Keith Olbermann asks good questions about Imus leading to the Fairness Doctrine!


Hello Everyone:

The Imus controversy was a very terrible thing to have happened in my opinion but it has definitely opened up the door for people to be able to talk about what is and what is not offensive and what is and what is not over the line on the part of the media!

I am very proud of Keith Olbermann for jumping on top of this issue right away and asking the serious and tough questions about this to his guests on Wednesday and Thursday night this week.  Here are the Countdown transcripts and videos of Keith Olbermann asking the right kind of questions to his guests about Rush Limbaugh and others in extreme right wing talk radio:

1) Keith Olbermann asks Jesse Jackson about Rush Limbaugh and extreme right wing talk radio and did not get a straight and direct answer from him in my opinion: 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18075483/

'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for April 11
Read the transcript to the Wednesday show

Guests: Steve Capus, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Vivian Stringer, Richard Wolffe, Maria Milito

OLBERMANN:  "Relative to not music but news, entertainment, and the idea that Don Imus was not alone among those who have made remarks like this, let me go through a few names and then ask you a question in terms of momentum, in terms of fairness.

Comments by people like Rush Limbaugh, who calls Senator Barack Obama and actress Halle Berry, quote, “halfrican-Americans.”  Michael Savage, who asked whether the Voting Right Acts intended to counteract racial discrimination at the ballot box was trying to, quote, “put a chad in every crack house.”  There‘s Neil Boortz, the other radio talker, who said the black congressman Cynthia McKinney looked, quote, “like a ghetto slut.”  Glenn Beck from CNN and ABC, who referred to the largely African-American survivors of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans as, quote, “scumbags,” and who, when he interviewed the Black Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison, from Minnesota, said he felt like saying to him, “Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.”

Where is the protest, where have you been, why are there not efforts to remove them from the air for these things?

JACKSON:  Well, there have been other protests, but not quite this visible.  The air is toxic.  I mean, when people were on rooftops in New Orleans, the good guys called them refugees and not citizens, called them victims and not survivors.  So even the mainstream good guys saw us in a disparaging light...

OLBERMANN:  Stipulating, sir, that I was one of those NBC employees who put it out to my bosses behind the scenes that this could not stand, that this change involving Don Imus had to be made, I can say that now, I respected my employers and did not say it until they reached this conclusion, which I applaud sincerely, let me ask you again about the other people.

Is someone like Rush Limbaugh—how have they kept their time slots?  Will there be an increased effort to either get them to contain themselves within the rounds of decency, or will there be a new sensitivity to them?  Are they on the ropes?  Are they on probation because of this?

JACKSON:  Well, then there must be—there must be a renewed sensitivity and a broader public outcry.  After all, this attack, you know, was not for blacks only.  This was about women, and that‘s why I‘m glad Kim Gandy and NOW stood up, because it‘s about misogynism.  It‘s about that.  It‘s about race, and it‘s about, in the case of Keith Ellison, it‘s about religion...

OLBERMANN:  I take your point.  And for the record, I‘d like to point out our guest host when I‘m away is Alison Stewart, who is African-American.

JACKSON:  Great.

OLBERMANN:  The Reverend Jesse Jackson.  Great thanks for your time tonight.

JACKSON:  Thank you..."

Here is the Countdown video link to watch this dialogue:

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=d00e637a-a6a9-40c1-b63d-6935a448a10a&p=Source_No_Ad_NBC&t=c1149&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/&fg=  (07:41)


Why just Imus?
April 11: Why have other radio and television hosts, whose racism has been more clear-cut, more fully-intentional, more hurtful than Don Imus' comments not been the boycotted, suspended or worse? Rev. Jesse Jackson discusses on "Countdown."
WATCH VIDEO

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=d00e637a-a6a9-40c1-b63d-6935a448a10a&p=Source_No_Ad_NBC&t=c1149&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/&fg=  (07:41)

2) Keith Olbermann asks Max Robins about Rush Limbaugh and extreme right wing talk radio and got a better answer than what Jesse Jackson gave in my opinion:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18092188/

'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for April 12

Read the transcript to the Thursday show

Guests: Max Robins, Jonathan Alter, Maria Milito, Bob Herbert, Sam Seder

OLBERMANN:  "Well, if you—as you recognize, the marketplace and the idea of, oh, the advertisers got him.  The advertisers are just sort of a refraction of public opinion anyway, so there‘s—there is something still self-regulating about a marketing in those place (ph).  But how does that apply to the big guys in this, the people whose language or racism or sexism or just tone was seemingly grandfathered in, much the way Don Imus‘s was?  What about Limbaugh, O‘Reilly, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage?  Any change anticipated in any of those areas?

ROBINS:  I think we should all listen closely and see.  I mean, I—and I got to think that they are going to be scrutinized a lot more closely today than they were 48 hours ago..."

Here is the Countdown video link to watch this dialogue:

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=9de6c577-0ae1-465b-a294-90ee5e35d7a1&p=Source_No_Ad_NBC&t=c1149&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/&fg= (12:56)


The Imus mess ends
April 12: CBS radio announced it was also dropping Don Imus’ daily show. Keith Olbermann talks with J. Max Robins of Broadcasting and Cable magazine.
WATCH VIDEO

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=9de6c577-0ae1-465b-a294-90ee5e35d7a1&p=Source_No_Ad_NBC&t=c1149&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/&fg=  (12:56)

3) Keith Olbermann asks Sam Seder about Rush Limbaugh and extreme right wing talk radio and got a very good answer from him in my opinion:

OLBERMANN:  "All right, then I‘ll ask you the $10 million question, how does Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage get away with worse than what Don Imus said?

SEDER:  I‘ll tell you (INAUDIBLE) -- well, I think one, there‘s a certain expectation that they‘re going to hear it more from Limbaugh, although, you know, he and—Dick Cheney was on his program several weeks ago.  I listened in to Limbaugh today, and he‘s already warning his audience that they‘re going to be coming for Limbaugh next.  And I think, frankly, he‘s got to be a little bit worried now, because the bar has just been raised.

I mean, corporations have said, We‘re not going to tolerate this anymore.  And the next time Limbaugh slips up, and which I think is inevitable, I think you‘re going to see the sort of same type of reaction.

OLBERMANN:  The best thing I‘ve heard in a couple of days.

SEDER:  I hope so..."

Here is the Countdown video link to watch this dialogue:

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=5d558f1c-3fc8-43ce-ad79-6bc41c65c47c&p=Source_No_Ad_NBC&t=c1149&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/&fg=  (05:26)

The Imus story

Rush Limbaugh and his pals in the extreme right wing media are obviously not happy with Keith Olbermann about this and they are replying back to him very quickly.  Right below is Hugh Hewitt's response to Keith Olbermann, below that is the NewsBusters response to Keith Olbermann, and below that is Rush Limbaugh's response to Keith Olbermann.  Keith is doing well in my opinion when Rush Limbaugh is calling him out by name which he hardly ever does!

The main reason why they are all replying back so fast and hard to Keith Olbermann is because Rush Limbaugh and his many pals in the extreme right wing media are very afraid of the Fairness Doctrine being reinstated which is where the conversation about the Imus controversy is leading to:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10583

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

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 18, 2007 - 2:51pm. 

I heard Sean Hannity talk about that when I drove home from work on Thursday and I heard fear in his voice over it.  He was telling his audience that they were going to have to mobilize to try and stop the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine!

Here is the transcript of Paula Zahn Now from Thursday night where extreme right wing radio talk show host Steve Malzberg was very blunt about his fear of the Fairness Doctrine being reinstated:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/12/pzn.01.html

PAULA ZAHN NOW

CBS Fires Don Imus; Interview With Reverend Al Sharpton

Aired April 12, 2007 - 20:00   ET

STEVE MALZBERG, COLUMNIST, NEWSMAX.COM: "Yes, here's what's going to happen. They're going to go after conservative talk show hosts next and they're going to try to bring back the Fairness Doctrine based on (INAUDIBLE) conservative talk shows and that's what their goal is. You see. My prediction.

ZAHN: Aren't you the guys dominating the airwaves right now, Steve?

MALZBERG: Yes, but if they bring back the Fairness Doctrine -- because the market demands it. The liberals fail on talk radio..." 

I hope that Howard Kurtz is right when he said that he wants to see this national conversation go forward and I hope that he is wrong about people's short attention spans when he made this comment on the same Paula Zahn Now program which was discussing the Imus controversy: 

KURTZ: "I think it would be terrific if this national conversation went forward and we try to flush some of the toxic sludge off the airwaves, in the cases of some of these television and radio hosts who traffic in anger and in abusing people, as well as the rap artists and others.

But I'm not very confident that's going to happen. These problems have been around for a long time. It's only now, with the case of Imus, this colorful and controversial character, that you get this sustained media attention. And I fear that, a week, two weeks from now, the media will be off to something else -- everybody knows we have a short attention span -- and the pressure on these other people will turn out to -- to fizzle, really..." 

I agree with this follow up comment on Howard Kurtz's comment right above that Roland Martin made about raising this as an issue and people's attention spans: 

MARTIN: "It is going to cause people to have a conversation which we need. I heard Howard Kurtz say the media has a short attention span. I would hope that my colleagues in the media, talk radio, cable television, newspapers and magazines will say, wait a minute, let's put our energy and our focus on this issue, among others and keep raising the issue so we educate America..." 

The main reasons why Rush Limbaugh and his talk radio pals in the extreme right wing media fear the continuing dialogue of Imus, of what else is offensive and over the line on the air beyond what Imus said, and the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine are because they are the main tool used in an official capacity by Bush and by the RNC to "carry their water," communicate their message in a very centralized and highly organized way to about 30 million people, and they are winning the media war over the Democrats and all Non-Neoconservative Republicans who disagree with them:

The RNC is OFFICIALLY tied in to Rush Limbaugh and to extreme right wing talk radio:

http://www.gop.com/GetActive/CallTalkRadio.aspx

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.

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/11479

ZOGBY: 83% of voters think that the media is biased; Democrats seem to be losing

 

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11378

ANALYSIS: Can Hagel win the GOP Nomination or the Election as an Independent?

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on March 9, 2007 - 5:25pm.

Here is even more documentation in addition to what Keith Olbermann gave about Rush Limbaugh and the racist/insulting comments that he made to people which parallels Imus in my opinion:

1) Rush Limbaugh has a parody song about Obama titled "Barack the Magic Negro" which has the same tune as Puff the Magic Dragon and is very insulting to Obama in my opinion: 

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

Illustrating Absurdity...



