The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

02 October 2005

Bill Bennett Media Attacks Continue

ENOUGH

Pounding Bennett, But Still No Franken, Rhodes, Etc.



After ignoring Al Franken's proven lying on a sleazy network funding scandal and on-air looting tips from Randi Rhodes, will the mainstream media really get away with days of railing against Bill Bennett's obscure morning talk show?

Regardless of how Bennett's comments appear, in or out of context, are conservatives really going to take this lying down? This is no time to withdraw from battle.

After claiming Air America's scandal couldn't be covered because it's supposedly a local New York story, some of the very same media outlets have no such restraint with Bennett. Funny enough, his program isn't even heard in some of these cities.

In their eagerness to tar and feather the entire right via Bennett's transcript, some publications are making remarkable leaps of logic. Leading the list is this oddity from the Seattle Times:


President Bush's mishandling of the response to Hurricane Katrina ought to be balanced with his record of appointing the first black secretary of state and the first black woman to head the National Security Council.

Then there is former education secretary and radio talk-show host William Bennett, who resorted to a racially hateful hypothetical to point out statistics can be misleading.

"I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down," Bennett told a national audience.

Such action would be "an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do," Bennett said, but noted it would lower the crime rate.

It matters not a whit that Bennett's remarks were off-the-cuff. They are dangerous and disturbing. Calamities such as natural disasters often bring out the worst in people.

But we have the right to expect better of the people entrusted with a public bully pulpit.


Is the Times really asserting Bush's response level was racist? Where's the evidence? Shouldn't we expect better of the paper, since after all, they're "entrusted with a public bully pulpit" of their own?

Speaking of that, how is a smattering of small radio affilates a "public bully pulpit"? Nobody's forcing morning radio on Bennett's listeners, any more than Seattle's stealth Canadian liberals are compelled to read the Times.

In this Washington Post story, the GOP fires back on hypocrisy grounds, but apparently didn't give examples:


Similarly, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who has been reaching out to African Americans and other minorities, called Bennett's comments "regrettable and inappropriate." But Mehlman also lashed out at liberals whom he accused of engaging in racially divisive rhetoric when it suits their political interests. "What's much worse is the hypocrisy we've seen from the left."


Mr. Mehlman, it's okay to fire your ammo: Franken, Rhodes, Malloy, why hold back? This is war.

Meanwhile, Mike Anderson of STLMedia, a St. Louis-based radio news and discussion site, notes entertainment industry trade coverage has been just as dishonest. Radio & Records has been particularly shameless, he believes.

After brushing off most of Air America's scandal developments, Radio & Records was quick to slam Bennett with this headline: "SRN's Bill Bennett In Hot Water Over Racially Insensitive Comments".

As Anderson puts it, "Shouldn't they have at least made a pretense of being fair on the issue?"

For a superb analysis of what Bennett really meant, see Andrew C McCarthy's "Shameful Attacks" at National Review Online.


Your Amazon orders that begin here, help to support this site's efforts. Thanks!

Bennett photo: AP


33 Comments:

  • Is this guy unable to speak about any issue without bringing up Air America Radio. What does AAR have to do with Bill Bennett saying (out of context) a rascist comment on air? Maloney, you are such the fake! What is this man doing to make America better...hhmm?

    By Blogger Iraq War Veteran, at 02 October, 2005 10:55  

  • SSG Jeffrey Peskoff since you have reading comprehension problems I'll go slow and be very clear.

    The media are hypocrites because they ignore the AAR scandal and hype the Bill Bennett story. It shows the MSM are partisan hacks and biased.

    This story wasn't about Bill Bennet, it was about the medias biased response in ignoring the AAR scandal.

    ssg jeffrey peskoff, I call you not only a fake but also a stupid jerk since it's clear you only post here to insult Brian.

    I come here to read about what is or isn't happening with the AAR scandal. If you don't want to read it quit coming here or shut up. Nobody is forcing you to come here.

    And another thing, your supposed military affiliation gives you no cover when you are acting like a jerk. If you want respect; act in a manner that earns respect.

    By Blogger Linn, at 02 October, 2005 14:26  

  • The media are hypocrites because they ignore the AAR scandal and hype the Bill Bennett story. It shows the MSM are partisan hacks and biased.

    Typical wing-nut... thinking that just because Baloney keeps beating his old dead horse then the MSM is somehow remiss for not splashing it all over their front pages. The MSM is/was never going to pick it up when a liar like Baloney has got his finger-prints on it.

