Liberals itching to gut First Amendment
My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. It’s called, “Liberals itching to gut First Amendment.” Here’re a couple of snippets:
Most people would think of letting the government dictate speech requirements for the person speaking in front of City Hall, but many think that speech transmitted over the airwaves is somehow fair game. But the First Amendment was written to protect the speech – not the method of transmission.
If we allow our government to control speech just because that speech is transmitted through the public domain, consider the other areas where it might apply. Will the government begin to regulate blogs and other internet media? That speech is reaching you across the public domain. How about newspapers that are delivered on government roads? Free speech is just that – free “speech.” The delivery mechanism does not negate the First Amendment’s protection of it.
As a tangent point, it has always amused me that liberals consider the dominance of conservative talk radio to be monolithic and devoid of contrary opinions. I have listened to a fair amount of talk radio and there is generally a wide range of opinion on a variety of subjects. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Charlie Sykes, Jay Weber, Jeff Wagner, Mark Belling, Vicki McKenna, Mark Levin, Neal Boortz and the many others often have different takes on the issues. They each have a different ideology. Some, like Boortz, are pure Libertarians. Others, like Weber, are more traditional middle-America conservatives. Among them are also the barn burners and those who just like to poke sticks into things.
The fact that so many liberals think that socalled “right wing radio” presents a monolithic view of the world tells me one of two things. Either they don’t actually listen to talk radio or they don’t understand the many strata of conservative/libertarian philosophy.
[...]
I suspect that the liberals who are pushing for the Fairness Doctrine are not all that interested in a variety of opinion as much as they are interested in forcing more stations to carry liberal talk radio.
The Fairness Doctrine is not coming back. Nobody with any clout is pushing for its return.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 0816 hrs
Steve-O is right. A backbencher like Stabenow is certainly in no position to try and force through the return of the Fairness Act, which seems to be one of the right’s favorite whipping boys. Honestly, I have no idea where the fixation comes from. I can’t think of anybody in a position to do anything about it that’s called for its return.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 0935 hrs
it has always amused me that liberals consider the dominance of conservative talk radio to be monolithic and devoid of contrary opinions. I have listened to a fair amount of talk radio and there is generally a wide range of opinion on a variety of subjects. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Charlie Sykes, Jay Weber, Jeff Wagner, Mark Belling, Vicki McKenna, Mark Levin, Neal Boortz and the many others often have different takes on the issues.
The fact that so many liberals think that socalled “right wing radio” presents a monolithic view of the world tells me [...] they don’t understand the many strata of conservative/libertarian philosophy.
You should write for the Onion. Seriously.
Posted by scott on February 10, 2009 at 0939 hrs
Good job Owen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 1004 hrs
Steve-O is right. A backbencher like Stabenow is certainly in no position to try and force through the return of the Fairness Act, which seems to be one of the right’s favorite whipping boys. Honestly, I have no idea where the fixation comes from. I can’t think of anybody in a position to do anything about it that’s called for its return.
So you are confident that the other colleagues Stabenow mentioned as interested in creating a “fairness doctrine” type law are also backbenchers?
Only 100 US Senators, I wonder how many are worthless?
“Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’” I asked.
“Yes,” the speaker replied, without hesitation
- Nancy Pelosi, June 24, 2008
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 1025 hrs
Seems like the blogging will be continuing for another 4 years, minimum.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 1031 hrs
The fact that so many liberals think that socalled “right wing radio” presents a monolithic view of the world tells me [...] they don’t understand the many strata of conservative/libertarian philosophy.
You should write for the Onion. Seriously.
I too snickered when I read that.
It reminds me of the time I got myself into trouble for laughing when someone tried to argue that their church was a diverse place because both young and old people attended.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 1119 hrs
We got both kinds of music—country and western!
Posted by scott on February 10, 2009 at 1121 hrs
It has always amused me that conservatives consider the dominance of hip hop radio to be monolithic and devoid of contrary opinions. I have listened to a fair amount of hip hop and there is generally a wide range of opinion on a variety of subjects. East Coast and West Coast Hip Hop often have different takes on the issues.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 1153 hrs
Sorry to beat the dead horse here, but Owen? How did you not realize the absurdity of this?
1. Liberals complain that conservative talk radio is one-sided and lacks a diversity of opinion.
2. Owen points out that it isn’t so—because conservative talk radio has several different kinds of conservatism!
3. (Cue laugh track)
I mean, how does a person not see that when they’re writing it?
Posted by scott on February 10, 2009 at 1200 hrs
No, not different kinds of “conservatism.” Different kinds of philosophy. I think that if you called Boortz a conservative, he’d smack you, for example. The same is true on the left, which I illustrate later in the column. The greenies are far different than the traditional liberals or communists.