Rev. Sharpton Sings:
 
"Barack the Magic Negro  (That's What the LA Times Called Him)"

2) Rush Limbaugh has audio parodies of Obama comparing him to Osama Bin Laden and mocking his ears:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

Parody Song: Kennedy Sings Obama Osama 

Obama Ear Parody:
The Perot Big Ear Institute http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/New/BigEarsBit.asx

3) Rush Limbaugh calls Obama "Barack Hussein Odumbo" and mocks his ears:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121406/content/truth_detector.guest.html 

MoDo and Barack Hussein Odumbo

December 14, 2006

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

4) Rush Limbaugh makes fun of Sen. Mary Landrieu's appearance by calling her Mary "Baby Fat" Landrieu:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_091406/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html

Dems Still Squealing Like Stuck Pigs

September 14, 2006

RUSH: "So here is Senator Mary "Baby Fat" Landrieu, ranting on the Senate floor that she's tired of "boneheaded" Republicans.

LANDRIEU: America is tired of the wrong-headed and boneheaded leadership of the Republican Party that has sent six-and-a-half-billion dollars a month to Iraq, where the front line was Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, that led this country to attack Saddam Hussein when we were attacked by Osama bin Laden..."

Rush Limbaugh is such a fool and he has made so many stupid comments at least as bad as if not worse than what Imus did (which he is NOT the least bit sorry about) that Democrats in my opinion should be able to capitalize on, nationalize, and use Limbaugh's comments against any Neocon GOP candidates who Limbaugh is carrying water for:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9373

How Democrats (especially Jim Webb) can use Rush Limbaugh to their advantage!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 1, 2006 - 9:12am.

Limbaugh in my opinion should be as radioactive to GOP candidates who he is supporting as Imus was to MSNBC and CBS before he was fired!

If Rush Limbaugh can be taken down, then the whole extreme right wing media should be affected by that because the rest of them all try to defend Limbaugh when he is attacked as I documented below and Limbaugh stands out as being the outright number one leader of extreme right wing talk radio:   

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/10/acd.01.html

ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES

Aired April 10, 2007 - 22:00   ET

COOPER: "Don Imus is popular, of course, but, in talk radio, he's actually not the most influential. Here's the "Raw Data."

According to "Talkers" magazine, Imus ranks 14th as the most important radio show host in the nation. Howard Stern is 12th. Number five is Ed Schultz, at four, Laura Schlessinger, three, Michael Savage. Two is Sean Hannity, and, at number one, Rush Limbaugh.

Those rankings, of course, were made before Imus' latest remarks..."

http://www.accessatlanta.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/accessatlanta/radiotalk/entries/2007/02/21/221_top_100_tal.html

2/21: Top 100 talk show hosts

By Rodney Ho | Wednesday, February 21, 2007, 08:22 AM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

"The top host is not surprisingly Rush Limbaugh, who has 20 million-plus listeners a week and has wielded more influence than virtually any other talk-show host this side of Howard Stern. He’s heard locally on WGST-AM." 

Rush Limbaugh has issued this direct challenge to his political opponents that has largely gone unanswered which I think that Democrats and Non-Neoconservative Republicans have a clear opening to answer now either directly or with the Fairness Doctrine due to the Imus controversy and the dialogue going on all over the country right now about what is offensive and over the line in the media:  

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184342,00.html

Transcript: Rush Limbaugh on 'Your World'

Thursday, February 09, 2006

LIMBAUGH: "Neil, there is a new media out there today that doesn't let the left get away with defining the news, defining the circumstances, defining personalities and so forth.

And they haven't learned how to deal with it. They haven't learned how to deal with people like me, the problems they think FOX News causes, and everybody else. They are still in their 30-year-old playbook, in which they think they still — all they have to do is, you know, portray somebody they want to portray them, and the American people will see it, swallow it, and like it..."

A Wes Clark Presidency in 2008 would definitely help to make the Fairness Doctrine happen:

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

Wes Clark's feeling on Media Consolidation

"We need to distribute the ownership in media. We need to have the fairness in broadcasting rules put back in place."

MSNBC is having a dialogue now about extreme right wing talk radio and offensive speech:

http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?ThreadID=256363

Alison Asks for 4.13.07-Within the framework of talk radio, what constitutes offensive speech?

153 messages - 103 authors - last updated 04/13/07 12:35 PM

While the Imus controversy was a tragedy and he got what he deserved in my opinion, I am glad that it has caused a much needed national dialogue to take place on this issue!  

The media war against extreme right wing talk radio, the dialogue going on now over Imus about what is over the line, and reinstating the Fairness Doctrine are very important issues right now in my opinion because whoever controls the media will for the most part control a lot of the agenda, debate, 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!

Keith Olbermann cannot be the only person who is publicly standing up to Rush Limbaugh and to the extreme right wing media if we are ever going to get the media back or at least have an even playing field! 

Mitch Dworkin

http://www.securingamerica.com/

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10756
StopIranWar.com: "War is not the answer"
Submitted by Wes Clark on February 21, 2007 - 11:40am.

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.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=olbermann%e2%80%99s_rush_envy&ns=HughHewitt&dt=04/13/2007&page=full&comments=true 

Olbermann’s Rush Envy

By Hugh Hewitt

Friday, April 13, 2007

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson didn’t kill Don Imus’ show. It was a suicide, and that the vultures showed up shouldn’t confuse us about what happened. When Imus took an off ramp and drove forty blocks out of his way to run over the Rutgers women hoopsters –and then backed over them again while turning the car around to get back—he did himself in. It just took a few days for him to bleed out. The vultures always show up, but make no mistake. Imus has Imus to blame: His sponsors wanted nothing to do with his brand once that brand got recognition outside of the relatively small world that watched or listened to Imus. That’s the market, not the P.C. police. Imus could slang any player he wanted to, and probably have thrown down a few race cards in the process and remained untouched. He certainly did so with PBS’s Gwen Ifill. But college kids playing sports who are not within a hundred miles of a political debate –that’s far beyond the limits of what the public can stomach, or at least enough of the public to turn the sponsors’ heads away in shame.

Before one full day had passed, Imus’ former fellow MSNBCer Keith Olbermann was wondering whether the bell was tolling for Rush Limbaugh, who, Olbermann asserted, had been grandfathered in when it came to abusive talk radio.

Mind you this is Keith Olbermann who wrote of colleague Rita Crosby that “Rita’s nice, but dumber than a suitcase of rocks,” and who compared Dean Kenneth Starr to Henrich Himmler –“Facially, it finally dawned on me that the person Ken Starr has reminded me of all this time was Heinrich Himmler, including the glasses.” These comments are not grounds for dismissal, just derision, windows into a head where a few thoughts clatter about in search of a coherent argument. Keith, the scoreboard reader turned radical chic poseur is obviously never going to win the spelling bee, but we can’t put this jump from Imus to Rush down to sheer stupidity. (Well, maybe we can, but let’s assume for the moment that Keith is at a multiplication tables level when it comes to higher thinking skills.) Something else is at work here.

It is a combination of ratings envy and genuine puzzlement. This duo seems to drive all of Keith’s public confrontations and feuds. His frequent attempts to attract the attention of Bill O’Reilly are lame enough, but O’Reilly only has about 10 times Olbermann’s audience. Rush has about a hundred times the audience of Countdown’s party faithful. “How can that be,” Keith must ask himself, “when I’m so good and he’s so bad?”

The fault, dear Keith, is not in their stars (or stats), but in yourself. It goes under the heading good humor, though a few hundred years ago it was called “virtu.”. Rush has it. Imus lost his at a crucial moment. You, at least every time I have seen you, have never had it. Not for a day. Not for a moment. It is what limits your audience to the angry and the envious.

Good humor is the secret of broadcast success in 2007 and forward. It is why Franken failed so miserably, but why conservative talkers thrive and grow, and indeed why O’Reilly and Hannity run rings around their cable competitors, why Larry King is still going strong, why Anderson Cooper and Larry Kudlow are gaining and why Brit Hume and his merry “Fox news all stars all” continue to dominate: They are generally and genuinely happy people. Their teeth do not grind at night. They are not consumed with paybacks and venom venting. They would no more particularize their political agenda into the comparison of a one of the country’s greatest legal minds to a Nazi mass murderer than they would abuse the Rutgers women basketball team. Sure, they play hardball –politics ain’t beanbag, as Mr. Dooley noted. (Look it up Keith, look it up.)

I have blasted Ann Coulter when she has crossed this line into a sort of gangrenous vendetta-lust. It is why I have no sympathy for Imus, no respect for Savage, and why I admire the talkers I do: Rush, Sean and Alan, Bill Bennett, Bill O’Reilly, Laura, Mark Levine and my pals Prager and Medved. (I don’t get to hear Neil Boortz, and have only recently begun to hear the excellent Dennis Miller but suspect they are in this latter group as well.) How I would love to see the charitable giving entries on the tax returns of the group I suspect of chronically generous hearts versus those I believe to be Uriah Heeps of our trade. Those who cross the line into cruelty are, sadly, out of kilter with the good. It is sometimes necessary to be very harsh with political opponents on very important issues. It is never necessary to verbally kneecap noncombatants, or to put opponents in the category of mass murderers.

So, there are good guys and bad guys in the world of broadcast journalism. The good guys don’t end up cancelled because of meltdowns, and they rarely if ever try to diminish the talent of another broadcaster. Keith is never going to get out of the basement for the simple reason that his bitterness has infected every broadcast, and bitter does not attract nearly so many as it repels. It is why Rosie is sinking, and why Katie Couric will not even have a scratch on her after the fiasco this week. We forgive the forgiving, and extend grace to the grace-giving.

Keith should listen to Rush, hear the humor, and learn a thing or two (or twenty.) There’s a smile in every broadcast, and almost every segment. That explains it Keith. You should give it a try.


Hugh Hewitt is a law professor, broadcast journalist, and author of several books including A Mormon in the White House?: 110 Things Every American Should Know about Mitt Romney.

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

http://newsbusters.org/node/12011

Olbermann Revels in 'Racist' Limbaugh Getting Yanked Like Imus: 'Best Thing I've Heard'

Posted by Brent Baker on April 12, 2007 - 22:02.

Keith Olbermann opened his Wednesday MSNBC show by displaying video of Rush Limbaugh on screen as he smeared conservative talk radio as “racist,” asking, “Why have none from the racist right been protested, boycotted or fired?” He then delighted Thursday night when guest Sam Seder, of the far-left Air America Radio, predicted “the next time Limbaugh slips up, which I think is inevitable, I think you're going to see this sort of same type of reaction.” A pleased Olbermann exclaimed: “It's the best thing I've heard in a couple of days. From your lips to God's ears!” Olbermann had asked Seder: “How does Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage get away with worse than what Don Imus said?”

With “SELECTIVE OUTRAGE: Imus Was Not Alone” on screen, Olbermann teased Wednesday's Countdown by wondering: “Where's the other outrage? Rush Limbaugh calls Barack Obama 'Halfrican-American.' Michael Savage says the Voting Rights Act means 'a chad in every crack house.' Neal Boortz says Cynthia McKinney looks like a 'ghetto-slut.' Why have none from the racist right been protested, boycotted or fired?” He soon cued up race-hustler Jesse Jackson: “Why are there not efforts to remove them from the air?”

Olbermann's crusade to remove conservatives from the air matched the spin forwarded Tuesday night on CNN's Paula Zahn Now, as recounted in Matthew Balan's NewsBusters post. Zahn set up an April 10 taped piece: ”Conservative Rush Limbaugh, who has offended just about every minority group, drew special criticism for attacking actor Michael J. Fox.” After regurgitating that controversy, Zahn moved to the very same quote highlighted by Olbermann: “Limbaugh later apologized. But the criticism for that low blow hasn't stopped him from lashing out at presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, calling him 'Halfrican.'” Viewers then heard audio of Limbaugh: “Barack Obama has picked up another endorsement, Halfrican-American actress Halle Berry. As a Halfrican-American, I am honored to have Ms. Berry's support, as well as the support of other Halfrican-Americans.” Zahn proceeded to highlight the same Boortz comment about McKinney as Olbermann would do 24 hours later.

Olbermann and Zahn are humor-challenged since Limbaugh's “Halfrican-American”quip was obviously a play on “African-American,” since Obama had a white mother and an African father, not a charge that he's only half American.

A brief transcript of the relevant portion of the exchange between Olbermann and Seder on the April 12 Countdown:


Keith Olbermann: “I'll ask you the ten million dollar question: How does Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage get away with worse than what Don Imus said?”

Sam Seder of Air America: “I'll tell you something, well I think one there's a certain expectation that they're going to hear it more from Limbaugh although, you know, he, Dick Cheney was on his program several weeks ago. I listened in to Limbaugh today and he's already warning his audience that they're going to be coming for Limbaugh next. And I think, frankly, he's got to be a little bit worried now because the bar has just been raised. I mean, corporations have said we're not going to tolerate this any more and the next time Limbaugh slips up, which I think is inevitable, I think you're going to see this sort of same type of reaction.”

Olbermann: “It's the best thing I've heard in a couple of days.”

Seder, over Olbermann: “I hope so.”

Olbermann: “From your lips to God's ears!”

Brent Baker's blog | login or register to post comments
Categories:
Countdown | Paula Zahn NOW | Don Imus | Keith Olbermann | Paula Zahn | Race Issues | Rush Limbaugh

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

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_041207/content/01125110.guest.html

We Stand for Free Speech and That's What Threatens the Left

April 12, 2007

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: All right, this is now about racial politics, folks.  The Reverend Sharpton is out there saying, "This is only the beginning.  This must be a walk that CBS now does.  It must be a walk that others will do, then we must have a broad discussion on what's permitted and what's not permitted," and the Reverend Jackson and the Reverend Sharpton have been empowered as the final arbiters on this in the United States of America.  How absurd and ridiculous.  But they exist for one reason: liberal, white, plantation owner racists have created these two figures and have granted them power and authority as Democrats, and now, guess who have become the targets of the wrath of Sharpton and Jackson?  For now it's the white liberal executives at CBS and NBC.  So it's about racial politics.  It's about racial politics, and when it comes to the lack of minority reputation of the big three networks, MSNBC as well as CNN, I have to agree that Reverend Jackson, Reverend Sharpton are right.  On to something now that's the practical reality of all this.  If it's about racial politics then what shall be the ideal percentage?  This argument we've been having since the first affirmative action argument came up, the whole quota argument.

I made the point back in the early eighties, mid-eighties when this all started, "Affirmative action is about making sure that the race wars never end."  You won't get 'em to come. That's why they hate the quota business.  Because when you start saying, "Yeah, there should be quotas," then they're willing to put a finite number on the number of minorities can by anywhere and in any job, and that's not what this is about.  This is about shakedowns. This is about keeping the premise of discrimination alive and well to be profited from, but if we just look at the population of the country, we now have more Hispanics in this country than we do blacks.  The black population is 11%, 12%, something like that.  So 89, 88% of the population is not black.  So should we say in the guise of the racial politics here introduced by the Reverends Sharpton and Jackson, that the proper representation for blacks anywhere would be 11% -- football teams, basketball teams -- I know this is absurd, but I'm making a point here.  Now stick with me, because this is not about merit.  You have to understand, there's nothing about merit in anything these people are doing or talking about.  It's pure racial politics.  So if we go by the population of the country, there can never be more than 11% of blacks in any field.

Never.  Let's look beyond the broadcast networks.  Let's look at urban radio stations.  Are they 89% non-black?  No.  Let's look at the content of the songs that are played on public airwaves.  Sharpton has now said, dozens of times, and we gotta clean up the public airwaves. We've gotta detoxify the public airwaves.  Well, look at some of the music and look at some of the lyrics played on the public airwaves being sung -- not spoken, by hosts, sung -- by recording artists and stars, and I don't hear the Reverend Sharpton concerned about that.  In fact, I hear the Reverend Sharpton and the Reverend Jackson defending those lyrics as "art," ladies and gentlemen.  I heard Snoop Dogg. How many times has he been indicted?  Well, he's under charges. Snoop Dogg said the other day (paraphrased), "Look, don't come after us and our music and our art.  This reflects the way we were raised, reflects where we were growing up.  When that H-word is used by us, it means women who are fat and dumb in the projects who are just waiting to steal our money.  We're not talking about basketball players at college.  So don't lay this off on us." 

Somebody said, "Wait a minute. Don Imus didn't just learn this phrase. He didn't wake up and have it come out of his own mind. He had to hear it someplace."

"Don't blame us for that," said the famous Snoop Dogg.

Anyway, if you look at the lyrics that are on radio, the public airwaves that need to be detoxified, where are the Reverend Sharpton and Reverend Jackson dealing with those lyrics, not just the words uttered by deejays and hosts.  I mean after all they are the public airwaves. These songs should be banned now!  If this is about cleaning up all this garbage, these songs need to be banned, and when we're done fixing TV and radio, folks, next we're going to move on to Hollywood, because a lot of pollution in popular culture is coming from and produced by, a bunch of white liberals in Hollywood.  Of course, they never come under attack, by the same liberals who are now attacking me and others, saying we're next.  "We've only just begun here.  You people are all next!" We gotta straighten out Hollywood. We gotta make sure the rotgut garbage that sacrifices for pictures and dialogue in these movies that's offensive, gets stopped.  They're poisoning the culture.  It's public film.  Public projectors.  Go into a theater; it's the public there.  When we're done with Hollywood, we move on to the publishing industry.  We look at what percentage of authors are of a given race.  Now, has Reverend Sharpton picketed anybody in Hollywood? Has Reverend Sharpton or Jackson picketed any urban radio stations?  

Have Reverend Sharpton or Reverend Jackson picketed anywhere where these horrendous lyrics are toxifying the public domain?  Chris Tucker? Chris Rock? These guys all need to be banned, folks. They make their living off stereotypes of whites and sometimes of blacks.  Why should Sharpton and Jackson be the only two people deciding who can say what, when and where, and why should they be deciding who can and cannot be offended?  As I've explained, the beauty of this is the libs have given us Sharpton and Jackson as the final arbiters.  We're going to sit here and we're going to allow these two race hustlers to dictate to us?  They have it figured out? They're always offended! They're always angry.  They target certain individuals or events, and they and the lib media manipulate the outcome, and notice they're always dividing the country.  They don't talk about people, they talk about race, and they want chaos, and they want tumult and they want people unsettled. They want the country divided.  We can use whatever figure we want to.  We can say 11 or 12%. We can go down the road and we can say, "Hispanics deserve more jobs in these places than blacks. They're a larger minority." If we're going to be fair about this, if we're really going to make this about racial politics. 

Of course, censorship, that's also here.  I want to say something for the record here, folks, and I want it to be recorded. Today, April the 12th, the day of the cigar dinner, let it be recorded that we conservatives are the ones standing for free speech. We conservatives are the ones standing for diversity of thought and honest communication.  You do not hear a conservative anywhere suggest that anybody be taken off any radio station, television station, movies or what have you.  We do not urge censorship because we are not afraid of the free flow of ideas.  Liberals are.  Thomas Sowell said something that is so brilliant.  It's a brilliant insight.  Dr. Sowell said, "The liberals' favorite argument is that there is no argument. Nothing uttered in opposition to liberal beliefs exists, in their minds, at least nothing worthy of their intellectual engagement."  That's why global warming, we can't argue about it! There are global warming "deniers." We gotta shut up! We cannot have alternative views of global warming. There is no alternative view. There is only the liberal view.  Liberals fail on talk radio because they can't make their case!

They don't dare make their case in public.  They can't anyway.  They can't argue it.  That's why liberals fail in talk radio. It's why they fail anywhere where they don't dominate. It's why they refuse to go on Fox!  There is no alternative to liberalism.  They refuse to acknowledge it.  They are the ones trying to censor. They're the ones trying to indoctrinate -- and it's now funny because one of their chosen ones, Don Imus, is the victim of liberalism, and he did his best to be one of them, but he was never a liberal with a capital L. He never really got in the club like he thought he was.  His buddies are abandoning him left and right now.  The people that enabled him, the people that propped him up, the people that looked the other way when they heard him say far worse than what he said about the Rutgers basketball team. Now they're acting like they never heard this stuff before. "I didn't know this, why, this is (grumbling)," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.  We conservatives talk of equal opportunity based on merit, not quotas, not pigment, not anything else.  Liberals want to shut down radio programs. They want to shut down Fox News. They want to shut down political speech.

They want to shut down anybody who doesn't embrace their ideology, and they want to criminalize those who don't embrace their ideology.  Today it's the race baiters.  Tomorrow it's going to be some other cause, but liberalism is what it is, and it exists to silence people who don't agree.  They can't win the debate, which they admit by their own actions.  They don't want debate.  Now, Imus is not the issue anymore.  He's the catalyst for advancing their agenda.  Listen to Jesse Jackson.  He's long gone, long past Imus.  If they can shut down talk radio -- and they'll try -- they'll shut it down tomorrow.  Make no mistake.  They cannot compete, folks.  Air America was an embarrassing, blithering, total bomb-out of a failure.  Every liberal talk show that's been tried is insignificant, at best.  They can't silence their opposition, so they take a run at it here and there through proposals to renew the Fairness Doctrine or use intimidation or the threat of sponsor boycotts or whatever to demand the things they don't want to hear, not be allowed to be said.  They can't compete in the open marketplace of ideas because their ideas are flawed and airing those ideas makes it clear that they are flawed.  

They succeed politically when they conceal their true intentions during elections, as we have discussed.  But there's no hiding on talk radio.  When you're on the air for three hours, I don't care if you waste your time interviewing guest after guest after guest after guest, if you can't hide what you think on talk radio, you are going to be exposed, and when you cannot back up what you say, and when your ideas sound stupid, it's out there to be exposed for one and all, and that's why Air America and liberal talk radio doesn't get an audience because it's not worth listening to! People can't make the case -- and they do not think they should have to argue, because there is no alternative in their minds.  I'll tell you what, Sharpton and Jackson have their eyes on talk radio.  You know what's going to save talk radio?  You know what's going to save this program is going to be you people because you have the depth of loyalty and a bond here.  You and I have a connection, successful hosts do, and you understand it. You know the gig here. You know what's up.  You're aware of how they're trying to shut people down, and you will not allow it to happen.  

Nor will I, don't misunderstand, but this is what the left doesn't understand.  They do not understand the connection that exists between me, the host of this program, and you.  They don't understand it.  You're mind-numbed robots. You're idiots. You're just like everybody else that's not a liberal. You really don't even exist!  You're just a hayseed hick, a southern Christian or what have you. Whatever bigoted stereotype they have created, you will fall into one of them, as do I.  But talk radio?  Talk radio today is one of the last open markets for ideas -- and that's why it is a threat to the left.  Talk radio, look at everybody who wants to get into it! All these television failures, all these stand-up comedians that lose their way, guess where they all want to go?  They all want to go to radio!  I wonder why?  What's happening on radio lately that they see the opportunity for wealth and success, hmm?  I wonder.  Radio, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the last open markets for ideas.  Newspapers aren't anymore.  Television isn't anymore.  Have you seen what the left is trying to do now?  They're trying to say Imus is a conservative. 

The LA Times had a piece quoting Media Matters for America, that Imus is a conservative.  Imus, who supported Kerry and who is against the war, is no conservative.  He wouldn't have the crowd of media guests that he has if he was, but calling him a "conservative" fits into their broader agenda.  So we are defending speech here.  We stand up for speech. We engage in it. We allow it when liberals call. We never demand anybody be censored. We are content to let the marketplace deal with liberals as it does on talk radio: it rejects them.  One final question here.  Since race is the sole criteria now, I want to know why Al Sharpton has not endorsed Barack Obama.  I know the Reverend Jackson has.  But I'll tell you why. Al Sharpton, who's making everything about race today, will not endorse the black candidate in the Democrat presidential primaries -- and why?  Because Obama's name is not Sharpton.  There is jealousy. There is outrage.  Sharpton doesn't like the fact that Obama -- and, by the way, Sharpton has maneuvered an end run around Obama, in terms of the struggle.  Sharpton talks about role models? We need black role models out there?  Say what you want about Obama's politics, but apparently Barack Obama is not a good enough role model for Al Sharpton.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's Tom in Medford, New Jersey.  Tom, thank you for waiting.  Welcome to the broadcast.

CALLER:  Thank you, Rush, and I just want to give some stuff to your comment earlier about the liberals and these two shakedown artists, Jackson and Sharpton.  I've been trying to get a hold of MSNBC all morning about Keith Olbermann, who is a hatemonger, whose whole show is based upon hate of people like me and you.  You're doing a hell of a job.  Thank you.  But I want your audience to know that last night, as I was channel surfing -- I don't watch Olbermann because he's a hateful person -- he asked Jesse Jackson if he would use the same tactics boycotting sponsors against Imus, would he do that with other people, "like Rush Limbaugh"?

RUSH:  Yeah, I know, he tried --

CALLER:  Jackson said yes.

RUSH:  I've been told.  I didn't see it.  I've been told he tried to bait Jesse Jackson three times.

CALLER:  He did bait him, and Jackson fell for it the last time. He said, "Yes." That's what I'm talking about.

RUSH:  But Jackson did not take the bait from what I'm told.

CALLER:  He did confirm what hateful Olbermann said, about going after people like you. Rush, you're the target. 

RUSH:  I know.  We will all know that I am the target.  I've been the target.  That's why did I this brilliant monologue mere moments ago, to explain what the left is about.  They don't want to debate; they want argument; they don't want alternative viewpoints out there, because we succeed.  They can't deal with it, but folks, I have to tell you (sigh). There's a reason the Reverend Jackson didn't take the bait last night, and I know why, but I'm not going to say.  I'm not going to open up that door.  I know why he didn't take the bait.  He's focused on other things right now. There's no reason to take that bait right now.  As far as Olbermann is concerned, you gotta understand it: 700,000, 500,000 people, it's insignificant.  It is in our world, anyway, it's a thimble in terms of the audience.  It's just not even worth commenting on!

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Bob in Sacramento, my adopted hometown, nice to have you on the EIB Network.

CALLER:  Thanks for taking my call, mega dittos from California.  Listen, I want to follow up on a point you were making earlier.  You know, we know that you're not at all, you're head and shoulders of that idiot Imus and you're not likely to shoot yourself if the foot.  But let's face it, the Justice Brothers are on a role.  Sure they got their hair mussed with Duke.  But, you know, they're on a roll.  They put a big scalp up on the wall with Imus, and they're hungry, and they're looking for an issue.  Tom was saying, you know, those guys might boycott, they might try to get these sponsors to boycott you, but they'll need an issue.  So who knows what form some trap might come in.  Maybe we need Mr. Snerdley to be on that kill switch super vigilant to make sure that nobody tries to lay a trap for you the way --

RUSH:  Let me address this, because I'm glad you called.  I don't want to give too much away here because I don't want to help these people.  I'd love to launch on this, but I'm trying to be guarded in the ammo I give people, and not the kind of ammo you think.  In the first place, I know, and I don't see this out of ego, this a pure business thing.  I know I'm next because they've run everything at me they can.  Michael J. Fox -- do you know that CNN on Tuesday night, Paula Zahn, to whom I have been nice.  When she at Fox I went on her show a number of times.  I never said a word about Paula Zahn.  Paula Zahn does a whole feature on the Michael J. Fox episode from last October, repeating all of the lies, replaying the looped video of my supposedly making fun of and impersonating Michael J. Fox.  Now, as I said earlier, the reason this stuff doesn't work is because you people who listen are tremendous in number, and you know the truth.  They have to lie about what happens on this program in order to be critical of it.  And they lied again on Tuesday night. 

They just repeated everything I have refuted and said that they got wrong on this Michael J. Fox episode.  When I saw that, and it was done under the context of, "Hey, you think Imus is bad, look at this Limbaugh guy," and they went out and had failed liberal talk show hosts on to comment, failed liberal talk show hosts who never, ever got an audience, went bankrupt and had to quit and go do something else.  I'm under no illusions that I am the real target, and Hannity, and Mark Levin, and Neal Boortz.  We all know this.  What they don't understand -- look, they've tried -- there was the ESPN thing, the Michael J. Fox thing, the legal situation in Florida whatever year that was.  They've given a pretty good run at it and we haven't lost a single sponsor.  They tried.  We haven't lost a single station.  They tried. 

Now, there are reasons for this that they don't understand and that's what I'm not going to tell you.  But I'm just telling you, I understand why everything here has continued to grow, by the way, despite all of these attempts to destroy this program, we do nothing but grow, both in business and in audience, and I know why, and they don't, and they will never understand it unless I tell them.  And if I tell them, they probably wouldn't believe it anyway, but there's no sense taking the chance.  It's all about having a connection with people, a real, daily personal connection, such as you and I all have.  I'm not a preacher and I'm not talking at you, we're talking to one another, you're talking back.  My empathy allows me to know what you're thinking in terms of instincts and so forth.  So I appreciate the concern but I want you to know I'm fully aware of it, prepared for it, and know how to deal with it when it happens.

END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Background Material...

Global Hot Air - Thomas Sowell

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2007/02/13/global_hot_air

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

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 13, 2007 - 5:53pm.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11987

Does Get-Imus Movement Foretell Fairness Doctrine Reinstatement?

Posted by Dan Riehl on April 12, 2007 - 00:59.

With a clearly activist liberal Congress in place, the news Don Imus has gotten the ax and that the FCC is now beginning to look into what most likely was the Imus in the Morning Show may be more than the usual distraction in what has become a typical race flair up, egged on by the usual suspects, Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson et al.

With Representative Kucinich already talking about reconstituting the Fairness Doctrine as far back as January, a far from Conservative radio talker may have provided said Congress with just the opening it seeks. The ultimate prize the liberals in Congress are after has nothing to do with race, as always, it's about politics more than anything else.

Just look at how the politicians are already lining up. A late to the show Obama wants Imus fired, as does Hillary. McCain and Giuliani say forgiveness is the proper choice. Edwards is also for forgiveness, but the neophyte politician always seems late to get the memo; he'll learn, or more likely parish for being such a weak candidate to start.

Imus, aside from being a shill for MS and NBC pundits with a few other journalists and politicos thrown in, is not really all that important in the grand scheme. At best he drew some 300,000 listeners on a good day.

A liberal Congress already quick to hurl subpoenas at the AG for normal firings, while it's Speaker is circling the globe talking to the likes of Syria and potentially Iran, is not a Congress determined to catch small fish simply to thrown them in some pan. They have much bigger fish to fry. Within 2 - 3 months Don Imus will be forgotten, but Right Talk Radio will be the real glint in their bullseye. And if you listen in much, it becomes pretty obvious the major conservative talkers have already figured that out.

