In essence the doctrine mandated through the FCC that controversial points of view could not be asserted without a responsible attempt at presenting opposing views. For example, personal attacks had to try to give air time for the target to respond. Many broadcasters "played it safe" in fear of breaking poorly defined rules, but after Reagan scuttled it (via judges Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia), we saw a resounding surge in radio hackery and the meteoritic rise of right wing talk.
Limbaugh claims the free market automatically takes care of any needed balance, and that his show succeeds where left wing radio fails because the listeners embrace him and reject the left.
This would be fine but for a few disconcerting facts about the radio industry, where intense consolidation has resulted in huge megaconglomerates owning multiple stations in the multiple markets and led to the decimation of the ma and pa radio owners who couldn't compete with the highly aggregated buying power of a Clearchannel, Sinclair or Infinity.
This all-encompassing control of radio, spurred on by deregulation and years of neo-con friendly steering of agencies like the FCC (including the appointment of Colin Powell's wholly unqualified son as chairman) paved the landscape for Rush's entry into any and all radio markets in sweetheart deals, making him by far the richest syndicated host in radio.
The fact that his show shills for the Republicans all day, every day, spinning the news in ways that glorify large corporations and capitalist ideals might be cause for alarm when paired with the news that these same corporations aided the growth of his show, buying, dismantling or robotizing stations of various formats so there was little other original programming aimed at Rush's target demographic in many markets.
The fact that they don't allow well articulated views of dissent to be aired is allowed in the absence of the Fairness Doctrine, but many listeners may not realize just how calls are screened, and in some cases radio shows have been found staging falsified calls, or encouraging loyal audience members to call in and ask about specific topics.
Rabid right wing hosts of San Francisco's KSFO, a Disney-owned styation, were recently caught sending an email blast to conservative listeners, asking them to weigh in on a supposedly "no-holds barred, anything goes" call-in special, claiming to be fair and equitable. The station had drawn national scrutiny following left wing blogger "Spocko" posting KSFOs hate-mongering clips on the website spockosbrain.com, including one host's call to "kill millions of Muslims".
By nature, left wing, populist, progressive radio shows are less likely to thrive in a format driven by commercial spots, paid for by large corporations whose exploits may be criticized on the air.
Hence the importance of public or listener supported radio, much more closely resembling responsible journalism a la Fairness Doctrine days. NPR routinely invites the Richard Perles and Paul Wolfowitzes of the right to engage the left in the most direct, stirring discussions specifically designed to minimize distortion and manipulation to get to the heart of issues.
But Rush and Sean Hannity are happy to hawk for corporations and causes in the absence of the Fairness Doctrine, happy to serve as barkers for particular candidates, and happy to execute hateful hatchet jobs on liberal targets without any apparent editorial oversight.
How is it that Sean Hannity has such an inordinate amount of 25-30 year combat veterans and military families calling in day after day, agreeing with everything he says in support of the Iraq war when all polls show the majority of the military, their families and general population oppose the war? Just coincidence, I guess. We can trust everything we hear on the airwaves of blatantly biased, fanatical talk show zealots, right?
Kucinich is not likely to get the doctrine reinstated while Bush is in office, but the debate is healthy and he is nevertheless a busy advocate for policy reform. He may also not have a realistic chance to win the nomination in 2008, but he is a beacon for responsible representation and just as he was proven right over time in his original decision to oppose the utility takeover as Cleveland's youngest mayor, he has been proven right again in his original anti-Iraq war vote and opposition of the $87 billion supplemental as one of the earliest and most vocal to do so.
In direct contrast to minimalist Hillary, coasting on her first lady fame, or too-cautious overnight rockstar Obama, nerdy do-gooder Kucinich's bid for the presidency seems to be based on doing as MUCH as possible to benefit the American people.
GW is a proud American from NY State, concerned about ethics issues, media manipulation and overconsumption. He has recently changed careers to become an inner city schoolteacher. A firm proponent of curbing overpopulation and international adoption, he hopes to adopt a third child and enjoys history, outsider art, obscure garage rock and vinyl records.
If you like what you see about Kucinich here, you might be interested in my short synopsis of other things he's done, along with a free Kucinich bumper sticker:
Regardless of Mr. Wynn's canting tirade against her, Senator Clinton is producing realistic policy alternatives to the Bush Administration.
