OpEdNews » Radio Treason? Right Wing Talkers Skirted Disclosure Law

Refresh Tag(s): Ethics; Fairness; Fairness Doctrine; Manipulation; Media Fake Documentary; Media Fake News; Media Radio; Media Right Wing; Media Shills; People Limbaugh Rush; (more...) Radio; Right Wing Media; Sean Hannity; Talk Radio; Treason US; Twitter (less...)
Add to My Group

November 30, 2008 at 04:57:08

View Ratings | Rate It

Promoted to Headline (H2) on 11/30/08:
Radio Treason? Right Wing Talkers Skirted Disclosure Law

by Gustav Wynn Page 1 of 1 page(s)

www.opednews.com

SAVE FAVORITES

VIEW FAVORITES

Revelations by a former right wing radio news director confirm broadcasters aired talking points supplied secretly by the White House, reminiscent of "covert propaganda" violations uncovered in the Armstrong Williams scandal of 2005. Meanwhile, Sean Hannity and his ilk have been "messaging" followers to believe Congressional boogeymen are targeting their free speech by conspiring to revive the Fairness Doctrine. If you agree the two most-listened-to radio programs in the U.S. are not making reasonable attempts to provide crucial facts and evenhanded political coverage, find out how you can do something about it using Twitter at the end of this article.

Preemptive Propaganda "Air" Raids

Airing this week on talk radio shows have been a slew of "538" ad buys, confusing listeners into thinking a revived Fairness Doctrine would muzzle partisan talk. Hannity in particular began referring to the law as the "Censorship Doctrine" but quickly laid bare in an L.A. Times piece, we saw the effort was an intentional "cry wolf", meant to begin a messaging campaign - that is, conditioning listeners to have kneejerk reactions at any mention of the Fairness Doctrine. Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, who calls it the "hush Rush" bill should perhaps be gearing up to answer different questions about disclosure requirements on public airwaves.

The most serious criticisms of right wing radio aren't about free speech or equal time for opposing viewpoints, rather the deliberately deceptive nature of show content. Unlike truth-in-advertising regulations for commercials, anything goes in show segments. But if you can't legally broadcast an advertisement that says a hearing aid filters out the noise you don't want to hear, why should Hannity be allowed to selectively present only the news items, guests and call-ins that reinforce his bias? If the limits of free speech fall short of yelling fire in a crowded theater, what might be the negative side-effects of someone urging "hate liberals!" in an orderly society every day? Might this not push some to commit violent acts like the unwell man who shot up a "liberal" church in Knoxville?

A reported 90 million, or roughly one third of adult Americans possess fifth grade literacy skills or lower, so perhaps it's no news that political debates, ads and discussion have become dumbed-down and low-rent. And it's only expanding - the GOP, RNC and associated "538" organizations save millions on messaging during election season by keeping talk radio and news 'commentary" going year round.

America The Ridiculed

The real harm is plain to see when whole swaths of the country mistakenly believe for example Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, justifying the decision to invade Iraq. We became the laughingstock of the world because our populace is misinformed to an alarming degree on the most important issues of our time, a direct result of choices made in picking sources for news and information. The #1 and #2 radio hosts in the country bear some responsibility for this, mixing cherrypicked info and incomplete, conflated arguments to "fix the facts" around neocon directives on a host of topics.

As one Australian blog post bluntly recalled: "...someone in Limbaugh's crew slipped up and allowed a very bright young woman to challenge him. She was terrific, very calm, very composed, very reasonable and did she slice the elastic on his underpants. He was completely and utterly unable to counter her points. He was obviously furious that someone other than a dittohead had been allowed to speak to him. It showed him up as a complete and utter twat...to think people take him seriously! Old Rush might just the only person on talk radio in the US who understands the term "Socratic irony"."

Treason Reason #1: Failing the Public Trust

The Fairness Doctrine did instruct FCC licensees to honor their roles as trustees of the public airwaves in making "every reasonable attempt" to present complete and accurate information - in other words, self-regulate professional standards. But the regulatory remedies used subjective methodology to interpret intent and made any attempt at outside enforcement unwieldy. So the whole thing was scrapped under Reagan and two federal judges who argued against the bill were later rewarded with Supreme Court nominations - their names were Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia.

With the legal requirement to present balance gone, Hannity, Limbaugh and company openly shirk their ethical and civic responsibility to voluntarily present balance. For example, with GM as a major sponsor, Hannity suppresses crucial news demonstrating the health and success of Asian competitors, misleading listeners to believe GM's plight is solely due to regulation and union thuggery, omitting mention of the historic 50% give-back for new hires by the UAW.

In Hannity la-la land, you don't discuss the Toyota Prius, introduced in 2000 to usher in 50+ MPG and battery power supplied simply by braking. This info is essential in debating whether it's possible for the big three to produce cleaner, fuel efficient cars. Worse still, talk radio's reluctance to openly discuss the hybrid revolution helped GM's foreign rivals discreetly lock up exclusive trade deals and secure near-monopolies on the raw material resources needed to make costly battery components.

Hypocrisy rages as Hannity decries pay-for-play between Democrats and unions or Fannie and Freddie. The last thing he should be asking for are ethics investigations into government/industry collusion after it was revealed Karl Rove covertly pumped talk radio luminaries with discussion points while under White House employ. Such questionable conduct will likely be examined should Rove comply with outstanding Congressional subpoenas.

Treason Reason #2: Selling War

This is small potatoes compared to defense spending, however, where arms manufacturers and private contractors cannot just buy advertising to enrich media shills. We know they do fund lobbies, PACs and special interest groups to "recommend" arms build-ups and deployments, but legislators are reticent to sign off on wars without public approval. This need has been met neatly by talk radio's top hosts, always pro-war and full-throttle as if they were secretly being hired to sell war like soap powder.

The real kicker is the questionable legality of Hannity and Limbaugh's broadcasts during the time Karl Rove was sending memos from inside the White House to unidentified "friendly" talk radio personalities, according to Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary who once defended Bush's use of faked interviews and videos but ratted him out on his 2008 book tour, describing an apparent violation of domestic law prohibiting "covert propaganda".

The White House also hired Cuban reporters to plant political stories in Florida papers and in a worse exploitation of public trust, dispatched a cadre of retired military brass to "act objective" in defending detention and the war in public, secretly using Secretary Rumsfeld's talking points.

Presidents Reagan and Clinton have also committed similar media manipulation, so disclosure enforcement has been scant and selective over the years, but Bush quadrupled previous PR budgets to further deceive taxpayers with their own money. A furor arose over fake news reports and talk show segments produced to promote Bush's education policies, but largely died down after officials threatened to throw the book at talk show host Armstrong Williams for not disclosing government authorship of information broadcast publicly. Williams reached a settlement with prosecutors but never regained his former stature.

Treason Reason #3: Breaking the Law

In the aftermath of McClellan's bombshell, Fox TV's Bill O'Reilly went to great measures to stress he never received communiqués directly from the White House while Hannity and Limbaugh fell silent on the issue. Then earlier this month, Dan Shelley, a former news director for Milwaukee's resident right wing radio home published an article alleging numerous hosts also received talking points emailed straight from the White House and used them on the air without disclosure - sometimes verbatim. Should Congress dredge up the political will to investigate whether Hannity took part in violating the same anti-propaganda law Williams did, it might total hundreds of counts of the infraction.

In any potential legal showdown, Limbaugh and Hannity if cited may argue much of the language in the 1948 law as inapplicable in the internet age, but could very likely lose on a key provision that bans government funding for covert propaganda unless specifically listed in the appropriation funding it. This may explain their current "victimization" campaign - claiming selective enforcement may end up being Rush and Sean's best defense. The crucial legal question is whether Hannity ever used any government-furnished source material on the air without disclosure.

Shelley, a former insider at WTMJ Milwaukee explained in detail the "neocon hustle" taking place at the station, where they also turned away callers with opposing views including sitting U.S. Senator Russ Feingold trying to refute slanted claims made before the public. If this were true for Limbaugh and Hannity's show as well, it would explain the lopsidedness of calls and guests over the years - and also put Hannity's current and former producers, call-screeners and staff on notice that they one day may be asked about exercising overly partisan bias in editorial decision making.

Treason Reason #4: Intellectual Cowardice

Though it may be naïve to expect responsible, balanced reportage from any enterprise seeking to maximize profitability, it's each broadcaster who must decide for himself whether their success trumps the public right to know the facts that matter, using the "I'm just an entertainer" cop-out. Should not the biggest radio hosts in America lead by educating and informing? St. Peter I'm not, but surely intentional deception runs counter to Christian ideals - somewhere between responsible journalism and $100 million dollars there is a moral balance, especially in light of the Pope's updated list of deadly sins which includes "social injustice" and "the excessive accumulation of wealth for a few". To me, the simplest test is how much information I'd want my own wife or children to have so they can make informed decisions. For example:

On the Iraq war: I'd want my daughters to hear not only the argument that America needs to be kept safe from terrorists by fighting them "over there", but also the first-hand accounts by Bush administration insiders like McClellan, CIA Director George Tenet or Lt. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson who, as Col. Powell's chief of staff stepped down because as he said, the whole lead-up to the war was "a hoax" orchestrated by Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of Bush's Iraq Team.

On the complex economic meltdown: I want my daughters to know more then the incomplete narrative Hannity drones literally hourly - that it was all due to the Economic Redevelopment Act and Democratic pals of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ignoring John McCain's 2005 warnings while mandating loans for "unqualified" minorities and he says it all hinged on sub-prime lending. These few, beat-into-the-ground facts by themselves constitute a fallacy via omission: Because the sub-prime loans were doomed to fail, they were intentionally mixed in with up to ten times as many viable mortgages in securitized packages, intertwined via impossibly complex formulas and sold all over the world for years. Then, even larger credit default swap policies were sold on these securities, essentially side bets that pay out in case the securities do not perform as promised. The swaps were sold rampantly and recklessly in the belief they would never all come due at the same time - a risk only possible after preventative monitoring was abolished, thanks in large part to Phil Gramm, "the high priest of deregulation".

So the relatively small value of failed sub-prime loans were merely the straw that broke the camel's back, representing a fraction of the billions tied up in the bigger securities which are still in large part sound but can't easily be valued. The much worse nightmare was the trillions in side-bet "swaps" that came due and ruined the biggest firms on Wall Street overnight. Knowing this, observers may blame Bush-era deregulation a bit more then sub-prime loan facilitators.

On free-market economic theory: Hannity explains that Reagan created jobs and reduced unemployment and inflation in the longest post-war period of economic growth ever. These stats would be divine if not for the deficits Reagan signed off on, passing unmanageable debt on to the next generation for the first time.

Hannity and his sponsors at the Heritage Foundation expend so much time praising Reagan's greatness without addressing this basic accounting red flag, it makes one wonder if they even believe what they're saying. Worse still, the national deficit which was comendably controlled during the Clinton/Gingrich years have almost doubled under George W. Bush to over ten trillion dollars, ensuring economic difficulty for decades on end.

As bitterly burned future generations analyze what happened, they might uncover clips of Hannity who fought for and defended George W. Bush's unmonitored waste, spending and borrowing against a rising tide of Americans, who by the 2006 elections were sufficiently apprised of the true cost of military deployments and privatized contracts in the Middle East.

On the rules of debate: The way our children are taught to form arguments in middle school are clear. State a premise, provide fact, analysis and opinion, preferably in that order. Students then learn how to strengthen their arguments by anticipating challenges, considering diverse perspectives and defending them against well-matched peers in live debate.

In our schools, bullying and deceit are condemned because it is the legal and moral obligation of professional educators to provide an environment where students understand, synthesize, and above all, think. This traditionally extended into the study and practice of broadcast journalism, but has deteriorated rapidly post-Fairness Doctrine.

All Roads Lead To Tax Breaks For The Rich. Hmm...

"Infotainment" has become an American hallmark across the left, middle and right as media consolidation brought many voices under fewer umbrellas in pursuit of profit, market share and sociopolitical influence. For each issue Hannity covers, he chooses a conveniently finite set of arguments to make his case, and then by his choices of news, guests and callers, limits the discussion to repeat talking points, often leading right back to defense of "Reaganomics" and "trickle down" theories for job growth.

Yet after years of sustained tax cuts for the rich just as Hannity advocated, it has led to deficits and downturns, disproportionately benefiting those in Rush and Sean's tax bracket - this, even before the crisis. Instead, a tax credit for every job created by a small business sounds like a more direct incentive then giving the wealthy whopping reductions on their taxes in the hope they voluntarily choose to create jobs. But this line of reasoning is censored by Limbaugh and Hannity because they resist debating their most basic arguments on the air against qualified adversaries.

Twitter #hannity For A More "Inclusive" Discussion

In light of today's unprecedented need to unite over economic solutions, I hope to bring attention to a special urgency to call out talk radio deception and propose a citizen initiative using Twitter, in which concerned Americans post tweets each time Hannity misleads, omits crucial facts, obfuscates, smears or bullies. This will help create a running record with a more dynamic, democratic dialog and free and open participation, more interesting and more interactive then the actual radio show.

For newbies, simply register and you can post short messages which include the tag #hannity (the hashmark denotes a "topic" which users can subscribe to). You can also check for mentions of the keyword anytime HERE and block anyone you wish. Feel free to include links to your blog or this page where you can leave longer comments. Twitter also allows you to send and receive from a mobile device. Some helpful commands:

follow #hannity: subscribe to all updates tagged with #hannity

follow username#hannity: subscribe to all updates tagged with #hannity from a specific user

leave #hannity: unsubscribe (you will still get updates with this tag from your friends)

leave username#hannity: unsubscribe to tagged posts from a specific user

remove #hannity: completely remove all incoming posts tagged with #hannity, even from your friends

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

**Users may repost this article, provided a link to this page is included** (OpEdNews Editor) GW is a proud New Yorker, concerned about media manipulation and overconsumption. He believes in fiscal responsibility, small government and strict (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author

Contact Editor

View Authors' Articles

Book Recommendations for "Ethics Fairness Doctrine"

Limbaugh program demonstrates need for the return of the Fairness Doctrine.: An article from: St. Louis Journalism Review
by Don Corrigan

$5.95

Number of pages: 8
Publisher: SJR St. Louis Journalism Review

View All Book Recommendations

Share this page: (what's this?) Tell a Friend:

(More...)

13 comments

JOHN LORENZ

Excellent Article: Glad you posted this

You might want to see the "diary' section of Op-Ed news. I wrote a rather poorly, hastily written piece on restoring the old Fairness Doctrine in public broadcasting.

This inordinate influence of 'talk radio' in actding as a conduit of neo-con views needs to be balanced out by the truth and the light of day to counter the distortions, the innuendo, the hate-baiting and the character assassination that are the stock in trade of people like Limbaugh.

I am not surprised that the news would be manipulated by Bush partisans using his 'talk show' as a propaganda megaphone' with the help of the White House "spin" apparatus feeding in talking points.

They were hoping 'garbage in, garbage out' (steal another election by crook first, then by hook).

We need the Fairness Doctrine and we desperately need a return to INDEPENDENT journalism, not newsfeeds from corporate hacks that all tie in to the same right wing talking points because their bosses and masters are corporations that are headed up by conservatives and Republicans, who use their power to influence public opinon for only one side of the political spectrum.

Ever notice how the Democrats were parsed under a microscope but the McCain people got away with a huge double standard without ever being called on it? There is another case in point, like Limbaugh of the media functioning as propaganda machines masquerading as 'news purveyors' and 'entertainment'.

by JOHN LORENZ (23 articles, 118 quicklinks, 119 diaries, 313 comments [25 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 30, 2008 at 5:19:10 AM

(0+)

michal54

Fairness Doctrine

Although the Fairness Doctrine had its imperfections regarding outside regulation, it still was useful in curbing the one sided presentation of information, or disinformation to which we are currently subjected. The danger of not having equal time to present both sides is that the American public's thinking is influenced whereby they give up rights and freedom they once enjoyed. If the Fairness Doctrine were in force in the 2000 campaign, Bush would have most likely lost the general election by a much wider margin.

The Fairness Doctrine was useful in getting out a more honest presentation of facts. The right would not have gone through efforts to abolish it if it were ineffective. It sure seemed to me like it worked. I grew up in the 50's and 60's. I remember being very appreciative of its effectiveness back then. Why is it that now some on the left argue against it when is demise is clearly an advantage for the right to spread deceitful progaganda at the expense of our freedom?

by michal54 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Sunday, Nov 30, 2008 at 10:23:42 AM

(0+)

Pulladigm

Treason

Dear Mr. Wynn,

Thank you! I have been saying this for years. I wrote to newspapers, radio and TV news outlets. I have been largely ignored. My premise is as follows:

Our founding fathers established a free press so that an informed electorate armed with the truth can make the best choices to "...form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity,..."(The Constitution of the United States of America, 17 September 1787).

Some time ago it was revealed that the major news networks were reporting false propaganda scripted by the pentagon and the administration. There has been a major coverup by the news media. But the truth will out.

By focusing on irrelevant male bovine excrement, false propaganda from government sources and creating a distraction from an impartial, unbiased presentation of all of the pertinent facts they(the news media) are violating the sacred trust granted them by the First Amendment to the Constitution. They are abrogating their responsibility to inform the public. Both of these repudiations of their sacred trust borders on treason.

This great nation is built on the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution that is the foundation of the privileges, rights and freedoms that has made this the greatest country on earth. The Constitution that has made this nation the longest lasting democracy that has ever existed anywhere on the face of our planet, Earth.

I propose that the Congress of the United States dispense with the 'Pledge of Allegience' to the flag. An oath of loyalty to a piece of cloth? I suggest, instead, that from this day forward that we begin all school days and all public gatherings with a recitation of some variation of the oath proudly sworn by all naturalized citizens on the day that they become citizens of the United States of America. An oath similar to that which is sworn by every elected and appointed official that serves the public trust from the President on down.

Perhaps our oath could simply be as follows:
I hereby declare that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.

It is not as poetic as the "Pledge..." However, it may serve to remind us what the United States of America is about. It may serve to remind us to examine and understand our Constitution. It may just serve to prevent, in the future, another George W. Bush.

Thank you.

Paul Diamond

by Pulladigm (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 59 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 30, 2008 at 12:04:34 PM

(0+)

Steve Windisch (jibbguy)

Sry no can do ;)

Great article. But i regret that due to a problem with barfing whenever i hear it; i cannot listen to Hannity's show to report all the lies on Twitter. I will have to let that go to those with cast-iron stomaches and masochistic tendencies ;)

Don't those so-called people like him and Rush use some sort of ass-protection disclaimer; that what they spew isn't actually news, but "entertainment"? I think their lawyers believe that covers them, anyway.

Lol, labeling blatant government political propaganda as "entertainment" to avoid the Law... Thats a good one ;)

To bad we can't just decide to call smoking weed "entertainment" and get aways with it ;)

by Steve Windisch (jibbguy) (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 30, 2008 at 12:10:05 PM

(0+)

Tom Cobb

I need help on this one

Agreed that talk radio is 24/7 crap, but I truly don't understand the idea behind a 'fairness doctrine'. Aren't you putting the government in the role of being the referee on what is 'fair' or 'truthful'. Cannot see how that would ever work

by Tom Cobb (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 30, 2008 at 3:14:27 PM

(0+)

Gray Brendle

What about Democrat talking points?