If you believe in Global Warming, we may have a hot Summer, but it won't be long before a cool wind starts to blow down off the Hill with the clear if not expressed purpose of leaving more than a few radio towers in its wake. How long do you think it will be before we hear the first call for hearings? And we all know what Congressional hearings are really about - politics and little else.

Cross-posted at Riehl World View.

Dan Riehl's blog | login or register to post comments
Categories:
Cable Television | Radio | Don Imus | Media Bias Debate | MSNBC | Race Issues

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 13, 2007 - 5:56pm.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11998

After Imus, CNN Now Targets Rush Limbaugh

Posted by Matthew Balan on April 12, 2007 - 13:21.

That didn't take long at all. A few days after Don Imus' racially-charged remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team, CNN set its sights on Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk radio hosts. On Tuesday's "Paula Zahn Now," host Paula Zahn teased an upcoming segment by noting, "If you think some of the things Don Imus says are insulting, you haven't heard anything yet." She then played Rush Limbaugh's criticism of embryonic stem cell advocate Michael J. Fox from last fall.

Later, in the segment itself, Zahn juxtaposed Don Imus's words with controversial remarks by Limbaugh, Neal Boortz, Michael Savage, and Randi Rhodes -- three conservative/libertarian hosts to one ultra left-wing host. Then on his Wednesday evening program, CNN host Larry King gave former Air America radio host and Senate candidate Al Franken (D-Minn.) a platform to attack conservative talkers.

When King asked if CBS should let Imus stay on the air, Franken said it was up to CBS, and then went on the offensive against "right-wing radio," focusing on Glenn Beck, King's colleague on sister network CNN Headline News. Franken called for Beck's ouster while King failed to question Franken's assertions that "I've heard Rush Limbaugh say things that are worse than this." King only corrected Franken when he said that Beck worked on CNN, not its Headline News spinoff.

An excerpt of Zahn's segment on controversial talk show hosts, which focused on Limbaugh.


ZAHN (voice-over): They are controversial for a reason. Their on-air rants provoke outrage from some listeners and dogged loyalty from others. It all adds up to millions of dollars a year in advertising revenue and millions of dollars for the hosts.

And while radio host Don Imus calling the Rutgers University women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos" is certainly beyond the bounds, it is not the first time offensive comments have been spewed on the radio. Conservative Rush Limbaugh, who has offended just about every minority group, drew special criticism for attacking actor Michael J. Fox.

LIMBAUGH: In this commercial he is exaggerating the effects of the disease.

ZAHN: When Fox appeared in a campaign ad for Democratic candidates supporting stem cell research, he was trembling from his Parkinson's disease. Limbaugh accused him of faking his symptoms.

LIMBAUGH: He is moving all around and shaking, and it's purely an act. This is the only time I have ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has.

ZAHN: Limbaugh later apologized. But the criticism for that low blow hasn't stopped him from lashing out at presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, calling him "Halfrican."

LIMBAUGH: Barack Obama has picked up another endorsement, Halfrican-American actress Halle Berry. As a Halfrican-American, I am honored to have Ms. Berry's support, as well as the support of other Halfrican-Americans.

Calling Barack Obama "Halfrican" is lashing out? Let's compare that to what Al Franken said on Larry King's program on Wednesday.

FRANKEN: I have heard a lot of talk radio -- now, I will give you an example. CNN has Glenn Beck on. Glenn Beck asked my congressman, Keith Ellison, who is the first Muslim to be elected to Congress, you know, I just want to ask you, how do I know that you're not working with the enemy?

And he said that -- I think he said it on CNN. But he certainly is -- he's on CNN. I don't know why that wasn't grounds for CNN thinking, well, maybe Glenn Beck shouldn't be on. I mean, how dare he say that to a congressman who has just been elected?

And I hear this kind of thing a lot of time. I monitored a lot of right-wing radio when I was doing my show and before it. And I've heard Rush Limbaugh say things that are worse than this.

Actually,

Beck had said to Congressman Ellison, "I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, ‘Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.'And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."
One of the targets of Paula Zahn's segment, Neal Boortz,
wrote on Thursday that "There is not one single significant right-of-center radio talk show out there that is not going to come under fire." It appears now that CNN launched the opening salvo, and it won't be long before other mainstream media outlets start firing their ammo.

Matthew Balan's blog | login or register to post comments
Categories:
Paula Zahn NOW | Al Franken | CNN | CNN Headline News | Conservatives & Republicans | Culture/Society | Don Imus | Glenn Beck | Larry King | Larry King Live | Liberals & Democrats | Libertarians | Michael Savage | Paula Zahn | Race Issues | Rush Limbaugh

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 13, 2007 - 5:58pm.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11989

Boortz on Why Liberals Don't Fare Well in Talk Radio

Posted by Matthew Sheffield on April 12, 2007 - 07:58.

It's a universally acknowledged phenomenon that conservatives and libertarians dominate talk radio while liberals love television and print. The reasons why each side does so well at each particular medium are many.

I do find myself agreeing with Neal Boortz's recent thought experiment (h/t Small Dead Animals) of why liberals aren't good at talk radio: they just can't argue very well. He does the experiment by trying to extrapolate two left-wing editorials from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution into a talk radio context. It doesn't work out so well because the subjects, "income inequality" and firearm-phobia just aren't very rational ideas, Boortz argues.

Those of you who are liberal and reading this surely will disagree. If so, how do you account for the fact that not a single liberal talk radio show has ever been popular?

Matthew Sheffield's blog | login or register to post comments
Categories:
Media Business | Radio | Media Bias Debate

Tricia Keith Spiegel's picture
Submitted by Tricia Keith Spiegel on April 13, 2007 - 7:12pm.

N/T
YES, WES!!!


Lara's picture
Submitted by Lara on April 13, 2007 - 7:43pm.

Imagine that out of a winger who writes for Townhall.

Yes, O'Lielly has about 10 times more viewers than Keith, but the vast majority of them aren't the market share that advertisers are seeking. In fact, the average age of O'Lielly's viewer is 70+.

And, then, we have to "factor" (no pun intended) in those non-existant folks in all the bars, barber shops and auto mechanic stores that are forced to watch this tripe because the channel is already tuned to Faux (I always change it when I can).

Thanks for this post, Mitch. It was very interesting.


Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 13, 2007 - 10:45pm.

Hi Lara:

Thank you for your informative comments and for your nice compliment!

Hugh Hewitt and people like him are as wrong as wrong can be on the issues but they can spin what they believe very well and they can keep their Neocon activist audiences by spreading hatred of people who disagree with them!

I monitor them almost every day to be aware of what they are doing and saying (it is dirty work BUT someone has to do it)!

If we could ever implement the Fairness Doctrine and/or bring nationwide attention to the fact that extreme right wing talk radio is at least as bad as what Imus did, then that would cripple the Neocon wing of the GOP in 2008 and would probably result in more Democratic victories than in 2006 in my opinion!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 13, 2007 - 10:56pm.

on an extreme right wing yahoo group that I monitor on a regular basis.

The Imus controversy is scaring Neocon activists to death about their losing power and influence if we can reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and/or if the country finally wakes up to the hate that they are pushing and decide to do something about it:  

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Conservative_Principles_and_Activism/message/86046

'It's not just Imus,' warn talk-radio headhunters

Fri Apr 13, 2007 3:08 pm

<stardora@...>

'It's not just Imus,' warn talk-radio headhunters
David Brock group makes case against Limbaugh, Savage, Beck, O'Reilly, more

Posted: April 13, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55182
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Now that radio talk-show host Don Imus has been banished, it's time to clean up the rest of talk radio, says a partisan media watchdog group headed by David Brock.

Next in the crosshairs for alleged expressions of "bigotry and hate speech targeting, among other characteristics, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and ethnicity" are, according to Media Matters for America, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, John Gibson and Michael Smerconish.

In a 6,000-word report, Media Matters documents what it perceives as the case against the talk-radio hosts.


Rush Limbaugh

Limbaugh is upbraided for the following satirical "offenses":

On March 2, Limbaugh said "since [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-Ill.] has – on his mother's side – forebears of his mother had slaves, could we not say that if Obama wins the Democratic nomination and then wins the presidency, he will own [Rev.] Al Sharpton?"

On Aug. 23, 2006, Limbaugh commented on a season of CBS' reality TV program "Survivor" in which contestants were originally divided into competing "tribes" by ethnicity. Limbaugh said the contest was "not going to be fair if there's a lot of water events" and suggested that "blacks can't swim" – a reference to a statement that got former Los Angeles Dodgers General Manager Al Campanis fired in 1987. Limbaugh stated that "our early money" is on "the Hispanic tribe" – which he said could include "a Cuban," "a Nicaraguan," or "a Mexican or two" – provided they don't "start fighting for supremacy amongst themselves." Limbaugh added that Hispanics have "probably shown the most survival tactics," that they "have shown a remarkable ability to cross borders," and that they can "do it without water for a long time, they don't get apprehended, and they will do things other people won't do." When the "Survivor" producers decided to dissolve the show's racially segregated "tribes" after only two episodes, Limbaugh said "[t]here can only be one reason for this ... that is the white tribe had to be winning."

On Jan. 10, 2006, Limbaugh said some women "would love to be hired as eye candy."

On July 17, 2005, Limbaugh announced a new "advertising campaign" for the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. He renamed the facility "Club Gitmo, the Muslim resort," a "tropical paradise down there where Muslim extremists and terrorist wannabes can get together for rest and relaxation." On his website, he sold "Club Gitmo" T-shirts that read: "I Got My Free Koran and Prayer Rug at Gitmo," "Your Tropical Retreat from the Stress of Jihad," "My Mullah went to Club Gitmo and All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt," and "What Happens in Gitmo Stays in Gitmo."

On March 1, 2005, Limbaugh said "[w]omen still live longer than men because their lives are easier."

On June 14, 2004, Limbaugh shared his "pet name" for the National Organization for Women: "National Association of Gals" (his acronym: "NAG").

Responding to an Associated Press report that women had recently been appointed as chiefs of police in four major U.S. cities, Limbaugh said May 27, 2004, referencing the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib: "If we've got four new female police chiefs out there, then I guess we can watch out for some naked pyramids among prisoners in these new jailhouses that these women ran, because we had a woman running the prison in Abu Grab."

