Limbaugh & Hannity react to Democrats trying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine


Hello Everyone:

I am really glad to see that some members of Congress are trying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine in the media now!

This issue had a significant effect on some of the biggest names in extreme right wing talk radio on Wednesday, January 17!

Below is a transcript from Rush Limbaugh titled "Kucinich Revives "Hush Rush" Movement" with a picture of where his mouth is being covered and news links at the bottom of the article if you want to read more about this issue.  Covering Limbaugh's mouth is a nice thought but just not with the American flag!

Here is the link to Sean Hannity's radio program from Wednesday, January 17: 

http://www.hannity.com/

Wednesday, January 17th
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) about the Fairness doctrine; Dick Morris

I listened to this exchange on my way home from work and it is my opinion that Rep. Hinchey did an excellent job making his points and standing up to Hannity.  I really sensed some fear in Hannity's voice during this dialogue!

Here is Laura Ingraham's website link where she also had Rep. Hinchey on her radio program on January 17.  Below that link is a review of the dialogue from an extreme right wing group that I monitor on a regular basis by a guy named "Stephen:"   

http://www.lauraingraham.com/

NEW!  Rep. Hinchey (D-NY) gives his view on the Fairness Doctrine

A truly powerful media is one that can stop a war, not start a war.-- Jane Fonda, on why the Fairness Doctrine should be revived.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Conservative_Principles_and_Activism/message/79107

Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:12 am

"stephen michaud" <smichaud@...>

Laura Ingraham had quite a shoot out with Hinchey!   

http://tinyurl.com/2c7h46

He had nothing concrete to say except the usual Librano$ double
talk! Hinchley sounded like tha babbling mental retard that he is!

He wouldn't take up Laura on her offer for Hinchey to offer three
names to Laura which she would put on her program, as if she doesn't
have enough Libs on already showing her fairness to both sides.

Savage says "Bring it on", he will demand equal time on every MSM
network, as well as NPR, and PBS and will sue if necessary to have
his voice heard:

We'll see how far this will go, but as far as the Librano$ are
concerned they want it to go as far as CHINA has it, censurship at
the risk of years in jail!

The Librano$ are taking as much of an advantage of their short
time as the majority as they can, implementing as much "Stalinist"
legislation as they think they can get away with!

I say bring it all on now, and dig your holes deep to fall into
in 08!

God bless the troops:

Stephen

Here is what I consider to be an excellent summary of the terrible and divisive philosophy behind extreme right wing talk tadio that I heard from Craig Crawford when he was talking about Bill O'Reilly:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16561139/

'Scarborough Country' for Jan. 9
Read the transcript to the Tuesday show

CRAIG CRAWFORD, “CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY,” MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST:  "I mean, look, this is an old formula for Bill O‘Reilly, is to take on a network—he was after CBS for years, and CBS—I guess that got tired and so now it‘s NBC. He‘s based a show on hating somebody. I mean, he‘s built an audience of people who want to hear that, and he delivers every night and it‘s all about hate. It‘s like any other addiction, you know, you got to feed the habit."

Here is where I have credibly documented how very powerful that extreme right wing talk radio is and how that it is used by Bush and the RNC to communicate their message in a centralized and organized way to about 30 million people (of which Rush Limbaugh alone controls about 20 million):  

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9122

DOCUMENTATION & ANALYSIS: Bush met with Sean Hannity & Media to Firm Up Support!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 19, 2006 - 7:59am.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7735  

ANALYSIS & DOCUMENTATION: PEW stats on Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly & the Media!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on August 1, 2006 - 3:29am.

Here are links where you can contact Reps. Hinchey and Kucinich to encourage them to do everything that they can to bring back the Fairness Doctrine: 

http://kucinich.house.gov/Contact/  

http://www.house.gov/hinchey/contact/

Rush Limbaugh is quoted on his website making the following claims which are very good reasons in my opinion why we need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine if it is possible: 

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_061206/content/quotes.guest.html

The Leader of the New Media

June 12, 2006

"This program started in 1988, and since 1989 the Democratic Party has been trying to come up with some way to counter it and all of the other talk radio programs spawned by our success -- and they have failed in every way."

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011707/content/quotes.guest.html

I Am Equal Time

January 17, 2007

"All you supporters of the Fairness Doctrine who think this show needs to be 'balanced,' let me tell you something: The truth does not need balance. And the truth is what we do on this program."

How I wish that we could seriously compete with this in an organized way on a national level but I do not see that happening in the near future unless there are some unexpected major changes that happen.  That is why I think we need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine so that we can get equal time to seriously compete with Rush Limbaugh and company!

I really appreciate Gen. Clark for taking a stand on the issue of the extreme right wing media by calling in to Sean Hannity's radio program to defend the Patriotism of Democrats and by asking his supporters to call in to extreme right wing talk radio once a week to hold them accountable:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191

Listen to Wes Clark fight for Dems on Hannity

Listen here.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191#comment-111351

Gen. Clark on media response from 2/11/05 when I saw him speak! 

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 23, 2006 - 5:35am. 

This media debate is very important because whoever controls the media will for the most part control a lot of the agenda and much of what is talked about in the news all the way up to 2008 and beyond!

Whoever is able to do that better in the media will influence more impressionable people and these are the main people who will be up for grabs in the 2008 election!

Mitch Dworkin

http://www.securingamerica.com/

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9331
OPEd: USA TODAY: Next move in Iraq?
Submitted by Wes Clark on November 21, 2006

http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!

--------------------

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011707/content/fairnessdoctrine.guest.html

Kucinich Revives "Hush Rush" Movement

January 17, 2007

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Dennis Kucinich, we have audio sound bites. I’m getting a lot of panicked e-mail from people about this. He wants to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, popularly known not just by me, but by a lot of people as the Hush Rush bill. Now, the interesting thing about this, and I talked about this over the years a number of times because it's an effort that the Democrats have threatened when they were out of power to do when they regained their power. Now Kucinich is leading the charge here. The Fairness Doctrine, it goes back to the ancient days of superheterodyne receivers, back to the 1930s and the 1940s, when the media landscape was entirely different than it is today. The Fairness Doctrine is largely aimed at radio today, and that's the medium that the Democrats still fear more than any other. They control lots of television, particularly news. They control print, obviously. They're the majority in both of those media. But in radio, they haven't been able to crack the nut. They haven't been able to make inroads. They've tried everybody they could think of but they just haven't been able to figure it out.

As is typical with liberals -- in some instances you'd have to say that Kucinich is acting Stalinist in this -- they have given it their best shot to try to have an open-minded, open-ended debate in radio. They can't get coverage, they can't draw an audience; they can't draw an audience in the commercial field, at any rate. So what do they do? They attempt to silence the opposition, and this is an assault on the First Amendment, disguised under that word "fairness." The application of the Fairness Doctrine worked this way. It basically made it so difficult for local radio stations to put on controversial programming that they put none on. So what you're going to get if they do reinstate this is highlighted programming such as the favorite holiday recipes for Christmastime, sewage problems for the next decade in your local community, and other such things. The application of the Fairness Doctrine would be very, very tough to police. The point of it was to balance opinions and to be fair, and if one point of view was expressed, the other had to be expressed well, otherwise no opinion could be expressed. There was also a provision that personal attacks, people victimized by those would have a chance to reply and respond and so forth.