I find this article absurd. Going back 10 or 12 years in every major news cycle the 'main stream' media will use the same phrase over and over. Without any embarrassment for lack or originality these hacks read the talking points of the Democrat party. Is this a scandal? Does it need to be regulated? I don't think so, however, I would think the White House to be well within their right to produce copy that explained their side of things and to send the copy to whom ever they believed could get the message out. The media certainly won't be doing it for them. However, it will for the new adminstration! As George Stephanopoulos said this morning that the president elect was responsible for the rebound in the stock market and the sales on Black Friday being up 3% year over year. I mean will the new White House need to supply talking points? No they probably won't but i bet they will. I mean where is the scandal here?

by Gray Brendle (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, Nov 30, 2008 at 4:31:56 PM

(0+)

steve scheetz

Reply: First off

Hannity is a less talented, more annoying version of Rush Limbaugh... I don't care to listen to AM Radio much, but when I DI, it is not to listen to Hannity....

Now, regarding your points. I have seen talking points, the exact SAME talking points on CNN, msnbc, abc, cbs, and many others... The word gravitass did not exist before Al Gore and the 2000 election, and one day, there it was.. EVERYONE on the main networks and most cable networks was spouting the wor...

let's not forget Air America and NPR two networks with Democrat talking points.. Absolutely NOTHING fair or balanced in the coverage there... But I know what I am getting when I tune in to either of those...

The fairness doctrine is aimed at Rush Limbaugh because he owns the airwaves between 12 and 3 EST when it comes to political talk radio...

Here is a thought, find someone who can compete! maybe someone with more tallent than Al Frankin, who proved that he couldn't...

The fairness Doctrine puts the airwaves under the control of a corrupt government.. is that REALLY what people need?

We see what they do with money when they say we NEED this $700 Billion bailout or we will all die!!

they added an extra 0 and figured nobody would notice that the original figure would be multiplied by a factor of 10...

That is fair and balanced according to our government... LIE to the people about a threat, and then take 10 times more than we asked for with our bogus crisis.

Ciao, CZ

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 30, 2008 at 9:55:03 PM

(0+)

Alan Williams

Reply: Save us from the "fairness" fanatics

Indeed. Anyone truly respectful of the concept of free speech would not be advocating for rules and regulations that make it easy for GOVERNMENT to come in and decide who can say what, and how much they can say in any given time period.

Somehow, I think the founders would be loving talk radio, which embodies everything they stood for, and detesting the notion that the government they distrusted with too much power would see fit to usurp the righteous power of the people, by in any way regulating the free-flow of spoken ideas.

When are these people going to realize how anti-freedom their rhetoric really is? I guess it will take a time when they happen to dominate the free marketplace of ideas and talk, and the other side seeks to use government to limit their freedom of expression.

Then, they'll be all about free, stimulating and engaging marketplaces, and solidly against "doctrines" of boredom, mediocrity and control. I just watched "1984" again on Google video. Talk radio is truly that society's antithesis. Every time I saw Big Brother listening and watching, I thought "Media Matters for America".

Don't sabotage by feigning fairness -- compete in good faith. We'll ALL be much, much better for it.

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:22:36 AM

(0+)

Gustav Wynn

Reply: Mistakes and Common Ground

Steve, you mistake me as partisan - I fully oppose and protest CNN, ABC, CBS and the other networks for also failing to serve the public, suppressing news and playing ball with the White House - I've written about this too, but will adjust future articles to be even more clear.

I also agree Air America and NPR slant hard left but there is a big difference - they are waiting, hoping, begging for right wing guests to debate openly. They even put David Duke on two weeks ago. The exact reason they are "unbalanced" is because most right-wing elites won't come near them with a ten foot pole to answer tough questions. Rare exceptions include Bill O'Reilly (who walked out on Terry Gross) and Dick Cheney telling Morning Edition that trailers found in Iraq proved the existence of WMD even though they had been debunked six months before. NPR's ombudsman was flooded with complaints the host didn't nail the VP for lying. Does Fox even have an ombudsman?