The report also references his repeated use of the term "femi-Nazis," part of the unique Limbaugh lexicon and his resignation as a football commentator for ESPN over the well-publicized Donovan McNabb incident in 2003.

As for Savage, another one of the nation's top-rated talk hosts, Media Matters cited the following comments as objectionable:

On March 30, Savage said that he "agree[d] 100 percent" with a caller who said: "I'm very concerned that the Jews are now accepting gays as rabbis. And as a Catholic, I can tell you it almost destroyed our church when we accepted gays as priests." The caller added, "[T]hey were raping teenage boys, and if you allow them to come into your churches, I'm sorry, your synagogues, I have no reason to believe they're not going to do the same thing." Savage responded: "The idea of a gay rabbi is an oxymoron. Think about it: 'Rabbi' means teacher. You cannot have a homosexual teacher teaching boys how to be a Jew," adding, "I'm not going to mince words for fear of offending homosexuals. They're everywhere, anyway, trying to tell me what to say and what not to say and what to think. I know what's right and what's wrong. And that's all there is to it."

On March 20, Savage discussed a San Francisco Chronicle report of the murder of someone whose sex was being changed. Savage read a sentence from the article stating "it appeared the victim had been in the process of becoming a woman," to which Savage replied: "Yeah, process of becoming a woman – psychopath. [She] should have been in a back ward in a straitjacket for years, howling on major medication." He went on to say, "And what's this sympathy, constant sympathy for sexually confused people? Why should we have constant sympathy for people who are freaks in every society?" adding, "But you know what? You're never gonna make me respect the freak. I don't want to respect the freak." Savage concluded: "The freak ought to be glad that they're allowed to walk around without begging for something. You know, I'm sick and tired of the whole country begging, bending over backwards for the junkie, the freak, the pervert, the illegal immigrant. All of them are better than everybody else. Sick. Everything is upside down."

On March 16, Savage played audio clips from Barbara Walters' interview with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling her a "double-talking slut." Savage added: "She's an empty mind-slut. She'd peddle anything for a ratings point." Savage went on to call Walters a "mental prostitute" and said, "I think that the woman is vermin. I think she's dirt."

On Feb. 26, after playing an audio clip of the beginning of singer Melissa Etheridge's acceptance speech at the Academy Awards in which she thanked her "wife and four children," Savage said: "I don't like a woman married to a woman. It makes me want to puke. ... I want to vomit when I hear it. I think it's child abuse."

On Feb. 7, Savage claimed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "was chosen by George Bush as part of an affirmative action program in order to make his Cabinet look like America." he called her "a schoolmarm who has been pushed up the ladder all of her life because of social engineering." Savage added Bush's secretary of state "should have been a man because he would have more respect in the Middle East than does a woman to begin with."

Savage was also taken to task by Media Matters for advocating a ban on Muslim immigration into the U.S., banning the construction of mosques and making English the official language.

On his radio program last night, Savage predicted a campaign to target him and other talk-radio hosts now that the Imus campaign was successful.

"It is as if this country no longer understand and appreciates satire," he said. "They don't allow satire in China. They don't allow satire in North Korea. They don't allow satire in Syria. That's where we are headed if satire is allowed to be destroyed in America."




Glenn Beck, who hosts a syndicated radio show as well as a TV show on CNN Headline News, was singled out for calling Rosie O'Donnell, co-host of ABC's "The View," a "fat witch" who had "blubber ... just pouring out of her eyes. He allegedly asked, "Do you know how many oil lamps we could keep burning just on Rosie O'Donnell fat?" Later on the March 23 edition of his radio show, Beck said, "I'm a little ashamed" for calling O'Donnell "a fat witch" – then added, "But she's so fat."

Beck's other offenses, according to Media Matters, include:

On March 15, he said: "Hillary Clinton cannot be elected president because ... there's something about her vocal range." He went on to say, "There's something about her voice that just drives me – it's not what she says, it's how she says it," adding, "She is like the stereotypical – excuse the expression, but this is the way to – she's the stereotypical b––, you know what I mean?" Beck later qualified his statement: "I never said that Hillary Clinton was a b––. I said she sounded like one."

On Nov. 14, on his CNN show, Beck said to Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim ever elected to Congress: "OK. No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. ... With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, 'Let's cut and run.' And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.'"

On Sept 5 on CNN, Beck warned that if "Muslims and Arabs" don't "act now" by "step[ping] to the plate" to condemn terrorism, they "will be looking through a razor wire fence at the West."

On April 27, 2006, Beck said there are three reasons an illegal immigrant "comes across the border in the middle of the night" – "one, they're terrorists; two, they're escaping the law; or three, they're hungry. They can't make a living in their own dirtbag country."

On May 17, 2005, Beck said he was "thinking about killing (filmmaker) Michael Moore and wondered out loud whether "I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it." He concluded: "No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out – is this wrong?"

Bill O'Reilly, host of the No. 1 cable TV show, Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor," is also a syndicated radio host. Media Matters challenged his right to the airwaves for the following alleged indiscretions:

On April 6 O'Reilly said that Virginia Beach Mayor Meyera Oberndorf "should be baking pies, not running a major city."

On April 2, while discussing the British soldiers captured by the Iranian government, Nancy Soderberg, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, stated that "the Arab Sunnis are uniting against Iran" and said: "[I]t's going to be the Arab world against the Persian world. And that's a fight we don't want to have played out in Iraq." O'Reilly responded: "Well, I'd like to see that fight with us out of it. That's what I'd like to see." O'Reilly continued: "I want – let them kill each other."

On Dec. 13, O'Reilly dismissed a report on same-sex parenting by asserting, "Nature dictates that a dad and a mom is the optimum" form of child-rearing. O'Reilly asked "why," if children suffer no psychosocial deficit from being raised by same-sex parents, "wouldn't nature then make it that anybody could get pregnant by eating a cupcake?" O'Reilly declared that by arguing in favor of same-sex couples' right to raise children, "you're taking Mother Nature and you're throwing it right out the window, and I just think it's crazy."

Syndicated radio host Neal Boortz faced the following indictment:

On July 19, Boortz claimed that "at its core," Islam is a "violent, violent religion," and said, "[T]his Muhammad guy is just a phony rag-picker." Boortz asserted that "[i]t is perfectly legitimate, perhaps even praiseworthy, to recognize Islam as a religion of vicious, violent, bloodthirsty cretins."

On March 31, 2006, then-Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-GA, "looks like a ghetto slut." He was commenting on a March 29 incident in which McKinney allegedly struck a police officer at a Capitol Hill security checkpoint. Boortz said that McKinney's "new hair-do" makes her look "like a ghetto slut," like "an explosion at a Brillo pad factory," like "Tina Turner peeing on an electric fence," and like "a shih tzu."

On March 27, 2006, Boortz suggested the U.S. government should "store 11 million Hispanics" who entered the country illegally in the Louisiana Superdome in New Orleans before deporting them to their home countries.

Michael Smerconish was next on the hit list. While sitting in for O'Reilly on radio April 4, Smerconish repeatedly discussed "the sissification of America," claiming that political correctness has made the United States "a nation of sissies." Smerconish also claimed, several times, that this "sissification" and "limp-wristedness" is "compromising our ability to win the war on terror."

Lastly, Fox News Channel host and syndicated radio talker John Gibson crossed the line May 11, according to Media Matters, for advising viewers of "The Big Story" to "[d]o your duty. Make more babies." He then cited a May 10 article, which reported that nearly half of all children under the age of 5 in the U.S. are minorities. Gibson added: "By far, the greatest number [of children under 5] are Hispanic. You know what that means? Twenty-five years and the majority of the population is Hispanic." Gibson later claimed: "To put it bluntly, we need more babies." Then, referring to Russia's projected decline in population, Gibson claimed: "So far, we are doing our part here in America but Hispanics can't carry the whole load. The rest of you, get busy. Make babies, or put another way – a slogan for our times: 'procreation not recreation.'"

CBS fired Don Imus from his radio program yesterday, a day after MSNBC announced it was discontinuing a simulcast of the show on cable TV. Imus initially was given a two-week suspension for calling the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos" on the air last week.

"There has been much discussion of the effect language like this has on our young people, particularly young women of color trying to make their way in this society," CBS President and Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves said in announcing the decision. "That consideration has weighed most heavily on our minds as we made our decision."

Imus, once named one of the 25 Most Influential People in America by Time magazine and a member of the National Broadcasters Hall of Fame, issued repeated apologies as protests intensified.

Brock's Media Matters was "developed" with help from the Center for American Progress, funded by billionaire George Soros, a major financial backer of the Democratic Party and allied groups such as MoveOn.org.

Brock, formerly of the conservative American Spectator, is backing a "Renew the Fairness Doctrine" campaign to have the Federal Communications Commission monitor and regulate talk radio. His group is "dedicated to correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

jen's picture
Submitted by jen on April 14, 2007 - 1:06am.

would shut down the hatemongers on winger radio? I'm pretty sure as long as people like Limbaugh are making money for his sponsors, they'll stand behind him. And as long as the media is owned by the corporations who profit from endless war, which means Publican rule, how will the Fairness Doctine address this?

In reality it's much larger than the hatemongers on the radio -- if you look at the news we get from online news sources it's painfully obvious the mainstream media is withholding tons of information that would change the direction of this country overnight if people knew what was really going on in our government. And not just the withholding of vital information, but actually printing and broadcasting LIES daily with no one to stop or correct them, unless you have access to the internet and check websites that debunk the lies.

So how would the Fairness Doctrine stop this?

Thanks Mitch, for all your information, analysis, etc.


Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.


Four Stars for President 2008


Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 14, 2007 - 6:55am.

Hi Jen:

Thank you for your comments and for your good question.

The Fairness Doctrine would not actually "shut down the hatemongers on winger radio" BUT it would greatly reduce the media power that they have because it would require ALL of their programming to allow for an equal amount of time for the other side to respond to what they are saying!

So at least half of their airtime would have to allow for a response from the other side which they definitely do not want to give us when they have a near monopoly on it right now!

The main reason why they fear the Fairness Doctrine so much is because it would cripple the GOP in the 2008 election because the GOP relies so heavily on extreme right wing talk radio to organize their activists and to effectively communicate their message to many millions of people:

http://www.gop.com/GetActive/CallTalkRadio.aspx

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.