Now, the Fairness Doctrine was dispatched by Reagan, Ronaldus Magnus in 1987, and the practical result of the Fairness Doctrine was there was no controversial programming. The thing that libs miss out -- well, they understand all of this, they just can't deal with losing. They think that talk radio is the biggest thorn in their side, and so they want to silence it rather than try to beat it because they can't. They've demonstrated they can't even get close to even being noticed much less be competitive on radio. So the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine is not going to happen with Bush in the White House, but after '08, you never know. I think it's a long shot anyway, but it's something worth remaining vigilant to because there's no question if they had a chance they would do it. Although, the media landscape has changed so much. Look at the multiple channels you have now, satellite radio, which probably is not governed by the FCC -- well, I know it's not because it's not over the air, it's not using “the public airwaves,” quote, unquote.

Look at all the different channels you have on television. To single out radio for this would be quite obvious as to the intent and the purpose and making things fair would not be the objective. Silencing conservatives on radio would be the objective. What the liberals don't understand is the market takes care of this. Yeah, talk radio is predominantly conservative. We can discuss the reasons why, but it's irrelevant to this discussion. But the market balances things out. I came along in 1988, started this program, it was the only program of its kind nationally, and the liberals immediately started shouting, “You need to balance your show! It's all conservative!” Well, no, no. I am the balance. I am just a little attempt here at equal time. You guys have the rest of the media. Up to this day, you add up the liberal dominance in most media, and it still dwarfs what talk radio is in terms of reach, but still, they can't deal with even one element of the media not being controlled by them.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: We'll start in Austin, Texas. Griffin, thank you for calling, sir. You are up first.

CALLER: Thanks. I'm thinking maybe we should bring back the Fairness Doctrine and give equal time for liberals on shows like your own. And the reason would be that, you know, a lot of people tune in to opinion shows like yours and they feel like they're getting a whole balance right there, that it's fair and balanced as is. But, you know, a lot of shows they do have a right-wing bias or something. Take Fox network, it used to call itself fair and balanced and now Tony Snow is working for a conservative president --

RUSH: Oh, come on Griffin, I would love to talk with you seriously about this. How about Chris Matthews, who used to work for Tip O'Neill? George Stephanopoulos worked for Clinton. Chris Cuomo is Cuomo. All of these people that are at ABC and NBC. Let's see, Tim Russert I think was somewhere with Moynihan. The Drive-By Media today is a veritable satellite office of the Democrat National Committee.

CALLER: Well, shouldn't we kind of more, frankly, admit our bias in every case?

RUSH: We do on this program. They don't. They insist that they are not liberal when that charge is leveled at them. But, you know, Griffin, what you have to understand here is that you're being sucked in by the notion of fairness. You're actually advocating the suppression of free speech. You say this show needs to be balanced.

CALLER: Within itself.

RUSH: No, it doesn't. This show is in the free market. If people don't like this show, it won't get an audience, and you don't have to worry about it. If they do, it does, and it will get an audience and it will survive. I'm under no requirement to balance this show. I consider myself to be just a little speck of balance against all the other media that's out there. You have to look at the whole marketplace not individual shows. You wouldn't call NBC or CBS -- look at the elements that you singled out. You singled out Fox News. You singled out me as items needing to be balanced but you don't think ABC or CBS or CNN needs to be balanced. I didn't hear you say that.

CALLER: Well, I think they are balanced within themselves fairly well.

RUSH: You do?

CALLER: Yes, sir.

RUSH: Name for me the conservative commentaries on CNN? Name for me the anchors, the reporters at CNN who are conservative.

CALLER: I would see none of them as liberal and none of them as particularly conservative, I would see them all as essentially moderate.

RUSH: The fact of the matter is what you just told me is that you are a liberal, and as a liberal you don't think of yourself as an ideologue, you are just it, you are what normal is, and people like me are the monsters and the clowns and the fringe and the kooks, and somehow when you hear us say what you say, you don't like it. Rather than just turn the radio off and let the market determine these things, you want to participate in an effort to shut me up. You are an arrogant, conceited, condescending person who is not half as smart nor as worldly and fair and open and honest as you think you are. You are close to being a Stalinist. You want to shut down people who say things you don't like, or you want to go along with the program to ostensibly balance them, which would end programs like this.

You think my audience wants to hear me, half of this program devoted to some bunch of liberals responding to what I said? Now and then we do it for the fun of it. It's always fun to listen to them bomb out. But we put liberals on this program, like you, you're an example here. I got a bunch of people on hold. You're not the first to call today, but you're first in line. We put liberals up whenever we call here. We don't keep them off the air, we're not suppressing them, we're not oppressing them, and, by the way, there is nobody on my side of the aisle who is advocating that they be silenced. That kind of thing only comes from people like you. I don't know one conservative who wants CNN taken off the air or the government managing what CNN broadcasts or NBC or CBS. You know how we deal with it, Griffin? We deal with it by informing our audience so that they can watch all these things and listen to all these things with a new understanding and education so that they can make up their own minds about what they're watching and hearing and reading. We seek to make them more informed than ever, we seek to make them engaged in the political arena of ideas. That you fear.

You want people who disagree with you silenced and shut up and maybe, for all I know, sent to the gulags along with Dick Durbin and our interrogators at Club Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. You don't hear people like me advocating anybody be silenced. You don't hear anybody like me advocating that there be balance. You don't hear me saying, “Hey, CBS, get rid of Katie Couric and hire me,” although that would be a brilliant move on their part. Nobody is suggesting that Tim Russert give up half of Meet the Press to me in order to balance -- yet you call here and suggest I should do this? You arrogant, condescending snob. I know you don't think of yourself that way, but you are.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Craig in Sacramento, you're next on the EIB Network. Nice to have you, sir.

CALLER: Hey, hot Sacramento dittos to you, Rush. 1984 I started listening to you, so it's been a long time.

RUSH: You've been there from the get-go, as they say.

CALLER: From the get-go. I remember the first day, I looked at my dad, “Rush, who's Rush?” But anyway, do you recall, you did a point/counterpoint show in Sacramento, it was on a local news station. I just remember a big mustachioed liberal, and it was a lot of fun watching you have that guy for lunch.

RUSH: That was on Channel 13, at the time the ABC affiliate. That was then-mayor of Davis, Dave Rosenberg. Yeah, but that's got nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine. That was like a two minute bit --

CALLER: It wasn't really your show. I was wondering if you'd ever run across him again or anything, because I remember he just --

RUSH: I haven't. But he was a nice guy.

CALLER: He was.

RUSH: He was sort of at a disadvantage. Here he is a mayor. I'm a highly trained broadcast specialist, understanding the medium, plus he's representing a liberal position. You know, folks, all you people out there, the supporters of the Fairness Doctrine, you think this show needs to be balanced and so forth, let me tell you something. Learn this. The truth does not need balance, and the truth is what we do on this program. The truth is what we seek on this program, and as such it doesn't need balance.