The whole point was to illustrate that imposing anything like the fairness doctrine is absurd because trying to break down our spectrum of philosophies into 2 or 3 monolithic blocks is not realistic.
But please continue to prove my point of your ignorance of distinctions in philosophies.
Posted by Owen on February 10, 2009 at 1239 hrs
Most people would think of letting the government dictate speech requirements for the person speaking in front of City Hall, but many think that speech transmitted over the airwaves is somehow fair game. But the First Amendment was written to protect the speech – not the method of transmission.
This is so silly.
Hey Owen.
Here in good old Tosa Town our mayor (you remember her - the darling of the far right) has a double standard.
Posted by Gas Pains on February 10, 2009 at 1246 hrs
So the fact that your mayor doesn’t adhere to my support of the 1st Amendment makes me wrong? Or are you saying that I’m right and that your mayor is wrong? Honestly, I don’t know what the heck you’re talking about.
Posted by Owen on February 10, 2009 at 1256 hrs
The link is busted - that’s why you don’t know what the heck I’m talking about.
Sorry about that.
We’re all having a chuckle over her desire to restrict the public broadcasting of the interviewees for the Council seat she’s to appoint.
Try this:
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 1303 hrs
Ah yes, I do seem to remember a blurb about that a few weeks ago. I absolutely think that they should tape the interviews for citizens to view. More transparency = better government (generally speaking). Appointees have an automatic advantage for the next election and it’s an easy way for a Mayor or council to manipulate the process to hand pick their co-workers.
Posted by Owen on February 10, 2009 at 1311 hrs
For the record, I also think that council meetings should be taped and archived for a period of time. The technology is pretty cheap nowadays. If not video, then at least audio.
Posted by Owen on February 10, 2009 at 1313 hrs
Owen I think you might have missed the point.
All Council and Committee hearings are taped - with the exception of legally protected HR hearings.
What I’m talking about is the broadcast medium. You see, the Mayor wants to make sure that these specific Committee proceedings are not broadcast on public access cable or U-Verse.
Having taken time to listen to the Council debate it seems they’re afraid of the online community.
Imagine that.
Knowing that this is being promoted by one of the far right’s rising stars strikes me as particularly ironic. Doesn’t it you?
Posted by Gas Pains on February 10, 2009 at 1329 hrs
I can see how it is ironic from your perspective, but I had to go look up your Mayor. If she’s a “rising star” in anything, not many people seem to know about it. I would concur that she is in the wrong here.
Posted by Owen on February 10, 2009 at 1332 hrs
Asked if he is a supporter of telling radio stations what content they should have, Schumer used the fair and balanced line, claiming that critics of the Fairness Doctrine are being inconsistent.
“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”
In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”
ah - yes. Feinstein, Schumer and Durbin. Back-benchers all
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 1346 hrs
Why should the GOP buy the cow—i.e. air time for their views and echo chamber that would normally be in the form of commercials—when they can get the milk through the fence.
What tmj runs on their airwaves represents hundreds of thousands of dollars in kind donations to the Republican Party.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 1408 hrs
To deny Owen’s point is to believe that opposing stances on say, marijuana (Boortz : decriminalize v. Hannity : shoot anything in a tie-dyed shirt) are somehow, both “conservative” stances.
Anyone on the left who can consider BOTH sides of an issue to be a “conservative position” is confessing to their schizophrenic need to disagree with conservatives on everything just to be contrary.
And for the sake of brevity, let me carry both sides of this argument to the logical conclusion:
Nuh uhhh.
Nuh HUH!
Nuh UHHH!
Nuh HUHHH!
You’re stupid.
No, YOU are…
-jjg
DailyScoff.comPosted by J. Gravelle on February 10, 2009 at 1428 hrs
Unbe-frickin-lievable. Why I should have to explain this so painstakingly when it’s so obvious…
Look, guys. When liberals complain about the lack of diversity of opinion on conservative talk radio they’re talking about, well, the lack of the liberal point of view. With me so far? That’s what liberals are complaining about. Just about everyone on talk radio is a conservative. Hardly any liberals. That’s the problem they’re talking about. Not some other problem. Not some larger, nebulous point about “differing philosophies.” Conservative/liberal. Period.
So if you intend to rebut that complaint you should be pointing out where there are liberals on the air. Or perhaps arguing that the marketplace favors conservative talkers and that we should all stop whining. But what you cannot do is rebut it by telling us about the diversity of opinion within American conservatism. Because it completely misses the point of what we’re complaining about. See how that works?
Posted by scott on February 10, 2009 at 1441 hrs
I’ll admit that Owen’s cast of characters are basically all the same, but his overall point is right, and Scott’s attempt to hedge it into his own little version of the world is wrong.