Rather than taking positions aimed at passing litmus tests, Senator Clinton has visited Afghanistan and used the visibility gained by her trip to begin spelling out ways to enhance our security while extricating us from the trap Bush walked into in Iraq.
The terrorist threat is real and the prospect of Afghanistan again serving as a base for terrorism is real, too.
The caution that SENATOR Clinton is demonstrating is appropriate to her position.
She does not hold an institutional position that permits her to make sweeping statements regarding tactics and troop deployments.
Had the Bush Administration demonstrated the caution, perspicapacity and restraint that Senator Clinton is showing we would not be currently bogged down in TWO LOSING WARS.
Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY
by
Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 557 comments)
on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 7:53:17 PM
I appreciate your support of Mrs. Clinton, and heartily agree she would be far superior to our current president.
This is, however, setting the bar quite low. Being more effective and ethical then the supposed "worst president in history" sells short the potential first female president. For the first time in a long time, we have options other then the lesser of two evils.
My mind is not fully made up and I invite your informed commentary and rebuttal. But I am deeply troubled by Hillary's ties to Arkansas-based Wal-Mart, serving on their board for six years before husband Bill's policies opened up trade laws extremely favorable to the retail giant and other big box chains. The economic hurricane that Wal-Mart became destroyed "home town" American retailers by the thousands, funnelling money away from localities, counties, cities, states and their own employees, straight into the deathgrip of the Waltons, even after crimes and unethical business practices were widely publicized.
When Hillary was first criticized for relocating to NY to run for the Senate, I'd hoped she would at least use her considerable clout to attempt to improve things here. I wrote to her several times that first year, asking her intentions on the health care crisis in NY, assuming that improvement of healthcare in one state would be many times less ambitious then the nationwide plan she developed in Washington. Nope.
She has regularly been one of the biggest fundraisers in the Democratic sphere, yet none of this popularity or influence has tangibly benefited New Yorkers. Our state's problems include education, environment, healthcare and gentrification.
Our state's healthcare is in a worse state today then ever. I've seen quotes from her excusing that she cannot effect change here because of "political realities". Not much of a vision, while two Republican governors have proposed statewide health plans elsewhere. Sure to take the heat from the business community and the body politic, this is a demonstration of the bravery and integrity I believe Mrs. Clinton lacks, where the intention to improve New York is overshadowed by greater political ambitions.
Bill Clinton's best moment may have been the passage of middle class tax relief, yet his wife ignores the issue here. We can also see that the Clinton administration's environmental improvements were championed by Al Gore and represent no discernable core belief of Hillary.
Her eventual presidential run will also be the easiest prey for negative attacks. Her and her husband's littany of gaffs, scandals and accusations of corruption distinctly set her apart from other leading Democratic candidates. Despite her never being caught "red-handed" on any one issue, I fear the negative may outweigh the positive in the minds of many voters, especially in anticipation of how the GOP will frame her run in the media.
Again, I am eager to learn more about what you feel she brings to the state or country, but most of all I feel her fear to stick her neck out on so many issues - very important issues - is a definite sign that she more concerned with herself then her constituency. I do admire her as a savvy politician, but I think her presidency would resemble her husbands and I think a major shift from corporate influence is a must today.
by
Gustav Wynn (51 articles, 34 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 240 comments)
on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 9:59:41 PM
At times our enemies can define us much better than our "sunshine" friends. Senator Clinton is hate more by the right wing than any other viable candidate including Al Gore or Dennis Kucinich. The only candidate approaching the hatred of Senator Clinton by the religious right wing is Ted Kennedy and they know he is not viable.
Senator Clinton brings much to the table. If you go back to study her history from the time she was in college until right now, you will find out just how liberal she is. When Bill Clinton was Governor Bill Clinton, he lost his second term election by a large margin. It was because when he went to the Governor's mansion, Hillary Clinton tried to do way too much, too fast: in health, education, welfare and labor. When Bill Clinton was again Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas, he and Hillary Clinton learned their lesson; if you are going to be elected in America you must talk a conservative game while ramrodding through your policies. Governor Clinton's second term was much more effective than his first term.
Want to argue about Senator Clinton's liberal record? You would lose. Proof, you say? Look at her voting record in office and look at what she did as First Lady of Arkansas and First Lady of the White House, read anything she has written (and she has a long paper trail).