    If you don't want to read it quit coming here or shut up.

    You certainly lost your enthusiasm for freedom of speech in quick time, Linn. Typical wing-nut hypocrisy.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 02 October, 2005 15:40  

  • Geez, Phil, you seem to have the same conceptual grasp of "free speech" as most of the MSM has of reductio ad absurdum.

    and I'm being more than generous in attributing to ignorance rather than to malice.

    No nevermind..."honest" discussions of "race" have been controlled by the racebaiters and raceprofiteers at least since the beating administered to Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1965. The coverage of the Bennett kerfluffle demonstrates that the MSM wants that hegemony protected.

    By Blogger Darleen, at 02 October, 2005 16:41  

  • How does Howard Dean's comments about Republicans not being able to fill a ballroom with blacks unless they invited the hotel staff compare with Bill Bennett's crime rate hypothesis involving blacks. Did the media pounce on Dean the way they are pouncing on Bennett?

    By Blogger Shocked2, at 02 October, 2005 19:48  

  • you seem to have the same conceptual grasp of "free speech" as most of the MSM has of reductio ad absurdum...

    Yep... looks like you got the memo too. All of a sudden the only thing you hear from all you wing-nuts is "reductio ad absurdum".

    Darleen, you talk of ignorance and malice but you can't even read a simple thread. (But let's be generous and chalk you up as ignorant, shall we?) It's Linn who bleats on and on about freedom of speech yet then tells people to shut up. Baloney smears and lies about people yet Linn believes that Baloney is off-limits from criticism. And so you come along after hearing "reductio ad absurdum" from every wing-nut blog you've visited today and then decide to pose as some expert in reductio logic yet you can't even recognize a simple contradiction.

    And I didn't even mention Bennett so I don't even know why you're parrotting all that tired old wing-nut BS about race. Look, it's simple even for you, Darleen. Baloney can't get his dead AAR hatchet job into the MSM because he's a liar and has no credibility with the MSM.

    So what's your contribution to an "honest" discussion about race? That all brown people are criminals?

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 02 October, 2005 20:09  

  • Linn "And another thing, your supposed military affiliation gives you no cover when you are acting like a jerk. If you want respect; act in a manner that earns respect"....I love it, when someone who has never been in the military questions someone who has. Even though I don't need to do this, I'll offer you a copy of my Enlisted Records Brief and my Department of the Army Photo. Will that help you stop calling any military personel who has a different view from you a liar?

    By Blogger Iraq War Veteran, at 02 October, 2005 21:18  

  • Hey "Jeffrey", Maybe he covers AAR a lot because it needs to be kept on the hot plate until the left wing papers cover the scandel. Meanwhile, all I see is you whining. Get some sun. Also, it sounds more manly when you use Jeff. Jeffrey sounds like you have a sweater around your waist with a knot in the front.

    By Blogger Owen, at 03 October, 2005 00:24  

  • Phil sez:

    you can't even read a simple thread.

    I didn't even mention Bennett

    Ah, I so enjoy irony in the morning. Since Phil seem challenged in that direction, too -- the post was even entitled "Bill Bennett Media Attacks Continue"

    The double standard of much of MSM is evident in how BB is being treated. Any honest review of BB's argument in context easily demonstrates the naked race baiting agenda of his attackers. It dovetails neatly with how the AAR scandal has been brushed aside.

    And note how Phil does a little of his own race baiting in an attempt to intimidate me. Assertion without substantiation.

    Phil, you don't know me, so don't even try.

    By Blogger Darleen, at 03 October, 2005 10:16  

  • I didn't even mention Bennett

    Ah, I so enjoy irony in the morning. Since Phil seem challenged in that direction, too -- the post was even entitled "Bill Bennett Media Attacks Continue"


    Do have the faintest grasp of what the personal pronoun "I" actually means? Demonstrate where I mentioned Bennett, wing-nut.

    Any honest review of BB's argument in context easily demonstrates the naked race baiting agenda of his attackers.

    Well then, demonstrate it.

    It dovetails neatly with how the AAR scandal has been brushed aside.

    Anything with Maloney's sleazy finger-prints is never going to be taken seriously by the MSM. Accept it.

    And note how Phil does a little of his own race baiting in an attempt to intimidate me. Assertion without substantiation.

    Actually, it was a question, not an assertion. But we'll chalk that up to your demonstrated ignorance of reading. Well wing-nut, what is your contribution to an "honest" discussion about race?

