The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

19 October 2006

President Bush, Talk Radio, White House

WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL?

In Bush Visit With Hosts, Lefties See Controversy







Proving that absolutely anything President Bush does can become a justification for lefty anger, a White House visit by several radio talk show hosts has sparked the kind of rage we've come to expect from the party opposite.

The meeting came to light after the New York Times covered it, with a particular emphasis on the "shoring up the base" angle:


On an overcast Friday morning last month, White House aides ushered an influential group of conservative radio hosts into the Oval Office for a private audience with the president.

News, updates and insights on the midterm elections, the race for 2008 and everything in-between.

For an hour and a half, Mr. Bush discussed his case for the war in Iraq, his immigration proposals and even the personality of his Scottish terrier Barney, who scratched on the door during the session until the president relented and let him into the office, according to several hosts who attended.

The meeting, which was not announced on the president’s public schedule, was part of an intensive Republican Party campaign to reclaim and re-energize a crucial army of supporters that is not as likely to walk in lockstep with the White House as it has in the past.

Conservative radio hosts are breaking with the Republican leadership in ways not seen in at least a decade, and certainly not since Rush Limbaugh’s forceful advocacy of the party in 1994 spawned a new generation of stars, said Michael Harrison, publisher of the industry’s lead trade publication, Talkers.

Disgruntlement can now be found not only among the more flamboyant radio voices, like Michael Savage, who raged against Mr. Bush’s proposals on immigration and other issues, but also among more mainstream hosts, like Laura Ingraham, who told her listeners in the wake of the scandal involving former Representative Mark Foley and under-age Congressional pages, “You have to ask yourself, the people who are in positions of power now in the Republican Party, are they able to credibly articulate the conservative agenda to the American people — to rally the base, to rally the country?”

Such questions, coming from such quarters, have created yet another challenge for the White House and the central party leadership as they work to steer Republicans to victory next month in the face of low approval ratings and dissatisfaction among the party faithful.

Strategists on both sides agree that the party’s greatest hope for holding control of Congress now rests with its ability to get core Republicans to vote, and that talk radio, which reaches millions of them, is crucial to the task.

Democratic strategists say talk radio remains a fearsome Republican advocacy force for which they have little direct answer. (Air America, which features liberal hosts, including Al Franken, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last week.)

The top two rated conservative hosts, Mr. Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, have done more than their part to rally their listeners this year, especially during the Foley scandal, to the great relief of Republican Party officials. And even those critical of Mr. Bush or the party on specific issues still consider themselves major supporters in general, with perhaps the exception of Mr. Savage.

But Mr. Savage is the third most popular host in the nation, with at least eight million listeners weekly, according to Talkers. And the Democrats have watched happily as he and others have at times sent reverberations of conservative frustration into what they often call the “Republican echo chamber.”


For two days, your Radio Equalizer has been receiving delightful emails demanding to know why we haven't covered this massive scandal. Why weren't any liberal hosts invited? Where were Al Franken and Randi Rhodes? Didn't he have better things to do? Why was the visit kept off of his official schedule? Isn't this a sign the GOP faithful are wavering before the election? Excuse us for a moment while we get some Advil.

As a result, on this one, we'll go ahead and take their bait. Here's your Radio Equalizer's take on the gathering:


First of all, this really wasn't a reason to become unhinged. One would expect the President to meet with various groups of people during the course of his day and there's no reason why radio talk show hosts shouldn't be included. How about key bloggers, don't they deserve a similar event?


On that note, if anything, this effort is too little, too late. The GOP has largely taken talk radio's support for granted in recent years and a last minute, pre- election pep talk with just five hosts will accomplish little.


Why should Bush invite liberal talk hosts to this kind of event? They are his political opponents and some would probably set off the alarms coming through the front door anyway. They aren't going to be open to what he has to say and even if they were, their audience sizes are too small to justify Bush's time and energy.


Why does the Times make such a point of Michael Savage's supposed disloyalty? Savage has never been a Republican (that we are aware of) and even a casual listener can make the reasonable determination that his ideology is all over the place. It's a non- issue.


Where are the big dogs? Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly should have been there, why didn't this happen?


Why was this particular group selected? It's a peculiar assortment of successful and not- so- successful syndicated hosts. Sadly, it looks as though somebody at the White House accepted Talkers Magazine's moronic version of who is popular in talk radio.