The most glaring need in America is a revamp of our health programs. Health insurance cost is up so much that it is bankrupting companies who try to provide their workers with reasonable coverage. Over fifty million people in the United States have no health coverage whatsoever. Who is the only person in Washington who tried to get a single pay, national health insurance policy through Congress? Answer: Hillary Clinton.
Is she electable? Probably not. She is a woman and she is hated by the Jerry Falwells, James Dobsons, D. James Kennedys, Richard Lands, Pat Robertsons and others so much, she guarantees a high turn out of every right winger in America to vote against her.
She has the same problem as Barak Obama. Can he be elected? Most likely not. He is black and race prejudice in the US is well and alive with many in every state. He is young and inexperienced. He is single. He has a sort of wild party life background. Just wait until the Mellon Scaithe's "Swift Boat" him. He will be a very easy target.
Gore is probably the most electable if he has really learned to get excited and is not so stupid to not use President Clinton next time. It is unbelievable the wallop Clinton packs with the Black voters. The only thing I see Gore get excited about is the environment. If he could make himself believe that his opponent owns a part of ever industry that has dirty puffing smoke stacks and is dumping chemicals into our environment, He might just get angry enough to win.
Edwards? They will label him as an insurance chaser, but he is good, might be the most electable of all Democrats so far.
Whomever the Primaries nominate, the Democrats will need every penny and they will need every single vote. If they do not get impeachment happy and keep Bush around as an albatross around every Republican's neck, they have a chance to win again by narrow margins, but big in total results. I have a feeling the Democrats will not impeach Bush. I think the Republicans will beat them to the punch.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 948 comments)
on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 11:21:20 PM
"The terrorist threat is real and the prospect of Afghanistan again serving as a base for terrorism is real, too."
As it was with the blessing of the Pakistani ISI and American CIA. The real history of terrorism is quite different than what your assumptions seem to be.
The CIA/ISI/Saudis created giant terrorist armies from 1979-89. They were called "freedom fighters" back then.
During, and after that period, Afghanistan became an opium production center. For that reason, it was an important asset to the CIA. Another reason it was important to CIA was to keep pressure on Russia. Islamic revolutions were encouraged in Chechnya, Serbia, Bosnia and Macedonia.
Mujahadeen, supplied with arms by both CIA and Iran, were trained and assisted in these Balkan wars. Clinton bombed Serbia on behalf of "al Qaeda" linked KLA, the heroin running militias of Kosovo.
You see, "terrorism" has been supported and nurtured by Washington for a very long time. People generally think that isn't the case anymore after ISI-linked terrorists allegedly crashed planes into the twin towers. They would be wrong.
Terrorist groups are infiltrated, assisted and run by western intelligence services. That is clarly known to top US lawmakers like Hillary Clinton. That is why they will not expose it, and they will not tell the truth about September 11th. This fraud is a bipartisan and long term project to replace "communism" with "terrorism" as the all purpose enemy that justfies trillions of dollars of government spending.
The "war on terror" was hatched in Israel by Mossad in the late 70's. The plan to break up all of the middle eastern countries into ethnic and tribal divisions (too small to mount a military challenge to Israeli/US hegemony), is Israeli, and has been imported by their neocon agents like Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Ledeen, et al.
Allowing terrorists to exist and to carry out attacks -- as they purposefully allowed bin Laden's men to escape back into Pakistan at the battle of Tora Bora, and allowed air evacuations of the remaining al Qaeda a month after that -- is part of the grand strategic plan to demonize Muslims and thus provide the pretexts for aggression into the oil-rich regions. The networks need to be kept alive, so as to remain a threat, forever.
Your knee jerk rants about terror are a result of these long crafted plans. If you want to solve the "terror" problem, arrest the white house and investigate the CIA. This is not "politically feasible," of course, and so the game will continue for Dick Cheney's "40 years." Stupid Ameircans.
-
Another person mentioned "single payer" as a credit for H. Clinton. No. Her plan was not single payer, and it kept the entire insurance industry intact. That was why it was a behemoth of indecipherable girth and confusion. It was not a true solution, but a half-baked disaster.
.
..
Well said johndoreame;
My thoughts on Hillary Clinton as a candidate.
===
"In recent public opinion polls, she handily leads potential Democratic rivals." NYT
===
A pretty pathetic state of affairs is stated above by the corporate media.