CALLER: One other thing, Rush, it wasn't balanced because he was way outclassed, as most liberals would be, to get on a show with you --

RUSH: I know, but it's a long-ago show, and as I say, he was disadvantaged just in terms of being in the business. The thing I remember most about that little feature, I think it lasted 13 weeks. For that period of time, 1980 -- I guess it was '85 in Sacramento when that started, it was controversial.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: It didn't happen. It was in the five o'clock news hour out there, and the subject one day was feminism. I don't know what Rosenberg said, but he inspired one of my great undeniable truth lines of all time. And that is, “No, Dave, I love the feminist movement, especially when walking behind it.” He didn't know what to do, because he was dead serious about whatever the topic was, here I was just having fun with it. But nevertheless I'm glad you remembered that.

CALLER: Yeah. A little nostalgia for you, Rush. It was great talking to you.

RUSH: Thank you Craig. I appreciate it. My adopted hometown of Sacramento where radio stations are now killing their audience. Have you heard about the morning program out there? The water poisoning? They fired ten people from that station. I'll tell you, when I leave a market -- well, it might be overreaction, but these people say they're sorry, they'll be back. Then they apologize. Why in the world would you run a contest saying, “Go ahead and drink as much as you can and don't pee and the longer you can do that --“ you know, I leave a market and the market falls apart. The standards, the broadcast standards just plunder. Oh, well.

END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Background Material...

(CNSNews: Democrats' New 'Fairness' Push May Silence Conservative Radio Hosts, Critics Say)

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200701/NAT20070117a.html
(Austrin Chronicle: Here Comes Da Fairness Doctrine Again)

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=19207

(New York Daily News: Liberals seek to restore Fairness on the air)

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/ent_radio/story/489218p-412017c.html

(UPI: Kucinich to Push for Media Reform)

http://www.dailyindia.com/show/104086.php/Kucinich-to-push-for-media-reform

*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.


Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 18, 2007 - 4:34pm.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200701/NAT20070117a.html

Democrats' New 'Fairness' Push May Silence Conservative Radio Hosts, Critics Say
By Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
January 17, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Democrats in Congress are pushing for legislation that they say would bring more balance to the media, but critics say would muzzle conservative voices.

The Fairness Doctrine, a federal regulation requiring broadcasters to present both sides of a controversial issue, was enforced by the Federal Communications Commission from 1949 to 1987, when it was dropped during the Reagan administration.

Many in the broadcast industry credit the dropping of the rule to the rise of conservative talk radio that became a booming industry, featuring personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham.

Bringing back the regulation will ensure more even-handed coverage of political issues, said Jeff Lieberson, spokesman for Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), who has proposed the "Media Ownership Reform Act."

"The political interests of media owners can have a direct and indirect effect on the way news is presented to the public, so it's important that all sides are heard," Lieberson told Cybercast News Service Tuesday.

The Fairness Doctrine is a key component of Hinchey's bill, which also sets tighter limits on media ownership. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has proposed a companion bill in the Senate.

"This is not an attempt to muzzle them at all," Lieberson said of conservative talk show hosts who are opposed to the Fairness Doctrine. "They will still be heard. This will ensure that different views that are not theirs will also be heard."

But muzzling is exactly what such a law would do, charged Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in the Media, a conservative media watchdog group.

"Make no bones about it, they want to force the conservative media to hand over air time to liberals," Kincaid said in an interview. "When federal bureaucrats dictate the content of radio and TV shows, it's muzzling to tell them what to say and how to say it."

Many conservatives have long argued that the bulk of major newspapers, news magazines and network news programs tilt left and regard talk radio as an antidote.

"Liberals used to dominate the media, and they are irritated there are competing voices, so now they want to reign in the conservative media using the federal government," Kincaid continued. "There is no prohibition against liberal talk radio. Liberals tried talk radio and it was not successful in the market place."

Kincaid pointed to Air America, the liberal talk radio network started in 2004 that is now in bankruptcy but still operating with a limited audience.

The Fairness Doctrine was adopted by the FCC in 1949 as a regulation, never a law enacted by Congress. The effort now by Democrats in Congress is to codify the doctrine into law.

When the rule was in place, radio and TV stations could face hefty fines if their stations aired controversial statements on public affairs without providing equal time to opposing viewpoints. Critics said the result was self-censorship by timid broadcasters who avoided politics to escape any potential government retaliation.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that the doctrine did not violate the First Amendment, because the airwaves belonged to the public and thus could face government regulation to which print media were not subjected.

After the FCC ditched the rule in 1987, Democratic lawmakers made several attempts to bring it back in statute. Those attempts were unsuccessful even when Democrats controlled both the White House and Congress in 1993 and 1994.

Despite the 1969 court ruling, Dennis Wharton, spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters, told Cybercast News Service Tuesday it was fundamentally a First Amendment question.

"It was not appropriately named," Wharton said of the doctrine. "It was unfair in inhibiting broadcasters' free speech rights.

"There has been an explosion of viewpoints and coverage of issues since the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine," Wharton said. "It's been a boon for free expression."

Hinchey, chairman of the "Future of Media Caucus" in the House, is among several
Democratic lawmakers who spoke at the National Conference on Media Reform in Memphis, Tenn., this past weekend.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), chairman of the House subcommittee on domestic policy, announced he would hold hearings on the media, which would include looking at restoring the Fairness Doctrine.

"We know the media has become the servant of a very narrow corporate agenda," Kucinich, a candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, reportedly told the Memphis event.

"We are now in a position to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible," he said.

Ruth's picture
Submitted by Ruth on January 18, 2007 - 4:53pm.

That article has been repeated on every right wing site. I watched today's White House briefing and someone there asked Tony Snow about it. He laughed it off and said he might comment if anything ever comes of it. Yeah, he just might have to.

There's a great site to hear the whole Media Reform conference. Be sure to check out Bernie Sanders.
http://freepress.net/conference/=full_schedule07


"Some of them put on their cowboy boots and put their feet up on the desk." -Wes Clark


Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 18, 2007 - 5:14pm.

have every reason to be afraid because if it does comes back, then their power and control over millions of people will be greatly reduced!

They know that Bush will veto the Fairness Doctrine now (I don't know if there are enough votes in Congress to override his veto, that may be a tall order to fill) BUT their biggest fear I am aware of is that the Fairness Doctrine will pass if a Democratic President is elected in 2008!

See this link for my comments on Sen. Bernie Sanders:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10583#comment-172593

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 18, 2007 - 4:53pm.

points of view."

Here is the link where you can contact Sen. Bernie Sanders and encourage him to help Reps. Hinchey and Kucinich do everything that they can to bring back the Fairness Doctrine:

http://sanders.senate.gov/ 

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200606/POL20060615b.html

Liberals Urged to Take on 'Right-Wing Nuts' on Talk Radio
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
June 15, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) challenged liberals attending the "Take Back America" conference to take on the "right-wing nuts" on talk radio and demand that local radio stations and newspapers provide "alternative points of view."