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 03 October, 2005 10:43  

  • I dunno, do we know either way if linn served or not?
    Not everyone needs to remind the world they are 3 up and 1 down, for example.

    By Blogger SCSIwuzzy, at 03 October, 2005 15:03  

  • Phil, did my I italicizing your comments confuse you? I quoted that you DID NOT mention Bennett in a thread ABOUT the attacks on Bennett ... and your wanting to lecture me about not being on topic ("not following the thread")

    ::::sigh::::

    I have honestly discussed race on my own blog several times, including, most recently, the collectivist ideology behind racism (and how much it parallels the collectivist ideology of the radical Left). I also discussed Daniel Patrick Moynihan and his "The Negro Family: a national call to action", written in 1965 for the US Dept of Labor under LBJ and the attacks HE received was the point in which the discussion has been until this time poisoned by what can be described as a linguistic totalitarianism. The Left controls the language of the debate in that they've set up and maintained the parameters that whites are not allowed to even THINK about "race" unless they are part of the Leftist cult.

    David Howard, a white guy who lost his job over using the word "niggardly"..then when he got his job back APOLOGIZED for using the word because he, too, was browbeaten into accepting the untenable postion that context or intent of a speaker is irrelevant, ONLY the perception of the listener.

    Nothing like apologizing for being raped because one's skirt is too short.

    There are four groups of people reacting to BB's remarks

    1) those that have only heard the "abort black babies to improve crime rate" snippet (no context) and are justifiably outraged -- The ignorant of the issue

    2) those that KNOW the context and are still outraged -- The linguistic totalitarians and bigots

    3) those that KNOW the context and understand that BB wasn't being racist, but still are wringing their hands that he should have "known better" -- Pussies

    4) those that KNOW the context, understand tht BB wasn't being racist and are willing to stand up to #2 and #3 in an effort to stop this grotesque PC insanity. - The rest of us.


    So keep on trying to assert by rhetorical questions, Phil. Seems about the extent of your "intellectualism."

    By Blogger Darleen, at 03 October, 2005 15:51  

  • Phil, did my I italicizing your comments confuse you? I quoted that you DID NOT mention Bennett in a thread ABOUT the attacks on Bennett ... and your wanting to lecture me about not being on topic ("not following the thread")


    Darleen, I know that it's wing-nut habit to lie and spin when you're caught in your stupidity, but this blog has clearly recorded that you misread, misunderstood, and misconstrued my initial post here. If you want to persist with your childish revisionism, then you can continue to live in your own deluded world.

    Wrt to your so-called "honest" discussion about race, you forgot to include one group: those who are black, KNOW the context, yet perceive BB's remarks - which declared their race to have a genetic predisposition to criminality - as further reinforcement of the alienation and discrimination that they already confront in this society. You will no doubt say that these are just their perceptions and that BB did not intend to convey this meaning, and that BB should be allowed the freedom to voice his "thought experiments" without regard to these unintended perceptions. And those who do wish to proscribe such remarks are - in your words - "linguistic totalitarians and bigots", and/or those who perceive the unintended message well, that's their mistake.

    Despite your lonely examples, perceptions from such racially charged remarks can have real and unintended consequences. If a whole class believe (rightly or wrongly) that they are all generally thought of as criminals by the rest of society, the effects of this belief can be very real indeed.

    There is no doubt that some parts of the media manipulated BB's remarks for political gain. (The right-wing media such as FOX, Murdoch press, Moonie have given excellent instruction in this field). Others merely thought they were irresponsible. Others just thought his remarks were just stupid because they do nothing for the GOP's image to black voters.

    If you want to pretend that such ill-considered remarks by people like BB who have enormous media power do not have real and possibly damaging consequences then you're naiive at best, an apologist for racists at worst.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 03 October, 2005 17:59  

  • you forgot to include one group: those who are black

    You ARE a racialist, aren't you? I made a list based on what was going on between people's EARS not based on their melanin level and you automatically assert that I "left out blacks."

    Wow, Phil. Just. Wow.

    As Dr. Viktor Frankl once said "There are only two races in the world. The race of decent people and the race of indecent people."

    I have no doubts anymore which group Phil belongs to.

    By Blogger Darleen, at 03 October, 2005 21:16  

  • You ARE a racialist, aren't you? I made a list based on what was going on between people's EARS not based on their melanin level and you automatically assert that I "left out blacks."

    So much for your "honest" discussion of race, Randroid.