Of 300 million Americans, why is it only the Globalist controlled 'potential rivals' get to be tracked by the corporate media? They are polled by 'foundations' controlled and funded by Globalist money sheltered from the people's general fund. They run campaigns financed by Globalist corporate lobbyist based on sound bites and a doctrine of evasion of any topic of substance?
Me thinks perhaps the corporate media are also Globalists.
America needs a political hero.
We need an articulate, competent, accomplished working man or woman that will stand firm in advocating for the 280 million American citizens that are routinely negated and lied to by a Congress that act as servants to the wealthy 20 million, who themselves are controlled by the super-rich 2 million.
That working class candidate, dedicated to looking to the welfare of working Americans would force the repeal of the 14th amendment. The People's candidate would re-write the intended protections for those it was touted as assisting, and strip the status of citizenship from corporations that the 14th was twisted into recognizing as reflecting the People's will.
Stripped of the 1886 Morrison Waite (Skull & Bones 1837) Supreme Court Chief Justice's statement, corporations would be forced into compliance of the peoples will, as our founding fathers intended them to forever remain.
Our Nation's foreign relations would reverse course if our tax dollars, sent in good faith by American taxpayers as foreign aid to less well off peoples were not used to abscond with the water and mineral rights of the Country we intended to assist while creating a debt load that effectively enslaves the population to the corporate will for any foreseeable future.
The Bush's are Globalists ( Skull & Bones )
Bill Clinton is/was a Globalist ( Rhodes Scholar )
Hillary has the same beliefs.
Why do we stand for these people and other CFR members to dominate our choice of candidates to lead our Nation and protect our Constitution?
Read the will of Cecil Rhodes,
Rhodes devoted his fortune to:
'the extension of British rule throughout the world... the colonization by British subjects of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the islands of the pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain the whole of the Malay archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire...'
Look at the connections to Skull & Bones.
This small group of Globalist have contended for office since 1988, between each other. They run as political opposites. The media enables it, and Americans watch "desperate house wives".
A working class Hero is something to be..
If you want to be a Hero, well just follow me.
John Lennon
..
.
by
cliff567 (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 190 comments)
on Friday, January 19, 2007 at 9:26:09 AM
My wife and I used to live on 5th avenue and would see her out the window every year marching in the NYC gay pride parade where she would get rousing applause as she passed by. This is what I mean - since she tracked well with the gay/urban demographic, she can then take a semi-cromagnon stance like opposing gay marriage in order to scoop up all kinds of votes from the middle, independent homophobes, right leaning feminists and gay truckers in denial.
Of course the gays should be abandoning her in droves but she figures she'd carry NY, SF, LA in a general election anyway. The Iowa and New Hampshire primaries lead the important "heartland" states so she can safely abandon her previous core constituency, see? No regard to principles, personal integrity, etc. She even let lesbian rumors swirl and swirl without refutation when it suited her popularity, book deals or NY Senate bid.
Though one thing is true, she is so deviously cunning, she may do well in regard to foreign relations, hornswaggling various heads of state into falling for her cleverly crafted promises.
by
Gustav Wynn (51 articles, 34 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 240 comments)
on Friday, January 19, 2007 at 12:12:07 PM
Dennis Kucinich is the best-kept 'secret' since the Manhattan Project. When the media bring up his name at all, it's only to tell us that he is 'unelectable'; and invariably his name is prefaced by words like "long shot", "failed presidential candidate", "loony leftist", etc. Of course, the media NEVER tell us anything about his positions on the issues or WHY he is deemed unelectable.
Meanwhile, veritable rivers of ink are spent in extolling Obama's "charisma", Hillary's "fund-raising skill", or the virtues of other candidates who have captured media attention in spite of their not even officially declaring their candidacies. [This morning I heard one talking head refer to Hillary as the "official frontrunner". Is there some mysterious panel of pundits, pollsters, and special interests who are empowered to make "official" pronouncements on the rankings of real and presumed candidates on the basis of some secret formula?]
Let's hope that, once Kucinich's actual proposals are (somehow) exposed to public scrutiny, he can prove Gandhi's dictum: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
It's time to reject the 'conventional wisdom' of the 'status quo' would-be soothsayers and start demanding that We The People be allowed to make our own decisions on the viability of candidates based on their character and on their ISSUES.
by
Bill Tower (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 32 comments)
on Saturday, January 20, 2007 at 3:05:57 PM