"The fight to allow people to hear different points of view is as important as any other fight, so I would urge people at the grassroots to start taking on the local media," Sanders said during a panel discussion Wednesday on the topic of media reform.

"If you have a right-wing station in your community, you've got to go up to those people and say, 'You've got to give us alternative points of view,'" he stated. "If you have a newspaper in your community that does not allow columnists from a progressive perspective, you've got to go challenge those people."

Sanders added that liberals in the audience should tell people in the media "that you're prepared to speak out against those advertisers who are supporting right-wing stations unless other points of view can be heard."

Still, the Vermont congressman noted that "we are making progress" in getting liberal viewpoints heard across the country.

"If we were sitting here six or seven years ago," the term "talk radio" would have meant "Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ollie North and all the right-wing nuts who would have occupied 98 or 99 percent of the space out there," Sanders said. Listen to Audio

"Well, you know what? Things have changed," Sanders said. The liberal network "Air America is doing very different talk," and several progressives are being broadcast on a variety of media outlets.

Nevertheless, Sanders admitted that he is unhappy with the number of liberals on the air. "This is a divided nation," he said, "so why isn't half of talk radio progressive?"

The congressman also noted that progressives are "making real, real progress in dealing with the issue" of "smaller and smaller numbers of multinational media conglomerates owning and controlling what the American people see and hear in the media."

"If you are concerned about the environment, if you're concerned about the decline of the middle class, if you're concerned about health care, you must be concerned about corporate control over the media," Sanders said.

"We are not going to be able to address any or all of those issues unless you have a level of political consciousness in America, and a consciousness which is developed by people having access to different ideas that they're not getting today," Sanders said. Listen to Audio

Regarding news programming, "somebody says this is what is important and this is not important," Sanders noted. "If you compare the amount of time given to crime as say, the collapse of the middle class, if you talk about the NBA playoffs as opposed to poverty in America, you're talking about numbers of 10 or 100 to 1."

If more complex issues are not addressed, Sanders said, "people who are working, not one job but two jobs and three jobs, trying to cobble together a living," will say: "Nobody cares about me. Nobody knows what I am going through. Why should I vote? Why should I participate in the political process?"

The congressman also criticized news stations that force people "to speak in seven-second sound bites. It is a sad day in America when I do not speak on television about Iraq - because nobody who covers Iraq in Vermont or in America can cover the issue in seven seconds."

Sanders also expressed displeasure with the way cable news was covering the breaking story that the federal government paid up to $1.4 billion to victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita that was used for football tickets, a tropical vacation and even a divorce lawyer.

"What Fox and others are now trying to do is blame the poor people," Sanders said. "There is a huge lack of accountability in terms of the Bush administration funneling out billions of your taxpayer dollars. But again, it is easier for Fox to blame poor people than it is their friends who are large, multinational corporations."

However, Tim Carney with the free market-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, took issue with Sanders' statements regarding media ownership.

"It's fine for the congressman to worry about corporate ownership of the media, but it's dishonest of him to equate 'corporate' with 'right-wing,'" Carney told Cybercast News Service.

"Sanders knows very well that big businesses are no free market swashbucklers or conservative crusaders - or maybe he's never heard of Ted Turner and George Soros," Carney added.

Michael Harrison, publisher of "Talkers magazine," disagreed with many of Sanders' other points.

"What he's saying doesn't fit within the First Amendment," Harrison told Cybercast News Service. "First of all, he's characterizing people he doesn't agree with as nuts, but they have legitimate points of view, just as the left has a legitimate point of view.

"And even nuts have the right to speak in this country," Harrison added.

Regarding conservative talk radio, Harrison said that "there's nothing wrong with somebody being successful and having a following. There's nothing illegal about it, either.

"There are other kinds of radio, too, as evidenced by the fact that Air America is out there, and we have National Public Radio" plus a wide variety of other formats, Harrison said.

In addition, "I think newspapers have the right to be whatever they want to be," Harrison said. "If you don't like it, start your own newspaper or don't frequent the advertisers."

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 18, 2007 - 4:59pm.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13531727/site/newsweek/

The Right: The Next Big Thing?

Conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt marries the power of talk radio with the reach of the 'netroots.' Watch out, Kos.

Talk Radio: 'Both spoken words and written words are powerful,' says Hewitt

By Andrew Romano
Newsweek

July 3-10, 2006 issue - Hugh Hewitt is a master of multitasking. Week after week, the sanguine, persistent pundit hosts his "center-right" talk radio show from a nondescript office in Orange County, Calif.—and more than a million people tune in. Two computers flank his mike. While on the air, Hewitt uses the first to surf news sites, then swivels to the second during breaks to update his well-trafficked blog. "Both spoken words and written words are powerful," he says. "Acting in harmony, the effect is exponential." Just ask Rick Santorum. In May, he urged Hewitt's listeners to fork over campaign funds, and the host, ever eager, posted a link. Donations shot up 500 percent.

Chances are Santorum won't be the last candidate between now and November to benefit from Hewitt's brand of blog-broadcast synergy. On July 4, Salem Communications, one of the country's largest radio-station owners, will relaunch an old Web war horse called Townhall.com as a hub for its stable of stars (including Bill Bennett, Michael Medved and Hewitt himself). The hope? That "Web 2.0" wherewithal can transform what was once an op-ed clearinghouse into a single nerve center serving the separate conservative communities of talk radio and the Internet. To Hewitt, a valuable White House ally, the math is simple: add 6 million Salem fans to Townhall's 1.4 million unique monthly visitors and you've got an audience six or seven times the size of liberal site Daily Kos, the Web's biggest political blog. "We will overwhelm them," he says.

Like Daily Kos, the revamped Townhall will focus on motivating and activating the grass roots. That's where Chuck DeFeo comes in. As manager of Bush's 2004 eCampaign, DeFeo was widely credited with winning that year's war of the Web by emphasizing word-of-mouth marketing over fund-raising appeals. Soon after, he signed with Salem and, spurred by Hewitt, spent months building a group blog called Beyond the News. But when the 11-year-old Townhall (a Heritage Foundation-National Review coproduction) went on the block, DeFeo had Salem snap it up. He would still use his 2004 tools to assemble a site where "you're no longer just listening and learning about politics, but can impact the debate and make your voice heard." Only now he would have an existing brand to expand on.

So Townhall gets its second act. Every day, Salem's nationally syndicated hosts will post show summaries, blog entries and podcasts. On the air, they'll encourage listeners to visit the amped-up "Action Center," where users can "push out" petition alerts on customized e-mail lists, set and track fund-raising goals, contact their elected officials and create personal blogs—a first, DeFeo claims, for a conservative Web site. As Kerry '04 blogmaster Dick Bell has said, "the hosts will act as recruiters for the millions of people listening every day—and that could really change the dynamic in terms of impact."

Should Dems be alarmed? "Absolutely," says Hewitt. "Unless they don't mind political exile." Not everyone is so sure. "Kos can't be duplicated," says Salon.com blogwatcher Peter Daou. To date, conservative sites have attempted little in the way of activism, but with talk radio's class of '94 climbing aboard—and two tough election seasons looming—that seems certain to change. "It's not about getting people angry," says Hewitt. "It's about being effective."

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 18, 2007 - 6:48pm.

will be a lot more of this stupid nonsense to come if Gen. Clark announces and if this issue is not seriously dealt with in some way!

You cannot just ignore this because then he will define you to millions of people however he chooses to which will hinder your ability to define your own message and connect it with many people!

John Kerry ignored it for a long time in 2004 and look what he got.  They swiftboated him, defined him, and prevented him from connecting his message with MANY people!

Fortunately Gen. Clark will not take this kind of crap as I have documented and I would never let any of these kind of attacks go unanswered if Gen. Clark does announce!  

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011707/content/fruited_plain_2.guest.html

Quick History Lesson from Emily 

January 17, 2007

RUSH: Emily in San Francisco, thanks, Emily, for calling. Welcome to the EIB Network.

CALLER: Thank you for teaching us every day. That's what President Truman said, the press should be to teach the people, and that's what you do with facts and honesty. You're not any Dan Rather making up documents or New York Times having liars for writers, you know. I thank you. But you know what I was going to ask you about is the anti-war left foreign policy of the Democrats...

RUSH: Well, thank you. Emily, let me ask you.

CALLER: Sure.

RUSH: I'm sure some people are interpreting what you're saying, the Democrats have done everything they can to prop up communist regimes. Whether by accident or by design, they refuse to see communism as a problem, and in fact they strengthen it. Today militant Islamism has replaced communism as the big threat we face. Is that your intent?

CALLER: Yes. And they have stopped us from winning any war. They do not let us win wars. They come in and they take away the money --

RUSH: What about Kosovo? What about Clinton and that courageous victory from 15,000 feet?

CALLER: Well, that was NATO fighting. We had very few forces there, compared to NATO. NATO was the one that was fighting that war.

RUSH: Yeah, but Clinton ordered it. Clinton got the credit, he and Ashley Wilkes. You know, Wesley Clark was one of the generals in that conflict, and they're claiming great credit as great militarists.

CALLER: (Laughing.)

RUSH: (Laughing.)

CALLER: I mean it's just like saying Obama is going to be a Reagan and is going to bring down a country like the communists --

RUSH: Emily, Emily before, I go -- do you need security protection in San Francisco?

CALLER: Oh, I sure do, but I just keep on because, you know, the truth has to win.

RUSH: Yes, that's true. And the truth does not need to be balanced. Thank you, Emily. That is a great short history lesson for people.


END TRANSCRIPT

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 19, 2007 - 1:57am.

back will help to lessen that risk!  I agree with Aaron Brown's comments:

http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/content/news/brown0126.html

Broadcaster says serious news at risk

By JAN SJOSTROM , Daily News Arts Editor
Thursday, January 26, 2006


Jeffrey Langlois
(enlarge photo)
Former CNN 'NewsNight' anchor Aaron Brown said important issues, such as the war in Iraq, are being clouded over by 'mud-wrestling' that skirts substance. Brown spoke Tuesday at The Society of the Four Arts.  

The anchorman whose boss once characterized him as ice compared with his successor's fire was anything but chilly in the impassioned speech he delivered Tuesday at The Society of the Four Arts.

"Truth no longer matters in the context of politics and, sadly, in the context of cable news," said Aaron Brown, whose four-year period as anchor of CNN's NewsNight ended in November, when network executives gave his job to Anderson Cooper in a bid to push the show's ratings closer to front-runner Fox News.

Brown said he tried to give viewers a balanced diet of light and serious news with NewsNight. "But I always knew when I got to the Brussels sprouts, I was on thin ice," he said.

When NewsNight spent four hours covering the arrest of actor Robert Blake for the murder of his wife, Brown received thousands of e-mails criticizing the amount of time the show spent on the story. Nevertheless, that show, which aired in April 2002, received the highest ratings of any program since NewsNight's coverage of the November 2001 crash of American Airlines flight 587.

"Television is the most perfect democracy," Brown said. "You sit there with your remote control and vote." The remotes click to another channel when serious news airs, but when the media covers the scandals surrounding Laci Peterson, the Runaway Bride or Michael Jackson, "there are no clicks then," the journalist said.

With the departure from the screen of the "titans" — Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings and Dan Rather — who "resisted the temptations of their bosses to go for the ratings grab, it will be years before an anchorman or anchorwoman will have the clout to fight these battles," he said.

Brown has spent most of his 30-year career in television news. He's covered everything from the Columbine High School murders to the aftermath of the space shuttle Columbia disaster. But viewers may remember best his on-the-spot coverage of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

He's shocked "by how unkind our world has become," he said. E-mail and talk radio appear to have given people the license to say anything, regardless of how cruel or false it may be, he said.

He cited the example of an e-mail faulting what the sender considered to be NewsNight's inadequate coverage of an anti-war protest in Washington, D.C. The note ended with, "I hope the violence visited on the people of Iraq will someday be visited on your children."

Those on the opposite side of the political spectrum are no more tolerant, Brown said. "Any criticism of the administration is regarded as hatred of the president and hatred of the country itself," he said.

Important issues, such as the prosecution of the war in Iraq at home and abroad, are being clouded over by "mud-wrestling" that skirts substance, he said. Consider what he called "the swift-boating of John Murtha," the Democratic congressman whose war record was smeared when he called for an exit strategy in Iraq. "Cable didn't search for the truth, but engaged in mock debates pitting those making the charges against Murtha's defenders," he said.

Many Americans on the left and the right aren't interested in the truth, but simply want news that confirms their viewpoints, he said. "You'd think that it's no more complex than good vs. evil," he said.

Journalists have fallen short in presenting important news in ways that allow viewers to see how it matters in their lives. But viewers must take up the battle as well, he said. "It's not enough to say you want serious news. You have to watch it. It isn't enough to say you want serious debate. You have to engage in it."


Email this page to a friend
By using this service you accept the terms of our Visitor Agreement.
© 2005 Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc.
The Palm Beach Daily News
Privacy Policy | About this site | Write to us

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 19, 2007 - 2:09am.

by Rush Limbaugh and other extreme right wing talk radio show hosts!

I do not know if this particular person was a real "Seminar Caller" or not but I do know that we need a lot more "Seminar Callers" to help fight back:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050506/content/across_the_fruited_plain.guest.html

Is She a Seminar Caller?

May 5, 2006

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: All right, Marie in Terre Haute, Indiana, you're next on the EIB Network. Hi.

CALLER: Hi. I'm a long-time listener. It's an honor to talk to you.

RUSH: Thank you very much.

CALLER: Hey, I've been listening to a bunch of talk about this whole immigration thing, and I want your opinion on something, because I'm not as interested in other opinions as I am in yours.

RUSH: Thank you.

CALLER: Let's fast forward, pretend the border is shut, penned up. Nobody is coming across except for a few.

RUSH: Yes.

CALLER: Now what do you think we should do with the illegals that are here, the ones that haven't, you know, gotten into horrible crimes? They obviously have broken the law by coming here, but that's it, that's the extent of it. What do you think we should do with them, and especially those that have American citizen children here? That's the big question I have in my circle of friends.

RUSH: Okay. All right. Marie, I have to tell you something, I love you. I'm so happy you called, but I have little tiny red flags going up that you might be a seminar caller.

CALLER: A what caller?

RUSH: Seminar caller.

CALLER: A seminar caller?

RUSH: Seminar caller. A liberal who has gone to a seminar to learn how to call --

CALLER: No, no, no, no, no. Let me tell you, definitely I am not.

RUSH: You praise the host when you start, and then basically --

CALLER: No, Rush, Rush, Rush, Rush. Really I'm not. I am so not. I have never voted for a liberal in my life. I am so Republican.

RUSH: That's part of what seminar callers say.

CALLER: No, seriously! Have mercy. I really am not. I really am a Republican.

RUSH: Seminar callers say that.

CALLER: Okay, so how do I prove to you that I'm not a seminar caller?

RUSH: You can't, and I'm not accusing you. I'm just saying red flags are up. Let me answer the question, because that's the point.

CALLER: Yes, that's the point and I am so not --

RUSH: See, the reason I also have little red flags up is because this is a pretty neat trick. You know, you are very -- if you are; if, if, if you are a seminar caller, you are very -- clever.

CALLER: I'm just a mom! (Laughing.) I really am!

RUSH: (Laughing.) That's what they say, too.

CALLER: I've never been a liberal. I am so not liberal.

RUSH: Okay. Okay. Okay. Time-out. Everything is cool. Everything is cool. Back off.

CALLER: That's about the worst thing you could call me.

RUSH: No, no, no. I tell you, when you finish this, you're going to have had one of the most pleasurable experiences you've ever had and you're going to want to do it more and more and more.

CALLER: (Laughing.) Well, back to my question.

RUSH: I'm going to answer the question. I just saw something on television, and you know, Snerdley and I have been discussing it. I'm not avoiding you here but I've got to say this before I forget it. Snerdley and I have been discussing this Porter Goss thing, and they just flashed a picture of Negroponte up there, and we've been discussing that there might be some sort of a power play going on. Negroponte is not a big fan. I'll talk more about this probably next week. But here's the answer to the question. You put things out of order. You put things 180 degrees out of phrase.

CALLER: You don't think the border should be shut first? I think it should be.

RUSH: Yes, I do, but we can't come to an agreement on that. I'm telling you that that needs to be the first thing that is discussed.

CALLER: Let's pretend it is.

RUSH: You put it out there. That's a simple answer. Nobody is talking about deporting these people.

CALLER: Well, I know nobody is talking about it. Actually they are because I hear people all the time saying we need to get rid of them.

RUSH: When I say nobody is talking about it. I mean "nobody" that is in a position to actually do it. I think it would be possible if we allotted enough money and years to it, but it's impractical, it's gotta stop here. We can't continue to address this every 20 years and say, "Okay, we'll legalize the ones that are here illegally and not do anything about the border because 20 years from now we're going to have 15 or 20 more million we've got to deal with."

CALLER: Well, that's why the border needs to shut. But, seriously, without sounding --

RUSH: I agree totally. If anybody in Washington, any candidate for any office would come out and actually propose seriously doing something about the border, then he would have a lot more credibility when he announced what his intentions were for doing with the people here who are here illegally.

CALLER: I heard your brother speaking the other day and I was impressed with what he said, and I was just wondering, you know--

RUSH: Why didn't you call him, then?

CALLER: I don't have his number! (Laughing) Frankly, I'm more interested in what you have to say, no slam on your brother.

RUSH: What did he say?

CALLER: I was struck with how compassionate he was. Okay, yes, he wants the border shut, as does everybody I know. But he was more of the opinion -- I thought, it sounded to me -- like assimilating those here, unless of course they're criminals, get rid of them. Who wants criminals? We have plenty of those on our own.

RUSH: Obviously. That's the whole point. We're not even talking about immigration here. We're talking about people that want jobs. There has to be a serious attempt with these twelve-- Using your hypothetical, we've got the border shut, and the number of illegals that succeed in getting past is a trickle and not enough to worry about. What do we do? We have to assimilate them. We have to require them to acculturate, and that's not hard to do, and we identify who they are and we let them stay and if they claim they're here because they want to become Americans we give them the chance to do that, but we don't put them at the head of the line, we don't run them ahead of people playing by the rules. But the key to it is closing the border.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: It's going to be much easier to come up with a policy to deal with the 12 to 20, whatever, who are here now illegally, if that's it.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: But if it's another 12 to 20 in 15 years, then we're not solving the problem. And that's what people instinctively know and that's what frustrates them.

CALLER: Okay. Well, I appreciate your time, and please don't think I'm a liberal.

RUSH: Okay. I just had to be honest with you. You were exhibiting some traits, but I think you have proven here that you're not a seminar caller.

CALLER: Well, thank you. I can live a happy life now. (Laughing.)

RUSH: All right.

CALLER: Have a good one.

RUSH: Thanks Marie. You, too.

END TRANSCRIPT

Rush's Essential Stack of Stuff: The Immigration Section

*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 19, 2007 - 2:28am.

Here is how Rush Limbaugh defines the "Seminar Caller" below in the last paragraph:

"Hey look folks, I know that last guy was a seminar caller. I know it before you know it. I know it when I hear "listen to your show all the time." "Voted for Bush." "Went to the naval academy, Vietnam vet." Then you hear a bunch of malarkey (such as uncomfortable topics that he does not like to deal with or ideas that he does not agree with)..."

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_080406/content/rush_is_right.guest.html 

A New Breed of Morally Inverted Seminar Caller

August 4, 2006

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Starting now on the phones in Texas, Edward glad you called sir. Welcome to the EIB Network.

CALLER: Hello. How are you?

RUSH: Fine sir.

CALLER: Rush, I’ve listened to you since 1995. I’m a Republican. I graduated from the navel academy, Vietnam vet, but I've lived overseas for nine years amongst the Arabs in the Middle East, the gulf countries, and we have just committed grave errors by this administration that I can't wait until it ends for them and hopefully another good Republican will begin. Our decisions to go into Iraq and the mismanagement, any corporate CEO would have been fired if it was mismanaged as much as it is now. The lack of knowledge of the Shia's and the Sunni's and all those issues is the reason we’re spilling over into Lebanon and Israel now. We just mismanaged everything. All of our good will overseas is zero. I’ve been back six months and I’ve listened to you and I've listened to the other radio stations, the conservatives Sean Hannity and all those guys and gals, and we’re polarizing everything. Everything is just so polarized. After ten years and coming back and visiting the U.S. on vacations just a couple times, we need to take care of ourselves first and not be so concerned about the democracy in Iraq and the new Middle East. Why? What for? We’ve got the oil contracts and establishment. That’s all it’s all about anyway at the end of the day. We know that. It’s just atrocious where we’re headed.

RUSH: You know what? I have to agree with the last thing you said, and it's because of people like you that don’t understand where we’re headed and what we face and what’s in our way and what we have to do to survive. If you want to continue to blame your own country for these problems you’re more than entitled to do it. You have total freedom to do it. But I want you to listen to something here. I want you to turn on your radio and I want you to listen to this. Because I have a piece here by Victor David Hanson on National Review Online today describing people like you.

"I used to read about the 1930s — the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, the rise of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Germany, the appeasement in France and Britain, the murderous duplicity of the Soviet Union, and the racist Japanese murdering in China — I never could quite figure out why, during those bleak years, Western Europeans and those in the United States did not speak out and condemn the growing madness, if only to defend the millennia-long promise of Western liberalism. Of course, the trauma of the Great War was all too fresh, and the utopian hopes for the League of Nations were not yet dashed. The Great Depression made the thought of rearmament seem absurd. The connivances of Stalin with Hitler — both satanic, yet sometimes in alliance, sometimes not — could confuse political judgments... Our present generation too is on the brink of moral insanity. That has never been more evident than in the last three weeks, as the West has proven utterly unable to distinguish between an attacked democracy that seeks to strike back at terrorist combatants, and terrorist aggressors who seek to kill civilians."

We had this happen in this country on 9/11, Edward. You seem to forget this. You seem to forget we have enemies. You’re from this crowd that thinks we’re responsible for creating our own enemies by virtue of our own existence as we are, and your goal seems to be to have everybody around the world like us. Let’s deal with that after we save ourselves, shall we, Edward?

"It is now nearly five years since jihadists from the Arab world left a crater in Manhattan and ignited the Pentagon. Apart from the frontline in Iraq, the United States and NATO have troops battling the Islamic fascists in Afghanistan. European police scramble daily to avoid another London or Madrid train bombing. The French, Dutch, and Danish governments are worried that a sizable number of Muslim immigrants inside their countries are not assimilating, and, more worrisome, are starting to demand that their hosts alter their liberal values to accommodate radical Islam. It is apparently not safe for Australians in Bali, and a Jew alone in any Arab nation would have to be discreet — and perhaps now in France or Sweden as well. Canadians’ past opposition to the Iraq war, and their empathy for the Palestinians, earned no reprieve, if we can believe that Islamists were caught plotting to behead their prime minister. Russians have been blown up by Muslim Chechnyans from Moscow to Beslan. India is routinely attacked by Islamic terrorists. An elected Lebanese minister must keep in mind that a Hezbollah or Syrian terrorist — not an Israeli bomb — might kill him..."

"In nearly all these cases there is a certain sameness: The Koran is quoted as the moral authority of the perpetrators; terrorism is the preferred method of violence; Jews are usually blamed; dozens of rambling complaints are aired, and killers are often considered stateless, at least in the sense that the countries in which they seek shelter or conduct business or find support do not accept culpability for their actions. Yet the present Western apology to all this is often to deal piecemeal with these perceived Muslim grievances: India, after all, is in Kashmir; Russia is in Chechnya; America is in Iraq, Canada is in Afghanistan; Spain was in Iraq (or rather, still is in Al Andalus); or Israel was in Gaza and Lebanon. Therefore we are to believe that 'freedom fighters' commit terror for political purposes of 'liberation.' At the most extreme, some think there is absolutely no pattern to global terrorism, and the mere suggestion that there is constitutes 'Islamaphobia.' Here at home, yet another Islamic fanatic conducts an act of al Qaedism in Seattle, and the police worry immediately about the safety of the mosques... But then the world is awash with a vicious hatred that we have not seen in our generation: the most lavish film in Turkish history, 'Valley of the Wolves,' depicts a Jewish-American harvesting organs at Abu Ghraib in order to sell them."

Here's the bottom line folks. There are people around the world who hate us. True. And there are people in this country that hate their own country. And I’m tired of trying to figure out why. Because it doesn’t matter. They are irrelevant. There are more important things to deal with than a psycho analysis of these sick puppies who want to blame everything on their own country and blame the United States and blame freedom and western democracy for all these problems. I’ve given up trying to figure out who they are. Well, I know who they are. I’ve given up trying to figure out why they are like they are because it doesn’t matter. It’s a waste of time.

"And finally examine here at home reaction to Hezbollah — which has butchered Americans in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia — from a prominent Democratic Congressman, John Dingell: 'I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah.' And isn’t that the point, after all: the amoral Westerner cannot exercise moral judgment because he no longer has any? An Arab rights group, between denunciations of Israel and America, is suing its alma mater the United States for not evacuating Arab-Americans quickly enough from Lebanon... Demonstrators on behalf of Hezbollah inside the United States — does anyone remember our 241 Marines slaughtered by these cowardly terrorists? — routinely carry placards with the Star of David juxtaposed with Swastikas, as voices praise terrorist killers."

No need to mention Europe. They've already lost it. It's now a cliché to rant about all this. These past few days the inability of millions of westerners, including our first caller and a couple from yesterday as well, to condemn fascist terrorists who start wars, who spread racial hatred and despise western democracy that’s the real story. Edward, you are the story. You and your inability to understand what is going on, you and people like you are the real story. The inability of westerners to condemn those who are responsible for causing all of this. It ain’t us. We are not terrorists. We do not target innocent civilians. We don’t torture wantonly. We don’t do any of the things we’ve been accused of that people in this country are so eager to want to believe because their moral compass is out of focus and upside down. It’s very simple. The media and all these people that are ringing their hands, demanding a ceasefire and worrying about all these quarter-ton Israeli bombs that hit civilians in Lebanon who live among rocket launchers that send missiles into Israeli cities and suburbs.

Where is the criticism of Hezbollah? Where is it? Why isn’t it that Hezbollah and al-Qaeda and Iran are upsetting that region? Why is it always us in your polluted minds? I’ve given up trying to understand you. I don’t think it’s possible. I’m just not going to pay attention to you anymore because you’re in the way to the extent that you are the story you represent the moral decline and depravity and lack of ability to judge right from wrong that has been creeping into our society for so many years now. But we don’t have time to deal with that aspect of this anymore.

"Yes, perhaps Israel should have hit more quickly, harder, and on the ground; yes, it has run an inept public relations campaign; yes, to these criticisms and more. But what is lost sight of is the central moral issue of our times: a humane democracy mired in an asymmetrical war is trying to protect itself against terrorists from the 7th century, while under the scrutiny of a corrupt world that needs oil, is largely anti-Semitic and deathly afraid of Islamic terrorists, and finds psychic enjoyment in seeing successful Western societies under duress. In short, if we wish to learn what was going on in Europe in 1938, just look around."

History is repeating itself. And we’ve got the same bunch of people, such as the Neville Chamberlains and all the others who thought we could appease and thought we could talk and ceasefires and papers and doctors, nurses, and agreements and all this, and we’re looking for a Churchill.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

Hey look folks, I know that last guy was a seminar caller. I know it before you know it. I know it when I hear "listen to your show all the time." "Voted for Bush." "Went to the naval academy, Vietnam vet." Then you hear a bunch of malarkey. But as I have told you, any call is a great call that makes the host look good, and that call, I mean, I couldn't help but look good on that. That was easy as swatting a fly. Don’t get caught up in why these people hate because you're going to be distracted. It's not the point anymore. It allows them to become the story and it gives them credence, it validates them. Just ignore them.