    You can hide behind your deluded objectivist fallacies all you like but denying that black self-identity is a significant influence on the the views of individual blacks - a factor that demanded honest attention in the context of this particular discussion but one you ignored - is just perverse extremist ideology that ignores self-evident reality. And if anything this black self-identity has been forged and reinforced by the racial discrimination and endemic disadvantage of the past and present that you also deny.

    You can continue to believe in your bizarre self-centered Randian utopia that seeks to label as bigots those who are offended by racial slurs. But then there is absolutely no doubt to your delusion or your dishonesty. I'm sure the GOP wing-nuts will be glad that you'll always be around to play apologist.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 03 October, 2005 22:30  

  • Phil

    You are the one that posits that blacks are incapable of thinking like other people. And when caught out start ranting irrelevancies in an effort to deflect from your own moral deficiency.

    Get.Help.

    By Blogger Darleen, at 03 October, 2005 23:17  

  • You are the one that posits that blacks are incapable of thinking like other people. And when caught out start ranting irrelevancies in an effort to deflect from your own moral deficiency.

    ROFLMAO!!!!

    You're the one who needs help, you deluded wing-nut. You're so desperate that your only option was to construct an obvious distortion while again cowardly avoiding any honest dealing of the subject in question. Your duplicity and dishonesty disqualifies you from making any moral judgements. I'll leave you to your filthy bed of lies.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 03 October, 2005 23:43  

  • Baloney smears and lies about people yet Linn believes that Baloney is off-limits from criticism.

    So this is what you and Jeff consider criticism:

    .Maloney, you are such the fake!

    Typical wing-nut... thinking that just because Baloney keeps beating his old dead horse then the MSM is somehow remiss for not splashing it all over their front pages. The MSM is/was never going to pick it up when a liar like Baloney has got his finger-prints on it.

    Baloney smears and lies about people

    Anything with Maloney's sleazy finger-prints is never going to be taken seriously by the MSM.

    wing-nut...


    These aren't criticisms, these are personal attacks. You provide no facts, make blanket accusations and name call. And you don't just do it to Brian, you do it to many conservative commenters.

    It shows bad manners, poor taste and demonstrates what a jerk you are.


    Darleen-we might as well not even try to have a dialogue with Philm (or for that matter with Jeff). He isn't interested in discussing or debating the topic. He is only interested in personally attacking people and being a disrupter. That is his only goal in being here. I'm quite certain he posts at one or two other blogs I sometimes frequent. He does the same thing there.

    By Blogger Linn, at 04 October, 2005 05:09  

  • These aren't criticisms, these are personal attacks. You provide no facts, make blanket accusations and name call. And you don't just do it to Brian, you do it to many conservative commenters.It shows bad manners, poor taste and demonstrates what a jerk you are.

    You're too stupid to appreciate the irony, Linn. Baloney launches personal vendettas, makes blanket accusations, and name-calls without facts or with facts unrecognizably twisted to fit his smear campaigns. And anyone who doesn't agree with the kooky criminal conservative world view is a target. He consistently lies in his posts and has misled about his credentials which all goes to demonstrate his bad manners, his poor taste, and how much of jerk he is. And you come in huffing and puffing that he shouldn't get as good as he gives. Grow up!

    Darleen-we might as well not even try to have a dialogue with Philm (or for that matter with Jeff).

    Ahh I get it... you and the Ayn Rand nutjob are buddies. So your stupidity gets called out and because you can't deal with it yourself, you call in one of your wingnut buddies who has opened a couple of more kooky books than you have. Too bad your nutjob friend was shown to be just a duplicitous, dishonest, morally deficient coward. You deserve each other totally.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 04 October, 2005 09:19  

  • As they say, one who has to resort to personal attacks and baseless name calling has admitted to losing the argument. Where are your facts? You obviously have none, unlike Brian and Darleen. Your posts accurately demonstrate this.

    By Blogger Linn, at 04 October, 2005 14:46  

  • As they say, one who has to resort to personal attacks and baseless name calling has admitted to losing the argument.

    Poor old Linn. Do you actually read or understand anything that is posted here? By your standard, Baloney has lost every argument he has entered. No wonder the MSM ignores his dead horse of a story. Baloney has knowingly lied about his credentials in his bio - the Time Magazine article which clearly proves this fact has been posted to this blog several times. And your friend Darleen. She clearly lied about wanting an "honest" discussion and instead confected pathetically transparent distortions in order to label me as a racist. Read the posts, Linn, instead of trying to ignorantly defend the clearly demonstrated dishonesty and moral bankruptcy of Baloney and Darleen.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 04 October, 2005 15:38  

  • Phil,
    Do you ever post without insults to the host or the other posters?