The Fairness Doctrine cutting their time in half as well as forcing them to provide us with equal time would be a huge blow to the extreme right wing talk radio industry and would badly hurt the GOP's ability to communicate their message!

Now the Fairness Doctrine would also apply to Air America and to any liberal talk radio as well (the same standard applies across the board) but that is a very small price for Democrats to have to pay when they are losing the talk radio media war so badly now and when the other side has used it so effectively to affect election results in the past:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11479

ZOGBY: 83% of voters think that the media is biased; Democrats seem to be losing

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on March 16, 2007 - 1:25pm.

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 is where Limbaugh showed his fear of the Fairness Doctrine on 11/09/06 right after the GOP lost control of Congress:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110906/content/across_the_fruited_plain.guest.html

Who Will Be the Next Conservative Leader?

November 9, 2006

RUSH: "I want to tell you, the Democrats have one objective -- and they have many -- the top objective is to cement their hold on power in the House. They're not going to lose it again. They're not going to have another 1994. That's going to be their objective, and if they have to take out as many potential threats and enemies via the investigatory process or the oversight process or the Fairness Doctrine, whatever, this is what they're going to try to do..."

I hope that this answers your question!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 14, 2007 - 7:05am.

http://boortz.com/nuze/200701/01162007.html#talkradio

Nealz Nuze

Today's Nuze: January 16, 2007

BOORTZ

Tuesday - January 16, 2007
DEAD AIM ON TALK RADIO

Here's a little excerpt from "Somebody's Gotta Say It":

No mistake about it: The left hates talk radio. With a blinding passion.

Liberals have finally realized that they can't enjoy widespread success in the talk radio format. They've spent millions trying, and they've failed. A number of the left's most visible icons have given it a shot, people like former New York governor Mario Cuomo. They've failed miserably. Leftist entertainers who know their way around a microphone, Hollywood stars like Alec Baldwin, have tried it. Not good. Not just not good . . . but hideous and laughable.

Liberals know—because they have consultants, who are usually smarter than they are—that talk radio is going to belong to libertarians and conservatives as long as the format is allowed to exist.

Talk radio, especially Rush Limbaugh, enabled the 1994 voter revolution. Sure, the Republicans had their Contract with America, but that contract was worthless if the people didn't know about it.

The Contract with America was taken to the people by talk radio. Intrigued by the idea of a hundred-day voting agenda, the conservative jocks yakked it up. Not that these hosts necessarily agreed with every point in the Contract. They just felt that it was a unique approach; it captured their imaginations. As a result, the American people got an in-depth education in the principles behind the Contract and the probable effect of its passage:

Bye-bye Democrats.

Democrats are dedicated to making sure that such a disaster never befalls them again. They're back in power now, and in power is where they intend to stay. They will do everything in their power to make sure a ragtag and unelected band of radio talk show hosts don't weewee in their Cheerios again.

The only way, then, for liberals to deal with this threat to their continuing power is to get rid of it. Murder is the preferable option. And the most likely murder weapon will be something called the "Fairness Doctrine."

"Somebody's Gotta Say It" HC, an imprint of Harper Collins. Debuts February 20, 2007

In the book I go on to detail just exactly how the resurrection of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" would quickly destroy talk radio. I can tell you that there are radio executives out there who thought that the Fairness Doctrine was not really that much of a threat .. until they read my scenario. Now they are true believers.

Over the weekend there was a little gathering of leftists in Memphis called the "National Conference for Media Reform." Who should make a surprise appearance than Ohio Democrat Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich planning on running for president --- again. He has no chance --- again. But he is the new chairman of a new House subcommittee. Ready for the name? The Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee. How Nice.

Why did Kucinich make his surprise appearance at this media conference? Because he wanted to announce that his committee would, among other things, be considering bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 15, 2007 - 1:56am.

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2007/04/return-of-fairness-doctrine.html

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

The Return of the Fairness Doctrine?

Before his deplorable remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team, Don Imus' legacy as a broadcaster seemed somewhat assured: Member of the Radio Hall of Fame; recipient of three Marconi Awards (given to the medium's outstanding air personality), and a highly influential career spanning four decades, at the local level (on WNBC and WFAN in New York City), and as a national host for CBS Radio and MSNBC.

But the final chapter in the I-man's career may include an event that no one could have envisioned a few weeks ago. And it has nothing to do with the "survival" of his career, or whether advertisers return to his program--assuming he still has a "show" after his suspension ends at CBS and MSNBC. In fact, this portion of his "legacy" would be felt for years, long after Imus retires to his New Mexico ranch.

In the end, will Don Imus be best-remembered as the man who, inadvertently, helped revive the Fairness Doctrine?

Don't laugh--it's not that much of a stretch. Democrats, back in control of Congress, have been talking quietly about restoring the Fairness Doctrine, first imposed more than 70 years ago by the Federal Communications Commission, and its predecessor, the Federal Radio Commission. The doctrine required that broadcasters who operate on the "public airwaves," present "controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in what was deemed an honest, equal and balanced manner." In other words, if a station provided airtime to cover one side of an issue (or political candidate), it was obligated to provide a similar forum for the opposition.

The Fairness Doctrine was finally repealed by the FCC in 1987, during the Reagan Administration. After a favorable ruling from a federal appellate court in 1986, the FCC determined that the doctrine served to inhibit, rather than enhance debate. The commission also suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace at the time, the doctrine was perceived to be unconstitutional. And for good reason; efforts to extend similar provisions to the print media were rejected by the courts, despite the fact that newspapers and magazines transmit data over FCC-regulated communications systems, and their final product travels over publicly-owned roadways to reach consumers.

Sensing a threat to their media stranglehold, Democrats quickly tried to reimplement the Fairness Doctrine. In 1987, President Reagan vetoed a bill that would have reimposed the doctrine, and it took the threat of a veto by President George H.W. Bush to quash a similar measure in 1991. With the Republicans in charge of Congress for most of the 1990s, the Democrats put their plans for the Fairness Doctrine on the back burner, but they never abandoned the idea. When their party regained control of the House and Senate in January, a group of four Democrats (Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Represenatives Louise Slaughter and Maurice Hinchey of New York, and Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio) introduced a bill to restore the Fairness Doctrine.

Their motives are blatantly transparent--and political. The "new" Fairness Doctrine is aimed squarely at conservative talk radio, which emerged as a media force in the late 1980s, and became a powerful counterbalance to the liberal-dominated MSM in the decades that followed. By again requiring that broadcasters provide "fairness" and "balance" in their programming, Sanders and Slaugher et.al, believe they can discourage stations from airing personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Neal Boortz. Under a renewed Fairness Doctrine, a talk station carrying those three personalities might be required to provide up to 9 hours of airtime a day to hosts and groups with opposing views.

So, how does the Imus controversy play into the Fairness Doctrine? The old rule contained something called the "Personal Attack" clause, requiring broadcasters to notify groups and individuals subjected to attack during broadcasts; provide a transcript of the comments within one week, and offer time for rebuttal. Interestingly, the personal rule remained in effect until 2000, long after the FCC rejected other elements of the Fairness Doctrine. I'm just waiting for one of the supporters of the "new" fairness legislation to call a press conference, and announce that their bill could "prevent" other hosts from launching personal attacks in the future.

It's the type of "crisis and government cure" situation that Democrats have exploited successfully in the past. Never mind that there's a tremendous gulf between Don Imus' racist remarks and the legitimate, free political speech practiced by broadcast hosts representing all political viewpoints. For backers of the new Fairness Doctrine, the First Amendment is less important than an opportunity to silence political critics, under the guise of solving the latest social malady. And thanks to the I-man's little riff last week, anyone who opposes their measure can be branded as a supporter of hate speech, a racist, or worse.

At this point, reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine remains a long shot. But those efforts received an unforseen (and unfortunate) boost last week, when Mr. Imus opened his mouth. For a man who's made a career on the edge of the edge of the First Amendment, it would be ironic if the end of his career brought renewed--and onerous--restrictions on free speech.

# posted by Spook86 @ 7:25 AM

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 14, 2007 - 6:25am.

when she is NOT used by Democrats in any official capacity (or in any kind of capacity that I can think of) while the RNC does OFFICIALLY use Rush Limbaugh and extreme right wing talk radio on their website (Limbaugh is right at the top of their big list):

http://www.gop.com/GetActive/CallTalkRadio.aspx 

So Democrats can rightfully tie the RNC and all Neocon GOP candidates who identify themselves with extreme right wing talk radio (which many of them do) to the stupid and hateful things that are said by Rush Limbaugh and by his pals in the extreme right wing media while no Democrat who I am aware of can be tied to Rosie O'Donnell: 

http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6879

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

No Joke! Dems Take Rosie View


 

House Dems Take Policy Advice From Rosie O'Donnell And Ban Use Of "War On Terror"

___________________________________________________________

Last Week, Rosie O'Donnell Attacked Use Of "War On Terror" Phrase:

Actress And Guest Co-Host Marcia Gay Harden Called The Phrase "Propaganda." "But even you worded a 'war on terror,' personally that is propaganda. ... Don't like the wording of it like that." (ABC's "The View," 3/29/07)

Rosie O'Donnell Agreed: "Exactly, Marcia Gay. Thank you. ... It makes people into evil and good." (ABC's "The View," 3/29/07)

O'Donnell: "I'm saying that in America we're fed propaganda and if you want to know what's happening in the world go outside of the U.S. media because it's owned by four corporations. One of them is this one. And you know what; go outside of the country to find out what's going on in our own country because it's frightening. It's frightening." (ABC's "The View," 3/29/07)

Click Here To Watch Rosie's "View" On The "War On Terror"   (0:51)

Now House Armed Services Committee Democrats Ban Use Of "War On Terror": 

House Armed Services Committee Memo Forbids Use Of "Global War On Terror" From Defense Bill Because "Democratic Leadership Doesn't Like The Phrase." "The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget. This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee's Democratic leadership doesn't like the phrase. A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and 'avoid using colloquialisms.' The 'global war on terror,' a phrase first used by President Bush shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., should not be used, according to the memo." (Rick Maze, "No More GWOT, House Committee Decrees," Military Times, 4/3/07)

"Committee Staff Members Are Told In The Memo To Use Specific References To Specific Operations Instead Of The Bush Administration's Catch Phrases." (Rick Maze, "No More GWOT, House Committee Decrees," Military Times, 4/3/07)

"The Memo, Written By Staff Director Erin Conaton, Provides Examples Of Acceptable Phrases, Such As 'The War In Iraq,' The 'War In Afghanistan,' 'Operations In The Horn Of Africa' Or 'Ongoing Military Operations Throughout The World.'" (Rick Maze, "No More GWOT, House Committee Decrees," Military Times, 4/3/07)

Committee Aides Acknowledged The Ban Has "A Political Element." "Committee aides, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said dropping or reducing references to the global war on terror could have many purposes ... but also has a political element involving a disagreement over whether the war in Iraq is part of the effort to combat terrorism or is actually a distraction from fighting terrorists." (Rick Maze, "No More GWOT, House Committee Decrees," Military Times, 4/3/07)



PDF Format

http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6879

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 15, 2007 - 1:11am.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/da12892b-a717-430e-8763-0a343d74121e

Saturday, April 14, 2007

"Meet The New Press" and The Election of 2008

Posted by Hugh Hewitt  | 12:34 PM

I spent three quarters of an hour with the three hosts --Doug Lambert,  Skip Murphy and Patrick Hynes--of New Hampshire's WEMJ's "Meet The New Press," talking mostly about A Mormon In the White House? but also about the impact of new media on the '08 election.

I will be on a panel at the National Association of Broadcasters on Monday devoted to 2008 election media strategy, and the three bloggers who run this radio show and podcast are the perfect example of what is going on largely underneath MSM/'s radar. 

Their radio show reaches the three central counties of New Hampshire.  Their blogs and newspaper columns reinforce their message, and their podcast of their show can travel to any interested observer of the Granite State's political debates.  Expect all the GOP contenders (and the smart Democrats who want to talk to independents) to drop in --often-- and to include these citizen journalists in their media releases.  (One of the hosts, Patrick Hynes of Ankle Biting Pundits is a McCain consultant but a very fair host of the show.)

What this show does is very similar to what the Northern Alliance radio programs have done in Minnesota, and what Backbone Radio is doing in Colorado --providing a new media outlet for citizen journalist conservatives, an outlet reinforced and supported by blogger networks in the states.  Every talk radio station in the country should be looking for bloggers to learn the basics of radio so that their call letters become a destination listen on the weekend, a stop that influences week day listening patters, and a regular mention on a region's biggest blogs.

Speaking of new media's influence, here is the transcript of my interview with Rudy Giuliani from yesterday, and here is my interview with him from February.  My goal with interviews of all the candidates, as it was with the Romney book, is to avoid the breathlessness of MSM and the news cycle driven attempt to get "gotchas" which seems to motivate so many MSMers, but to instead use all of the interviews to present more comprehensive views of the candidates.  Thus there's a lot of emphasis on biography, and on bigger issues, not exclusively or even primarily the latest headlines.  I think all of the candidates, left, right and center, would be well served to find as many journalists as possible willing to conduct long form interviews backed up by preparation and genuine curiosity, and to spend an hour or two with them rather ten to 15 minutes with dozens of scribblers and talkers.  The long form is the best way to actually engage a voter who is on the fence.  The wide-open forums that Romney has been conducting are also an excellent approach to engaging the electorate, but in the age of citizen journalism and new media, the idea that engaging Beltway media in press avails or giving "big speeches" which are sliced and diced by MSM as means of getting through to voters seems not merely out of date but anachronistic. Center-right voters especially don't want candidates empowering MSMers to set the political agenda via their questions (and their implicit assumptions and obvious agendas.) 

Candidates who want to talk to voters should go where voters listen and spend a lot of time answering a series of questions put forward in a coherent order.  The weekend hosts --and of course the weekday hosts as well-- are a great way to get and retain the sustained attention of the crucial audiences.

| Email It  |   Print It  |   Take Action |   Comments (13)  |   Trackbacks (0)

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 15, 2007 - 1:46am.

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272612674.shtml

Don Imus, Al Sharpton & Rush Limbaugh: Fairness Doctrine Agenda

By Cliff Kincaid
Apr 11, 2007
 
Now we know the real agenda. The civil rights agitators like Al Sharpton are exploiting the Don Imus controversy in order to increase the power of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) over what is said on television and radio. You will notice in his various utterances that Sharpton explicitly refers to the FCC having the “regulations” and power to do its job. He talks about the need for a “regulatory policy” from the FCC. This opens the door for re-imposition of the federal Fairness Doctrine, the subject of a new report released by Accuracy in Media. Sharpton’s rhetoric in the Imus affair was as predictable as night follows day.


Don Imus, Al Sharpton & Rush Limbaugh: Fairness Doctrine Agenda

It’s no secret that the liberal-left loves federal power. And we know, based on what occurred at the recent “progressive” conference on “media reform,” which featured Jesse Jackson and Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, that they want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine in order to force conservative programs to grant them more air time. But it wasn’t exactly clear how they intended to bring this about. Now, with the Imus controversy, we know.

The effort, as Sharpton has indicated, will include codes of conduct, promulgated by the FCC, regarding what can and cannot be said on the public airwaves. Offenders will be punished with fines or revoked licenses. On CNN with Wolf Blitzer, Sharpton declared:

“What we're talking about is public policy. There’s no way the airwaves should be used to allow people to call people ‘nappy-headed hos.’ That’s what he called these people. And for him to say that and to just walk away like, ‘I’m just sorry, I made a mistake,’ would then mean that the FCC, who regulates everything on the airwaves and who sanctioned…Janet Jackson with a wardrobe malfunction, has no purpose at all.”

So the FCC’s ability under the law to fine CBS for Janet Jackson exposing her breast on television during the Super Bowl should translate into the ability to fine and punish Don Imus¯and others like him¯for what they say on the air. Sharpton declared that “the real question is whether the FCC is sincere about having regulations that operate the same for everyone.” He also said, “This is about accountability and a standard on the airwaves.”

Forget about Sharpton’s complete lack of credibility on racial and other matters. He is making a point that will strike a chord with many people. And when you have a case like that of Imus, who used a national TV and radio show to insult some female student athletes by making fun of their race, gender and physical appearances, you have the potential ingredients for congressional hearings by a Democratic congress into what should be regulated in the media. After all, here you have a national radio host, courtesy of GE and CBS, attacking a group of people who were in no position to respond. The Rutgers team didn’t have a radio or TV show. They have subsequently gotten a national platform because of the coverage of the incident,   but they didn’t have one in the beginning. That is the rationale, as Sharpton sees it, for the federal government to intervene and give them a platform.

Under the Sharpton view of what the FCC should be able to do, perhaps under a Fairness Doctrine, bureaucrats would have the power to order Imus or his employers to grant air time to members of the Rutgers squad.  

The Imus affair is what proponents of the Fairness Doctrine have been looking for. For them, “hate speech” includes much of what is on conservative radio. So it’s a short leap from suspending or firing Imus to going after people like Rush Limbaugh. Indeed, one blogger on the liberal Huffington Post website writes that “I think Rush Limbaugh is significantly more hateful than Don Imus and his past comments have been demonstrably more racist.” It is no coincidence that one reader at the website, in posting a comment about the Imus controversy, put in a long plug for the Fairness Doctrine, noting that “The 2007 Democratic Congress is currently working” to restore it. 

On one liberal website, a former staffer to a Democratic Senator declared that “There is a cancer in some segments of the media, and the cancer will spread, until it is removed.” But he not only cited Imus, he cited the much-publicized insults that Ann Coulter directed against a group of 9/11 widows.

If you go to the website of Democratic Rep. Maurice Hinchey, you will see that his “top issue” is his proposed Media Ownership Reform Act (MORA), “which seeks to restore integrity and diversity to America’s media system…” The Fairness Doctrine is part of the Hinchey bill. Notice the reference to restoring “diversity” to the media. Is it any surprise that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have also been complaining about a paucity of black faces on the MSNBC network? They see the Imus controversy as a great opportunity not only to get themselves more air time but possibly get their own TV shows sponsored by the Big Media.

In fact, Sharpton and Jackson already have their own radio shows. The “Al Sharpton Show” is in 21 markets and Jackson’s “Keep Hope Alive” radio program is said to be airing in over 40 markets, including New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Detroit, Philadelphia, Houston and Atlanta. But that’s not good enough for them. Don’t be surprised if Sharpton or Jackson, or both, emerge as special paid commentators or “analysts” on MSNBC. Or they could even get their own shows on the network. I wouldn’t be surprised if negotiations aren’t already underway.

So there you have it. Led by Al Sharpton, the new hero of the “media reform” movement, the left has tasted blood. If they can bring down or at least humiliate Imus, they can go after others, probably with congressional support. And that means a number of conservative hosts already found “guilty” of racism, sexism, homophobia and other sins will be standing in line to be pilloried. 

The House domestic policy subcommittee chaired by Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich  will be the most likely venue. One of many liberal House members with an almost insatiable appetite for media attention (and who even appears on the Fox News Channel), Kucinich is a Fairness Doctrine supporter who claims jusrisdiction over the FCC.

After Imus is brought before Congress to testify about the use of the public airwaves and demonstrate more contrition, Limbaugh will be next. Don’t rule out a subpoena for the conservative talk-show host. From the Democrats’ point of view, it promises to be bigger than the baseball steroids hearing. They won’t be able to resist it.

Cliff Kincaid is Editor of Accuracy in Media

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 15, 2007 - 2:42am.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/13/pzn.01.html

PAULA ZAHN NOW

Cleaning Up the I-Mess

Aired April 13, 2007 - 20:00   ET

ZAHN: Is Don Imus a victim of selective outrage?

MARTIN: Well, I mean, I think Don Imus was in the wrong place at the wrong time, just like Janet Jackson was.

And what happens is, one incident sparks outrage. But the question is, are we going to stop at Don Imus? Is he the period or is he the comma? We can use Don Imus to change the discourse and combat sexism and racism. But, if we only stop here, then we have failed.

ZAHN: So, you're hoping he's the comma. I don't know.

MARTIN: Absolutely.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: Some people aren't too optimistic about that.

MARTIN: But I want us to step up, Paula. And I want the media to don't drop this story, and to hold people accountable.

Everybody who protested Don Imus, let's see what the next step is. If they don't continue, then, absolutely, they were hypocrites.

ZAHN: Roland Martin, thanks.

MARTIN: Not a problem...

Comment viewing options

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