END TRANSCRIPT 

Read the Background Material...

(NRO: The Brink of Madness - Victor Davis Hanson) 

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDBhMzg5Mzk4NjQ5MjM5OTJhZjRjMWQ4OWMzNDhmMzk=

(American Thinker: The Myth of the Suicide Bomber) 

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5731

*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 19, 2007 - 2:58am.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070118-1.html

Press Briefing by Tony Snow

January 18, 2007

Q Yes, Tony, thank you. Two questions. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Congressman Maurice Hinchy of New York have just introduced companion bills called the "Media Ownership Reform Act," which are an attempt to revive the "fairness doctrine" for TV and radio with no such government control proposed for newspapers, magazines or wire services. My question, does the President believe that we should revive the so-called "fairness doctrine" which was repealed during the Reagan administration?

MR. SNOW: You know, Les, we'll take that up if it becomes a real issue.

Q Okay. President Kennedy's Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Bill Ruder, said, "We had a massive strategy to use the 'fairness doctrine' to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters and hoped the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue. And my question, do you remember that statement reported by The Washington Times on September 5, 1993?

MR. SNOW: No. Although I do have some memories of the Kennedy administration, that particular utterance does not rise to thought.

Q That was from an article headlined, "Return of the Fairness Demon," and the byline was, Tony Snow.

MR. SNOW: All right, thank you. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you.

MR. SNOW: I guess my research -- played "gotcha". That's great. (Laughter.)

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 19, 2007 - 2:49pm.

http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/wes_clarks_feeling_on_media_co.html

Wes Clark's feeling on Media Consolidation

WESLEY CLARK SLAMS MEDIA CONSOLIDATION

"I don't think it is in the American public interest to further consolidate the media." Answering this reporter's question, the candidate said media consolidation "is damaging to putting out diverse opinions and fostering public dialogue. ... We need to distribute the ownership in media. We need to have the fairness in broadcasting rules put back in place."
http://www.fradical.com/Presidential_candidate_slams_media_violence.htm

 

Tags:

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 24, 2007 - 10:34pm.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012407/content/eib_theory.guest.html

Liberal Calls Coincide with Fairness Doctrine Push

January 24 2007

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Snerdley tells me that phone calls... We can't put up nearly as many as we get every day. First, I asked him, because we've been getting a spate over the last couple or three days of liberal phone calls, liberal seminar callers. Actually, these haven't been seminars. Seminars try to disguise who they are. These are flat-out, pedal-to-the-metal liberals. I began to think about this, and I have a theory going on here about what might be happening.

You know, the Fairness Doctrine is out there, and the liberals are trying to get it reintroduced. Maurice Hinchey, Dennis Kucinich, any number of them are trying to get the Fairness Doctrine reinstituted, which, the long and short of it is, would basically end conservative talk radio for a host of reasons, which we have discussed on previous occasions. The theory that I think is going on is, I think the liberals are calling this show and a number of other conservative shows for the express purpose of either being interrupted, not being allowed to speak. They'll come out with these outrageous, weird, insulting things that give a host no choice. You gotta move on, or you have to deal with these people in a substantive way. But regardless, they will then -- they're taking notes and all this, maybe even recording it -- and they will either send the recordings or a report in a complaint to their congressman. "Well, I don't know. I tried to call the Rush Limbaugh Show and I got hung up on. I was disconnected. I was yelled at and screamed at after only 30 seconds, I couldn't explain what I wanted to say!"

I think there's an ongoing campaign out there on the part of the left to try to build this notion that they can document, to send off to the FCC and other places, that they just don't get a fair shake on conservative talk radio. Well, we will deal with that accordingly. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if I am right about this. Second thing about the Fairness Doctrine itself. Selwyn Duke, whose work we've been quoting recently here and somewhat frequently, has a piece at the AmericanThinker.com, with an interesting perspective on this. As I have pointed out constantly, we on talk radio are open and shut about who we are. You know what we believe. We make no bones about it! There's no attempt to deceive when it comes to the expression of opinion or any of this, and as such there's no reason for the Fairness Doctrine to be implemented. His point is that the real deceit in media today is the Drive-By Media, the real deceit is found in major media, what he calls "the shill media," they are constantly shilling for liberals and Democrats, but they don't admit it, and they hide behind all kinds of subtlety, and if there's anything that needs to be balanced within its own confines, it's the Drive-By Media.

As I've said: this show is equal time. This program is balanced to all the other lib media, Drive-By Media or whatever that is out there. I still think this is not going to go anyplace, but they're not going to give up on it. If they win the White House in '08, they probably will make a serious push for it, but it's going to boil down to the American people. Will they just put up with it and say, "Okay, Fairness Doctrine! Fairness Doctrine!" and not argue about it? That's what's changed. The so-called new media, talk radio, the blogs, all this, they've got a sizeable percentage of the American people that routinely listen, watch and read, and they're not just going to sit idly by. Anyway, I just wanted to share with you. That's my theory why there spate of liberal calls, and of course not all about many of these liberals have been purposely provocative for the express purpose of having their time limited, and I think that's being done on purpose anyway. So the best way -- I've always found, the best way with liberals, the best way with journalists -- to alter their behavior to the extent it can be done, is just challenge them.

"This is what you're doing. I know your trick. I know what your purpose is." I've gone through a learning curve in being interviewed by the media. I used to be naïve and think they were actually interested in truth and this sort of thing, and what I said to them was actually something interesting to them and simply because I said it they would put it in, since they'd asked to talk to me. On the contrary, most of the stories are written in advance, the call is simply perfunctory to get some quotes that can be massaged or taken out of context. Since that's happened, since I've learned this -- and this is, you know, 20 years ago -- when I suspect (which is mostly all the time) that there's a hit piece involved, and I'm participating, I just tell them up front: "I know what you're doing. I know how you're going to go about doing it. I'm going to answer my questions accordingly."

"I am not! How dare you!"

They can't stand for me to be right about such things, and so the times I've employed that, there has been a reduction in the intensity of the hit piece. It's still a hit piece, but nevertheless, I'm mentioning this because some of you people get upset when we take liberal phone calls. I happen to like it. I asked Snerdley, "Are we getting any today?" No, we haven't had one. Well, we had one but the guy hung up after he insulted Snerdley. (Laughing.) He just insulted Snerdley and then hung up, and he's probably going to say that the screener wouldn't let him on the program or what have you. I'm sure this is part of an organized campaign out there designed to provide impetus behind the whole reenactment, reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine.

Read the Background Material...

(The Barker and the Shill: The Fraud of the Fairness Doctrine - Selwyn Duke)

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/the_barker_and_the_shill_the_f.html

eStack: Assault on Your Right to Choose What You Watch, Read & Listen To

*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.