Until these debates take place, I tend to think the NPR and AirAm hosts, armed with books, articles and testimonials available to all showing outrageous abuses have the professional high ground over the WABC hosts who shield dittoheads from exposure to these facts and call themselves "entertainers" instead of "commentators" - an obvious admission that their journalistic standards blow.

You also mistake me if you think that I support the Fairness Doctrine, I only miss the provision that said stations must voluntarily police their own professional standards. This is because the airwaves are already under the control of a corrupt government. You prove this yourself by mentioning the bailout. Public, grassroots efforts killed the bill in the first vote until the media started working on us. They told us the consequences would be disasterous because they had the airwaves and we didn't. This turned the tide in mere days because they had the broadcast messaging machine all set in place and the public was powerless - all the communicating online and word-of-mouth meant little - even the print media that got it right meant little. This is also how the Iraq war was sold, this according to his own cabinet.

If we agree Bush/Paulson just raped our society, giving money we don't even have to firms that just lost their clients' assets while their executives are all personally rich, why would you support allowing direct White House messaging to the top radio hosts? Do you think we should roll back Smith-Mundt, enforce it, or leave things the way they are?

Or, what are your other suggestions to clean up the media so our kids don't grow up misinformed and conflicted?

by Gustav Wynn (77 articles, 65 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 421 comments [34 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:44:34 PM

(0+)

Gustav Wynn

Reply: Let's Get Cynical

So the "Democrats did it too, so it's okay"??

...yes, the Clinton admin also propagandized, but that's the crux of the problem. He should have been prosecuted but wasn't because Reagan did it too (seeing a pattern?) - Clinton signed off on major media industry deregulation too. Covert propaganda became "unenforced", so Bush stepped in and did ten times worse against major public outcry.

This should be cleaned up now, not accepted. When you say the White House can produce copy that helps to get the message out, that's fine - but the law says the media must reveal the source. So either change the law or investigate and yes, go after Clinton too!

Here's where the scandal is: you have no "voice" for whatever it is you believe in on public airwaves. The government, big business and the war machine does. The government is supposed to be monitored by the people and cannot if domestic propaganda is being aired, or the news is being scrubbed.

So clarify for me please whether "there is no scandal here" because you are just accustomed to propaganda and are so beaten down you think smart, tough people can't do anything about it, or, if you think it's okay as long as both sides do it (including Stephanopulous).

Domestic propaganda has resulted in 1/2 your nation being brainwashed to believe complete fabrications right up to election day. Without deregulation, Limbaugh/Premier never gets into so many markets, Fox never gets the right to own tv, print and radio outlets in the same markets and small, diverse station owners continue to serve local markets. This was the Wal-Martization of radio, allowed because the public didn't get involved enough.

by Gustav Wynn (77 articles, 65 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 421 comments [34 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:34:48 PM

(0+)

Perry Logan

Conservatism = Treason

Yes. Conservatism leads inevitably to treason.

Right-wing ideas cannot stand the rigor of intelligent debate. That's why they work so hard to keep the other side from being heard.

If people hear right-wing ideas alongside left-wing ideas, they choose the left every time. Except for a few aging wingers, of course.

We're Celebrating Your Demise!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WugcAuQMP1s

by Perry Logan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 558 comments [74 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:26:21 AM

(0+)

Scott

That is a lie

Furthermore, nobody is committing treason for simply stating their opinion on-air. I think the people at Air America and Nova M are full of crap, but I will not say they are committing treason. (However, since some of them have advocated violence on-air against elected officials, they may come close to it. Mostly, they are just spoiled babies who need to be sent to bed without any supper.)

by Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 744 comments [30 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:22:22 AM

(0+)