Personally, I like to break political philosophies into two categories. There’s people that agree with me, which I’ll call “athiest libertarians.” And there’s the guys on the other side that like big government, high taxes and trampeling on other people’s rights. I’ll call that group “Liberals/Conservatives.” The reason your argument is bogus, Scott, is that there are plenty of guys in your group (Liberals/Conservative) on the air, like Rush and Charlie Sykes and all those other a-holes. They want to tach nonsense and take away people’s rights, just like you do.
Oh, you don’t like how I defined these catagories? Well, that’s the problem with the fairness doctrine
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 1500 hrs
Clever and thought provoking. But the fact remains that Owen is rebutting a specific argument made by a specific group: liberals are decrying the lack of liberal talk on the radio. You cannot rebut that complaint by pointing out that you have both country and western music (i.e., that you have different kinds of conservatives). Not only does it not make sense, but it’s funny as hell.
Posted by scott on February 10, 2009 at 1508 hrs
“But the fact remains that Owen is rebutting a specific argument made by a specific group: liberals are decrying the lack of liberal talk on the radio.”
Yes, and he’s doing so be refusing to legitimize the way that sub-group (liberals) defines itself. The fact of the matter is that some Liberals/Conservatives think their philosophy is being espoused on the radio and other Liberals/Conservatives don’t. Do you really think we should humor every subgroup of a subgroup of a subgroup so they all get a little air time?
I love that Blues Brothers line. Let me give a go at paraphrasing it: We got both kinds, Owens AND Scotts…. You’re right. Hilarious.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 1515 hrs
“liberals are decrying the lack of liberal talk on the radio”
“When liberals complain about the lack of diversity of opinion on conservative talk radio they’re talking about, well, the lack of the liberal point of view.”
Ok, Scott list for us one liberal show that doesn’t lack a conservative point of view. Rachael, maybe Keith O, Chris M..
And liberal talk radio doesn’t work because no one listens, never has, and if no one is listening you cant sell advertising. How are the ratings for Air America?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 1534 hrs
Ok, Scott list for us one liberal show that doesn’t lack a conservative point of view.
Bullshit. They’re not asking to mix their peanut butter in your chocolate. They’re not complaining about the lack of liberals on the Limbaugh show. They’re complaining about the lack of liberal shows. Duh.
And liberal talk radio doesn’t work because no one listens,
Now that at least is a reasonable argument. (As I indicated in comment 22.)
Posted by scott on February 10, 2009 at 1540 hrs
Scott,
So if their not complaining about liberals on conservative shows, and we all know liberal talk shows don’t work, which is the reason there are not liberal talk shows, exactly what is your point?
Are you saying we need to force these shows on the air. Who will pay for them, they won’t generate any advertising dollars, because as we already discussed liberal radio doesn’t work, and never has. Again what are Air America’s ratings?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 1554 hrs
First of all, I didn’t say I agreed with your argument. I simply said it was reasonable.
Posted by scott on February 10, 2009 at 1556 hrs
“But what you cannot do is rebut it by telling us about the diversity of opinion within American conservatism”
First of all, sorry I want to be cool like you.
Second of all I still want to be cool like you.
Third of all list a liberal show that has a diversity of opinion within American liberalism.
Well
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 1601 hrs
This is the same mindset that gives us sports where every kid gets a trophy even though they never won a single game.
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 1603 hrs
*speechless*
Posted by scott on February 10, 2009 at 1604 hrs
Why are liberals waiting for the Fairness Doctrine? Why not move now to get a bunch of liberal talk shows on the air? What possible explanation could there be for the inability of such shows to prosper?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 1704 hrs
I would think the first casualties of a new fairness doctrine would be CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC and Yahoo.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 1706 hrs
George, that’s a really good question. Unfortunately discussions about this invariably begin and end with a venomous and delighted “because they suck and nobody wants to hear them!” At least that’s how it goes when you discuss it with conservatives such as one finds in the comments of B&S.
Posted by scott on February 10, 2009 at 1711 hrs
Scott….Then I guess we can count on you to enlighten us by answering the question.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 1717 hrs
No George what you’ll get is:
*speechless*
Come on Scott, you were so close.
“because they suck and nobody wants to hear them!” and venomous”, should have been in the same sentence.
That’s why nobody listens to them because they are nothing but venomous dribble, that sucks and nobody wants to listen to them.”
Oh Dude - So close, What a bummer, Dude
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 1736 hrs
Since we are talking about *shows* can someone list the conservative shows that appear(ed) on Air America, the recently defunct OBAMA 1260 and Greenstone Media (the media network which had hosted the now defunct Jane Fonda/Gloria Steinham show)?
If there are not any, why isn’t there the same level of outrage, or the demand for conservative shows?
I’m not being sarcastic, I want to know.
Posted by hsgbdmama on February 10, 2009 at 1850 hrs
That’s why nobody listens to them because they are nothing but venomous dribble, that sucks and nobody wants to listen to them.”
Well I guess I no longer need to argue the point about the usual unthinking conservative response to the question as to why there are so few liberal radio shows, as you’ve already proven it beyond doubt.
In other news, I suspect that the reason we don’t have a dial full of Randi Rhodes liberals is because liberals by and large don’t like one-sided, red meat partisan jabbing that she represents. Liberals are, almost by definition, open-minded people who—to a fault—want to be fair and consider the actual merits of issues rather than consume attack dog media. Why don’t we have “liberal talk radio” in the form of Rhodes? Because the kind of radio that appeals to us already exists in its proper form: public radio.
(Note for those ready to jump on it: I am by no means “admitting” or otherwise indicating that NPR is biased—only that it is what liberals want: intellectual, fair and issue-oriented. You doubt me? Ask Owen how many times he has appeared on public radio.)
why isn’t there the same level of outrage, or the demand for conservative shows?
Because, again, you’re missing the forest for the trees. Nobody is demanding that conservative shows appear on Air America because the airwaves are already saturated with conservative shows. Pretty simple.
Posted by scott on February 10, 2009 at 1921 hrs
Forgive those who have called you a liberal, Scott. You are the most closed-minded and least inquisitive person who comments on this site.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 1953 hrs
Well that sure put me in my place.
Seriously, what bug is up your ass now? Spill it man.
Posted by scott on February 10, 2009 at 1955 hrs
I don’t get on well with closed-minded, uninquisitive people.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 2004 hrs
Fascinating. So are you going to share with us all what’s bothering you, mr. opend-minded?
Posted by scott on February 10, 2009 at 2012 hrs
Re # 39, now I see. Liberal talks shows don’t succeed because liberals are too thoughtful. They want a more nuanced dialogue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 2021 hrs
No. Liberal talk radio does succeed. It’s called public radio. It’s thoughtful and intellectual and issue-oriented. Our problem is that we’ve been asking ourselves why we don’t have a liberal Limbaugh. And the answer is because liberals don’t like that shit very much.
Posted by scott on February 10, 2009 at 2023 hrs
No. Liberal talk radio does succeed. It’s called public radio.
That’s funny!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 2109 hrs
I’m not the one preaching, scott. When one wishes to preach, they should first demonstrate belief in, or at least a history of following, that which they preach. You have repeatedly failed to do so.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 2157 hrs
No. Liberal talk radio does succeed. It’s called public radio.
How is that success? It doesn’t pay for itself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 2309 hrs
No. Liberal talk radio does succeed. It’s called public radio.
You should write for the Onion. Seriously.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2009 at 2357 hrs
NPR actually does give both sides of an issue, which is why conservatives usually don’t like it. They always seem to come off looking foolish, for some reason. Usually, because they’re wrong on most topics.
But for diversity, the conservatives would never allow it. That is why they carefully screen callers. If Sykes or Belling had an honest debate with someone that is liberal and articulate, in an environment they can’t control, they always come up looking like the fools that they are.
Since people like Sykes would never allow people like me on the air with him, isn’t he suppressing my free speech? Or is it OK because I have a lower tiered blog, and that is to be equal with the most powerful radio station in WI?
What a joke.
And correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t conservative squawk radio have a hard time of it when they first started, and needed a lot of sponsorship that wasn’t ad-generated? Basically they bought their way into AM radio dominance, they didn’t earn it.
Posted by capper on February 11, 2009 at 0016 hrs
Since people like Sykes would never allow people like me on the air with him
Again, utter ignorance of the media. In fact, they often have liberal callers on the air. Why? It’s more entertaining. For example, Belling, Sykes, and Weber all seem to let “Earl from the North Side” on the air on a daily basis. Earl makes articulate and consistent arguments from his lefty perspective and all of the hosts often give him more time than most callers. It’s easy to get on the air. All you have to be is on topic and able to concisely and intelligently make a point (and be able to get through).
You forget that while they are in the business of discussing the issues, they are also in the business of entertainment. It’s more fun to hear people debating an issue than to hear a long string of people saying “I agree!”
Posted by Owen on February 11, 2009 at 0733 hrs
That first sentence is as quote from capper. I forgot to format it.
Posted by Owen on February 11, 2009 at 0741 hrs
It took 50 posts, but Capper delivered the inevitable in these conversations: a hit-list of innane urban legends. This is a good one:
“And correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t conservative squawk radio have a hard time of it when they first started, and needed a lot of sponsorship that wasn’t ad-generated? Basically they bought their way into AM radio dominance, they didn’t earn it.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2009 at 0805 hrs
For the record, a slightly higher percentage of public radios’ audience identifies itself as conservative as opposed to liberal.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2009 at 0819 hrs
they are also in the business of entertainment
If only this were true?