    By Blogger SCSIwuzzy, at 04 October, 2005 17:26  

  • Does Baloney ever post without smearing AAR or distorting the truth?

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 04 October, 2005 17:45  

  • Point proven.

    By Blogger SCSIwuzzy, at 04 October, 2005 19:45  

  • Point proven

    So you agree. Great. When are you going to start pushing for Baloney to enlist in the USO?

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 04 October, 2005 20:14  

  • Point proven that you can't have a posting without insuldting someone.
    How about you get Rhodes, Malloy and other AAR hosts to do a USO show? Right now, it looks like your man Franken is just a token :)

    By Blogger SCSIwuzzy, at 05 October, 2005 11:11  

  • Point proven that you can't have a posting without insuldting someone.

    Yet silence being consent on my question... OK. We're agreed.

    How about you get Rhodes, Malloy and other AAR hosts to do a USO show? Right now, it looks like your man Franken is just a token :)

    Propaganda "truth" tours... yup... Goebells' legacy is alive and well in wingnutsville.

    Rhodes et al are not the ones smearing Franken as being anti-American. Maloney is. Tell me... what credibility does Maloney have to question Franken's patriotism when Maloney has no tangible record himself?

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 05 October, 2005 13:32  

  • Phil, you are delusional. You keep calling for Malloy to go on a USO tour, but when the suggestion is applied to the AAR talent pool, you liken it to Goebels.
    Godwins law, Phil. Way to prove another point.

    By Blogger SCSIwuzzy, at 05 October, 2005 15:16  

  • Phil, you are delusional.
    You can't read and you suppose to judge others. You're laughable.

    You keep calling for Malloy to go on a USO tour, but when the suggestion is applied to the AAR talent pool, you liken it to Goebels.

    Couldn't you at least get it right that I want to send Maloney and not Malloy? And I don't suppose you even came close to understanding the point vis a vis Maloney's hypocrisy.

    ... what credibility does Maloney have to question Franken's patriotism when Maloney has no tangible record himself?

    Answer the question, coward.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 05 October, 2005 16:29  

  • Oh, the horrors, I made a typo! If only I could be as perfect as Phil... Yeah, I know, that is coming awful close to sinking to Phil's level (bluster, insults and childishness)
    Why is the only way someone can prove their patriotism to you is joining a USO tour? Is there no other way?
    My point is, you've set a standard for Maloney that only a distinct minority of people in radio (or any other industry, really)have met.
    It really is good that Franken does USO tours, but it is far from the only way to support the troops or express patriotism.
    Now, if you want to talk cowardice, you can come on over to my blog, and we can play.

    By Blogger SCSIwuzzy, at 06 October, 2005 11:56  

  • ROFLMAO!

    You didn't make a typo - you just didn't have a clue what you were talking about.

    And you still cowardly slip past the question of Maloney's hypocrisy.

    What credibility does Maloney have to question Franken's patriotism when Maloney has no tangible record himself?

    I didn't state that USO tours was the only way - I don't where you pulled that out of your ass.

    Let me rephrase so even you can understand:

    What credentials, service, experience, USO tours, military, peace corps, whatever, does Maloney have gives him the moral authority to question Franken's patriotism?

    Answer the question and then I might consider messing with your blog... as long as it's written above 3rd grade English... but my hopes are not high.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 06 October, 2005 14:02  

  • Maloney has the same right to criticize Franken that you have to criticize Maloney.
    You're the one that decided to make the USO your stalking horse. For your part, you've done nothing to show that Maloney hasn't done things to support US soldiers. You've just blustered. The same way you did about Morgan.
    And you've shown again, you cannot go a single post without insults. It's hard to claim the high ground when you always take the low road, Phil

    By Blogger SCSIwuzzy, at 06 October, 2005 22:04  

  • Maloney has the same right to criticize Franken that you have to criticize Maloney.

    Way to go to avoiding the question again, you thin-skinned coward.

    For your part, you've done nothing to show that Maloney hasn't done things to support US soldiers.

    Do you have any clue as to what you are writing? So it's up to me to show that Maloney "hasn't done things". I have to prove a negative?? I have to show evidence that events have not happened???

    Fer Chrissakes, stop watching the Wiggles and learn some basic logic. And learn to read while you're there.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 07 October, 2005 12:40  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger