well within the reasonable rights and responsibilities of government. If I try to broadcast on someone elses licensed airways you can be darn sure that station will want the government to intervene. So it is not about more or less government, it is about to which purposes government is going to be employed. Allowing a short corrective response to what in effect could be considered station libel against specific persons or groups I think is a fair use of the powers of government.

Dingo said:

So technically Fred Phelps can get his two minutes of coverage for every gay parade that's reported on the news - that is, if someone was to bring up the fact that Westboro "Baptist" Church is a bunch of hate mongering EDIT. Hmmm. I don't see that as a win-win.

If there was a market for Phelps, which there is not, he'd have a platform.

And of course... CLICK HERE for the obligatory laugh-at-Phelps clip.

I'm not talking about markets. I'm talking about accuracy. Calling someone an EDIT does not address a matter of fact.
If Phelps in addition to being accused of hating homosexuals and claiming God was punishing America for accepting them was accused of advocating individuals should be free to kill homosexuals on their own initiative and it wasn't true then like any other citizen I think he should have a right to go before a broadcast board and insist that he had been libeled and demand either a public retraction or an opportunity to respond to the allegation. The board could then take his complaint under consideration and judge its merits and then make a decision which if it favored Phelps the station would have to honor.

Laws are made for everyone, even the Rev. Phelps and his sick crew.

How would you do this? Does this mean that every NPR affiliate – like WBUR here in Boston has to allow this? Never happen. This station spews totally biased crap that appeals to the local liberal audience. If you think they would like to give up time to an opposing viewpoint I think you are dreaming.




I dispute this. This station comes from the far left and imo turns off a lot of centrist Dems – so much so that they don’t listen which leads to their lack od profitability.



And I would remind you that the freedom of speech doctrine refers to this speech specifically and that goes for all points of view. The idea that you need to force every outlet to give points of view that some one deems “fair” is ludicrous and will not fly. Although I do maintain that "public" radio should give both views - this rarely happens.

Bias isn't at issue here, misrepresentation is. You're arguing for unanswered libels over the airwaves.


There is no far left radio in this country. When they offer regular commentary from Hugo Chavez I might be inclined to acknowledge that they have moved to the center of the far left.


Keep throwing out your strawman Ted. I never said fair, I said offended parties should have the opportunity to correct lies. Believe it or not everything isn't reduceable to democrats vs. republicans.

And how will we define that? They are essentially the same. Obama says McCain wants us to be at war in Iraq for 100 years? Obviously a “misrepresentation”. Other “biased” speech merely focuses on data that give part of the story or is laced with personal opinions – common on local NPR affiliates.




I consider Air American type shows as far left as Rush is right – or more. That is what I am speaking of. Not Communist radio.



So every statement that is not complete or tot tally factual (in the opinion of someone) , on any media outlet would have to allow for someone to come on and dispute it? Like the McCain 100 years of war LIE.

Come on give me a break. The NYT would have to be twice its size to cover the rebuttals and corrections to the crap it prints – same for many CNN broadcasts.

I assume there would be a broadcast arbitration board that would be a clearing house for complaints. I assume they would set the hurdle for a retraction or a reply quite high so you wouldn't have lots of simply partisan complaints. A 2+2=3 statement is really not so hard to discern.


If you live deep in a right wing cave Ted Kennedy looks far left. As far as I know Chavez is not a communist. He's a socialist who happens to admire Castro. There are people on the far left who consider him a sell-out. That said, why shouldn't communists be part of the public discussion? They have at times expressed themselves on this forum.


I happen to think once a clear high bar standard is set, for broadcast only by the way and much higher than you contemplate, then stations and commentators will simply be more conscientious about their fact checking and the problem will be mainly self-corrective.

Strange that some folks think that the public airways should be handed over to professional liars who libel good people and thereby make it less likely that conscientious citizens will want to go into public service.

I'm not sure I see a clear point of disagreement here. What I said:
I'm guessing we'd be in agreement on all those points. I suppose then, you're quibbling with this:
I can't see how you can dismiss that out of hand, but you're free to make your case. Parties and, especially, individual candidates have enormous sway over their advocates - and I don't see how that can be denied. I also don't see how you could argue against candidates or chairs being able to denounce such tactics, but have at it.

Whether or not parties or candidates should try to prevent "loose cannon" strategies is not a question I addressed.

I will say this, though: I agree with you 100% that open primaries should be abolished. That, however, is up to each state and their party organizations to decide. If nothing else, the current election cycle may be an object lesson in the perils of open primaries - and I'm guessing a few states may move to close them as a result.

In the meantime, however, open primaries can be abused - and to such an extent that they could affect the results of a national general election. I would not agree, though, that a party or an independent advocate who exploits the flaws in the open primary system, especially with the intention of swaying the outcome of another party's primary is exactly blameless. One can be extremely unethical without being unlawful. You may be okay with unethical behavior so long as the opportunity for such behavior is provided by someone else. I'm not. To me, a lack of ethics is a lack of ethics - and "blaming the system" don't cut it.

It may be a baker's policy to leave his shop unattended at lunchtime. One could easily slip in and steal a loaf of bread. Whether one does or not is one's choice. And blaming the baker is no defense for the theft.

It should be noted, though, that the states in which Limbaugh and the Obama campaign have been advocating the "Democrat for a Day" strategy have been states with closed primaries - that's why Rush and Barack have been encouraging people to re-register as Democrats. And that, too, is disgusting.