Isn’t “talk” radio just cheap filler between sporting events?
How can any of the locals can purport to be “news” radio when compared to WBBM?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2009 at 0847 hrs
“In other news, I suspect that the reason we don’t have a dial full of Randi Rhodes liberals is because liberals by and large don’t like one-sided, red meat partisan jabbing that she represents. Liberals are, almost by definition, open-minded people who—to a fault—want to be fair and consider the actual merits of issues rather than consume attack dog media.”
Oh come on Scott. Liberals/Conservatives are NOT open-minded. Liberals/Conservatives DO by and large like one-sided partisan jabbing. What defines Liberals/Conservatives as a group is that they chose to pick a team. They twist their idea to fit party lines, almost by definition. They see issues as having only two sides. THAT’S what definses Liberals/Conservatives.
“Again, utter ignorance of the media. In fact, they often have liberal callers on the air. Why? It’s more entertaining. For example, Belling, Sykes, and Weber all seem to let “Earl from the North Side” on the air on a daily basis. Earl makes articulate and consistent arguments from his lefty perspective and all of the hosts often give him more time than most callers. It’s easy to get on the air. All you have to be is on topic and able to concisely and intelligently make a point (and be able to get through). “
I think you’re grasping here Owen. I agree with your point by those guys are just a big right-wing circle-jerk, Earl from the North Side notwithstanding. They may have a few token disagree-ers on but it mostly is a bunch of “I agree, I agree, I agree.” And that IS entertaining. To morons. Sometimes there will be more disagreement when they discuss a really really stupid and pointless topic, like whether or not the crash landing on the Hudson was a “miracle.” (Seriously. That was an actual topic on Sykes).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2009 at 0856 hrs
What defines Liberals/Conservatives as a group is that they chose to pick a team.
Yes, that’s a really good point liberals and conservative, by definition, have a particular point of view. They aren’t tabla rasa people walking around, regarding all ideas equally. I get that. But what I’m saying is that it doesn’t naturally follow that what they prefer in their media is to hear their own point of view echoed back to them in a thoughtless and forceful way. Even a group with a particular point of view might prefer to discuss issues in a more open and thoughtful way than another group—especially if one of the tenets of their point of view is that kind of openness to begin with.
And when I say that liberals are more open-minded than conservatives, I don’t mean that as a knock on anyone’s intelligence. I merely mean to say that conservatives, by definition, are more likely to cling to existing ways of thinking, belief and action than are liberals, who are, again by definition, more questioning and more open to newer and different ideas. And if you can’t see what I’m saying here, I don’t really know where to go with you. I mean, I guess we could start analyzing dictionary definitions, but I think it’s a point that we should all be able to agree upon without that kind of nonsense.
Posted by scott on February 11, 2009 at 0927 hrs
“Even a group with a particular point of view might prefer to discuss issues in a more open and thoughtful way than another group—especially if one of the tenets of their point of view is that kind of openness to begin with.”
Whoa there. I think you’re right if the group you’re talking about, that prefers to discuss issues in a more open and thoughtful way, is the Atheist Libertarian group. But that’s totally NOT the case with Liberals/Conservatives.
“Yes, that’s a really good point liberals and conservative, by definition, have a particular point of view.”
It’s not just that it’s a particular point of view. It’s that the point of view is basically chosen for you/them without you/them having to think about it. Liberals/Conservatives, almost by definition, have to be less open-mined than non-partisans. They have a default position on almost every issue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2009 at 0946 hrs
Whoa there. I think you’re right if the group you’re talking about, that prefers to discuss issues in a more open and thoughtful way, is the Atheist Libertarian group.
I think you’re missing my point. You can slice up the population along any line you want and see which half is more open minded than the other: women versus men, black versus white, old versus young—anything you want. When I say that liberals are more open minded than conservatives that has no bearing on whether your “atheist libertarians” are or are not more open minded than, well, everybody else. Both things can be true. It’s like me saying “the left half of this apple is squishy” and you replying “no, the inside is definitely squishier than the outside!”
It’s that the point of view is basically chosen for you/them without you/them having to think about it.
Of course there’s a lot of that going on in both camps, especially among the radicals and super partisans. But I think it’s still a fact that, as a group, self-described liberals are going to be more open to new ideas than conservatives. Such as when discussing ‘values.’ Conservatives tend to have a very traditionalistic view of these things, eschewing new ideas such as that gay people should be able to marry. Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to be open to that new way of thinking about the issue. I think that’s pretty self-evident and I don’t know why we’re arguing about it. I’m missing something, I think, or not communicating clearly.
Posted by scott on February 11, 2009 at 1005 hrs
I guess the point that you’re missing, from my perspective, is simply that you’re wrong. I don’t really see those tendencies. I see you attributing a positive characteristic to the subgroup you belong to and a negative characteristic to the other subgroup. In reality, I don’t think that difference exists to any meaningful degree. I’m just saying that if you want to get away from narrow-mindedness, you have to get out of that group (Liberals/Conservatives) completely rather than argue about the very very subtle differences within it. What you’re saying is like saying, “it’s colder in Minnesota than Wisconsin.” I’m basically coming in and saying, “Who gives a shit? It’s f-ing cold in both.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2009 at 1023 hrs
I see you attributing a positive characteristic to the subgroup you belong to and a negative characteristic to the other subgroup.
Oh, and you’re not doing that at all, right?
Seriously, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. but I’m fascinated by this discussion and our inability to see it the same way. Perhaps I should think about it, talk it over with some others, and write something about it on the blog.
Posted by scott on February 11, 2009 at 1033 hrs
Another backbencher wants the Fairness Doctrine back.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2009 at 1118 hrs
Owen,
First time, long time.
I don’t know that you and I would see eye-to-eye on everything regarding your column, but let me just say this:
As a Democrat and someone who works in Dem politics, I am embarrassed every time people complain about the fairness doctrine or talk about bringing it back. It is definitely the “boo-hoo” doctrine, as Dems haven’t figured out how to make our partisan radio appeal to, well, anyone really, so instead our solution is to require that liberally slanted radio programs exist? What a lame solution. I have accepted that Reps/Libertarians/points-of-view-I-don’t-agree-with will dominate talk radio. Oh well, I’ll just have to find a better way to get our message across.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2009 at 1314 hrs
VaPolitico obviously has seen these discussions play out many times. It always is dominated by lame/ignorant explanations of media operations and the failure of liberal talk radio. He should do a tutorial for Scott, Capper, et.al.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2009 at 1326 hrs
For instance, Dick Durbin has spoken favorably of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine in the past, but when I contacted his office last week, his press secretary said that he “has no plans to introduce any legislation on the issue, nor is it even on the radar.”
That’s the next to last line of the article linked by Adamski, and I think it pretty much covers the feelings of most legislators. Calling for the return of the Fairness Doctrine is a good red meat line for the campaign trail, but nobody is seriously considering actually introducing legislation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2009 at 1335 hrs
I totally agree with VaPolitico.
Posted by scott on February 11, 2009 at 1407 hrs
Scott: You are the wet noodle of cognative thought.
I too agree with VApolitico (but about the MSM instead) but did not have to travel around the mountain, twice, to get to the other side.
When you say or think you are open minded I believe it to be holes in your cranium that blows the dust around. So, are you in favor of the “Fairness Doctrine” or not? Also, why don’t you answer at least one of OverTaxed’s questions?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2009 at 1516 hrs
Scott: You are the wet noodle of cognative thought.
If you’re going to insult other people’s intelligence you should at least spell “cognitive” correctly.
No, I don’t favor a return of the Fairness Doctrine. And I’m not responding to a lot of OverTaxed remarks because he’s being a dick. (See comments 30, 31 and 37.)
Why, was there something specific you wanted me to address?
Posted by scott on February 11, 2009 at 1530 hrs
Well, you are the opposite of a dick, in the physical sense, and I still reply to you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2009 at 1703 hrs
Lucky me.
Posted by scott on February 11, 2009 at 1705 hrs
Thanks for the compliment.
Im think of a body part to discribe Scott. Its just south of the body part he described me as.
Think puckered..
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2009 at 1802 hrs
Scott,
I’m still stuck on post 45.
No. Liberal talk radio does succeed. It’s called public radio
Define success please.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2009 at 1823 hrs
....the conservatives would never allow it. That is why they carefully screen callers. If Sykes or Belling had an honest debate with someone that is liberal and articulate, in an environment they can’t control, they always come up looking like the fools that they are.
Liberal AND articulate?
If there was such a thing…. they would be a SUCCESSFUL Liberal radio host….
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on February 11, 2009 at 1942 hrs
Define success please.
Yes, I see what you’re getting at: nothing can be “succesful” if it relies on any government funds to operate. Maybe you have a point there. At least it’s worthy of discussion. But what I’m really getting at isn’t that. It’s that it draws the liberal radio listening audience. The point is that we liberals are not pining for a liberal Limbaugh. We don’t like that aggressive, partisan style. We like public radio. That is what we like. Or so I’m theorizing. I mean successful in that it draws that audience.
Posted by scott on February 11, 2009 at 2200 hrs
“Calling for the return of the Fairness Doctrine is a good red meat line for the campaign trail, but nobody is seriously considering actually introducing legislation”
Typicaly lefty points straight from the DNC.
Fact is Obama is for it, Pelosi, Harkin as well. The liberals will do whatever to stifle dissent.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2009 at 2324 hrs
Yes, I see what you’re getting at: nothing can be “succesful” if it relies on any government funds to operate.
It’s not “nothing” can be
“succesful”
if it relies on government funds. Our Military is the best in the world and it is completely dependent on Government funds. One could safely argue that today there are more liberals than conservatives in the US. So why is it that the only liberal radio station has to be paid for with tax dollars?
The point is that we liberals are not pining for a liberal Limbaugh. We don’t like that aggressive, partisan style.
I’m calling shenanigans on that statement. You have plenty of them, they are just not on AM radio. Olberman comes to mind off of the top of my head. Heck, watch our Presidents speech from Monday. Listen to any elected Democrat talk about President Bush. They talk about the economic down turn with reference to the “failed policies of the last 8 years” with no mention of those actual policies, just the people. My point being that is someone actually spoke of the policies they might find it has a lot more to do with Barney Frank than GWB.
I mean successful in that it draws that audience.
See this I just don’t understand. I think you are right that success to NPR is drawing a liberal audience. I just don’t the the government should be in the radio business
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 12, 2009 at 0843 hrs
So why is it that the only liberal radio station has to be paid for with tax dollars?
That’s an interesting question. Is there something about the kind of programming liberals want thats only possible in a publicly funded outlet? I don’t know. Got any ideas of your own?
I’m calling shenanigans on that statement.
Call it what you want, but there simply isn’t the audience (it seems) for left-wing, overtly partisan, bellicose media personalities the way there seems to be for the right. I don’t care if you cross media from print to television to radio. It’s just not there for us like it’s there for you. I hypothesize that the left simply doesn’t like the style and that we’re much happier listening to public radio.
Posted by scott on February 12, 2009 at 1009 hrs
That’s an interesting question. Is there something about the kind of programming liberals want thats only possible in a publicly funded outlet? I don’t know. Got any ideas of your own?
Yep, the government should get out of the radio business and take that money to use on infrastructure. If so many liberals listen to public radio why wouldn’t companies want to advertise there?
I like this quote from President Reagan.
Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 12, 2009 at 1229 hrs
the government should get out of the radio business
Well, your friends and neighbors don’t agree apparently—as evidenced by the fact that they keep electing politicians who support the public financing of television and radio. I frankly think we should do more of it.
Speaking of Reagan, here’s quote I’ve been thinking about a lot over the past year: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” I’ve been thinking about it a lot because Republicans seem to be wailing on that same note here in 2009. The unfortunate truth, however, is that this isn’t 1980. That message won’t sell. What people want right now is not for their government to get out of their way. What they want right now is for their government to actually do something for them and be competent about it. This is something that’s very hard for Republicans to deliver on, as they are the anti-government party. They say the government can’t solve anything, that it’s always inefficient and incompetent, that we should have less and less of it. It seems, in fact, that they run on a platform of incompetent government and then get elected to prove their own point.
Posted by scott on February 12, 2009 at 1253 hrs
Well, your friends and neighbors don’t agree apparently—as evidenced by the fact that they keep electing politicians who support the public financing of television and radio. I frankly think we should do more of it.
I bet if my friends and neighbors actually knew where tax dollars went they would change a lot of things. That is D.C. Hide everything in what looks like something else. This is why I support a constitutional amendment that does not allow spending to be in a bill not directly related to the title of said bill. We will see than how many politicians get reelected.
Of course you think we should do more of it. I think tax dollars should support the NRA. Well no I don’t but you get my point.
As far as the government doing more…..... Screw it, you will never admit that Barney Frank and government “doing more” is a huge reason why we are where we are and that Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid are hiding tons of wish list spending and calling it stimulus. I’m also sure that like President Obama, you will say that the process in which spending makes it into a bill and not what it is being spent on determines weather or not it’s “pork”. If it was not earmarked it can’t be pork right?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2009 at 0031 hrs
Just checked on Charlie Sykes blog where he has a link to President Clinton saying
“We ought to have the fairness doctrine”
Lets look way back at post number 1
The Fairness Doctrine is not coming back. Nobody with any clout is pushing for its return.
Posted by Steve-O on February 10, 2009 at 0816 hrsFormer President who’s wife is the secretary of state is nobody with any clout
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2009 at 0036 hrs
I am amused by the liberal fixation on ‘fairness doctrine’. If re-instated would National Public Radio need to change its format, maybe add a conservative program? I wouldn’t hold my breath!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2009 at 1300 hrs
I am amused by the liberal fixation on ‘fairness doctrine’.
I’m amused that you think this is even remotely true. The only place I ever see this issue discussed is conservative blogs. I don’t personally know a single liberal who ever said to me “you know, we really need to change back to that fairness doctrine thing.” I mean, not ever. Nor have I ever read such an opinion on a liberal blog. Ever. Rather, it is the conservatives who are “fixated” on it as an issue.
would National Public Radio need to change its format, maybe add a conservative program?
No, they probably wouldn’t have to change anything. They are already in the habit of providing balance in the first place. On Monday they’ll have a show in support of X, on Tuesday they’ll have a detractor of X. Surely you’ve noticed this? In fact, I’ve read about research indicating that conservative guests on NPR outnumber liberal ones by 3 to 2. And that there’s a similar edge toward the conservatives in the area of think tanks cited. So now that I think about it, they might have to have on a few more liberal guests if the Fairness Doctrine ever reappeared.
Posted by scott on February 13, 2009 at 1311 hrs
The only place I ever see this issue discussed is conservative blogs. I don’t personally know a single liberal who ever said to me “you know, we really need to change back to that fairness doctrine thing.” I mean, not ever. Nor have I ever read such an opinion on a liberal blog. Ever. Rather, it is the conservatives who are “fixated” on it as an issue.
Um, Scott. I couldn’t care less what the liberal bloggers are saying about it. What I do care about is when our elected leaders - who happen to be in the majority - are talking about it. Clinton, Pelosi, Stabenow, Harkin, Kerry, Feinstein, Kucinich, Hoyer… the list goes on and on and on. These are the people who could actually reinstate it (or some form of it). If you oppose it, then perhaps you should be hammering on the Democrats in office who are talking about bringing it back instead of griping about the fact that we are talking about it too.
Posted by Owen on February 13, 2009 at 1345 hrs
I think conservative bloggers are just being “vigilant” - why should the liberal bloggers draw attention to this, when what it really needs is to be “back-doored” on the American public. In fact, I would think the less this is discussed (kind of like all the crap attached to the stimulus package) the easier it would be for all the elected leaders cited above to achieve this part of their agenda.
That, or maybe liberal bloggers are just clueless, stupid, naive, out of touch with reality, or whatever.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2009 at 1437 hrs
Or conservative bloggers are just being a little paranoid. As I said before, the only FD-related bills in Washington right now are two that would prevent it from ever being reinstated. That’s it. I bet there was no pro-FD bills last year, either.
Liberals and liberal bloggers are perhaps just being hush-hush about it, hoping that our liberal (ha!) elected officials are going to sneak it past the American public unsuspecting? Please refer again to the first sentence of this comment and then return. Back? Okay. I mean, really. I haven’t had a liberal friend or acquaintance say anything to me—even in private—about the FD. If we’re all doing it to put one over on everyone, someone didn’t get me the memo!
Posted by scott on February 13, 2009 at 1444 hrs
I’m sure President Clinton will be shocked and dismayed that he is no friend to Scott
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2009 at 1746 hrs
The Fairness Doctrine is not coming back. Nobody with any clout is pushing for its return.
Someone must have their head pretty far up their butt!
This just in today:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/13/dems-target-right-wing-talk-radio/
WASHINGTON (CNN) — More and more Democrats in Congress are calling for action that Republicans warn could muzzle right-wing talk radio.
Representative Maurice Hinchey, a Democrat from New York is the latest to say he wants to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine,” a federal regulation scrapped in 1987 that would require broadcasters to present opposing views on public issues.
“I think the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated,” Hinchey told CNNRadio. Hinchey says he could make it part of a bill he plans to introduce later this year overhauling radio and t-v ownership laws.
................................................................................
Democratic Senators Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Tom Harkin of Iowa added their voices recently to those calling for a return of the regulation.
Republicans oppose the Fairness Doctrine, arguing it would be wrong for the federal government to monitor political speech on the airwaves, in order to require opposing views.
Republican Congressman Greg Walden, a former owner of five radio stations in Oregon including a “classic rock” station joked that the Fairness Doctrine is “the musical equivalent” of “every time we’d play a classic rock song we’d have to play a polka!”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2009 at 2046 hrs
In fact, I’ve read about research indicating that conservative guests on NPR outnumber liberal ones by 3 to 2 Please cite that, scott. I’ve listen to NPR and I find that far from the the truth. I also find that their sources are far more liberal than conservative. when I listen, it seems(and I do count) it’s about 2-1 liberal in their comments and guests.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2009 at 0352 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134043
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 07:43 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 120
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 07:52 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).