Why only five hosts? The combined reach of this group isn't big enough to make a serious impact on the election. Your Radio Equalizer would have suggested adding several of the biggest local talkers to this mix from cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City. Next time, skip the Talkers clique and check with us, guys.


That's it! Nothing more to see here, folks...

Next "controversy", please, we're in a sparring mood.


NYT in bed: David A Lunde


FOR THE LATEST on key Massachusetts races, visit Bay State Showdown, our other site.

ELSEWHERE: Rush has praise for bloggers.

Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, greatly help to support this site's efforts. Thanks again!

Technorati tags:

46 Comments:

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 19 October, 2006 11:05  

  • "Why should Bush invite liberal talk hosts to this kind of event? They are his political opponents and some would probably set off the alarms coming through the front door anyway. They aren't going to be open to what he has to say and even if they were, their audience sizes are too small to justify Bush's time and energy."

    This is why the American people need the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 19 October, 2006 12:06  

  • i absolutely love how you point out that Savage has never been a Republican. great point. for a minute there i almost thought he wrote a book titled "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder". thanks for setting me straight.

    i had the pleasure of attending a speech by Bill Clinton last week, and he brought up the point that conservatives lack both logic and reason. Maloney, you could be the poster child for that assertion.

    By Blogger liberal outlaw, at 19 October, 2006 13:19  

  • hash, you're right. After all, if you're going to invite radio hosts, you need to invite hosts of every political stripe. Just like when Clinton invited Rush to the White House ...

    ...wait. That didn't happen? So this scandal is nothing more than hypocritical opportunism?!? Imagine my surprise.

    By Blogger BF, at 19 October, 2006 13:20  

  • speaking on "inviting liberals", I believe I remember Mike Malloy being invited, as a courtesy, to speak at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee). Instead of saying "why I'd love to", Malloy sent a scathing email to them, comparing them to Nazis.

    Since the person who'd sent him the
    invite was a Jewish-American, that didn't go over too well...

    By Blogger raccoonradio, at 19 October, 2006 14:05  

  • ...to be exact:
    -----------------------------
    Malloy:
    "Um . . . you're kidding, right? Why would I have any desire whatsoever to attend or participate in a convocation of neo-Nazis????? I had two uncles fight against you [expletive] in WW2. And, now, surprise! surprise! here you all are on US soil. Kindly get the [expletive] off my email. Thanks."

    Saul said she was stunned by his response. "I'm all for a difference of opinion, but this is entirely uncalled-for, and all the more offensive when you consider that I'm Jewish, lost family in the Holocaust and had a grandfather almost killed during WWII." Her complaints to Air America execs have gone unanswered. A spokeswoman said the network would have no comment.
    -------------------------------

    By Blogger raccoonradio, at 19 October, 2006 14:07  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 19 October, 2006 14:44  

  • So this scandal is nothing more than hypocritical opportunism?!?

    It's not a scandal. There's no "lefty" anger. There's no rage. This "scandal" is just another wingnut fabrication.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 19 October, 2006 14:45  

  • Oh, boo-hoo-hoo. Malloy's response was absolutely perfect and entirely appropriate for the situation.

    As for the president, we need a new government. We need a free press once again.

    And he knows it.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 19 October, 2006 14:46  

  • This is why the American people need the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine.

    So that AM radio stations can watch their ratings tank.

    Great plan...

    By Blogger Snowed In, at 19 October, 2006 14:50  

  • 1. hashfanatic: "This is why the American people need the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine."

    Are you sure? Do you really want 60 Minutes, who has given almost no time in support of the Bush administration, to start giving equal time? How about Oprah? ABC? NBC? CBS? NPR? Movies, too?

    The Fairness Doctrine would only pull the media to the right!

    2. In 2004, Al Franken and others had a hush-hush meeting with John Kerry. I don't think the libs had a problem with that. Did they? No.

    By Blogger frankenlies, at 19 October, 2006 15:38  

  • A humorous post today Maloney.

    By Blogger Elmonica, at 19 October, 2006 15:50  

  • >>only pull the media to the right

    good point. The Mallard Fillmore comic brought this up: "Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Bill Clinton's right and Fox News is biased. That would leave, say, four networks in the liberal majority and
    one in the conservative minority. Wow...we need 'affirmative action'
    for the conservative media!"

    By Blogger raccoonradio, at 19 October, 2006 16:03  

  • Are you sure? Do you really want 60 Minutes, who has given almost no time in support of the Bush administration, to start giving equal time? How about Oprah? ABC? NBC? CBS? NPR? Movies, too?

    The Fairness Doctrine would only pull the media to the right!


    If the right truly believed this to be true, they would be throwing millions at reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine.

    But they're not. So the right doesn't believe this to be true.

    Indeed, they are dead against the Fairness Doctrine. Why is that? Because they know it would rebalance the media to the left.
    Pop! There goes the liberal media myth.

    In 2004, Al Franken and others had a hush-hush meeting with John Kerry. I don't think the libs had a problem with that. Did they? No.

    Apart from a few posts on radio-info.com and some phantom emails that Maloney supposedly received, no one cares about who Bush is meeting with either. This is another wingnut faux-scandal.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 19 October, 2006 17:18  

  • 1. HeadHunter: "Because they know it would rebalance the media to the left. Pop! There goes the liberal media myth."

    Are you kidding? Do you honestly believe that the MSM leans to the right? Because those actually in the MSM don't even believe it!

    Take Thomas Edsall, a veteran 25-year reporter for the Washington Post. He admitted just a couple weeks ago live on the radio that the biases of the MSM are "overwhelmingly to the left" and that liberal reporters outnumber conservatives by 15-25 to 1!! "Veteran WaPo Reporter Admits MSM's Bias Is 'Overwhelmingly to the Left'". Edsall is an admitted liberal.

    And did you miss Evan Thomas of Newsweek during the 2004 election? "The media, I think, want Kerry to win. And I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards . . . as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there's going to be this glow about them that is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points." D'oh!

    Also: D.C. journalists favor Kerry 12 to 1 N.Y. Times informal poll confirms media lean left ...

    And: Public disclosure: Media are finally admitting their biases

    Pop! Even those in the MSM admit there's a liberal bias! To argue otherwise is really silly.

    By Blogger frankenlies, at 19 October, 2006 17:56  

  • Funny. You quote all of two journalists whose work you no doubt despise and dismiss to make the enormous leap to the fallacious conclusion that the entire MSM has a liberal bias. Providing links to propagandists like WorldNetDaily and NewsBusters, just makes you look more foolish.

    If the MSM truly had a liberal bias then the right would be throwing millions to re-establish the Fairness Doctrine. But they're not. Because they know the Fairness Doctrine would only rebalance the media to the left.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 19 October, 2006 18:25  

  • Mr Savage is a Republican.
    Well now, that's a flippen hoot.

    Mr Savage, if anything, is a former Liberal Demo, who got his azz burned while getting his degree, over ' afirmative action '.
    This was leaked out in his monologue once a while back on his show. Boy, did those colors come out! He's REPUB now, cause he's getting BACK/EVEN with them ' good ol boys ' he thought he onced belonged too.

    As for the rest??
    Pffffffffft, please.
    Lefty radio sucks. You clowns already HAVE news media, Am air america ( sick ) printed press aka NY Times, LA Time and so on and so forth.

    Equal time?? Cause you moron's CAN"T appeal to the Public? You want to FORCE your nonsense on people?? Probably why you people LOSE so often.

    Stop talking out of your collective behinds, and talk sense, instead of HATE BUSH, BLAME BUSH, BUSH DID IT!!!! blah blah blah.


    Oh, and if you want to mention mr kerry?? Spare us.....he's as useless as mr mccain.

    ooops, I seem to be a disparaging republican. My bad.

    By Blogger LNaranjoiv, at 19 October, 2006 18:37  

  • "As for the rest??
    Pffffffffft, please.
    Lefty radio sucks. You clowns already HAVE news media, Am air america ( sick ) printed press aka NY Times, LA Time and so on and so forth."

    You forgot to mention Pacifica--AKA Commie Radio!

    By Blogger The Real Bob Anthony, at 19 October, 2006 18:50  

  • headhunter: "Providing links to propagandists like WorldNetDaily and NewsBusters, just makes you look more foolish."

    You need to learn about something called the genetic fallacy. You can't just dismiss someone's presentation solely based on the source. The links are provided from conservative web sites, but they present NEWS, and they weren't reported in the liberal media!

    The one looking foolish is you, I'm afraid. Pop!

    By Blogger frankenlies, at 19 October, 2006 21:02  

  • Franklies said:

    "You can't just dismiss someone's presentation solely based on the source"

    I agree with you Frankinlies. I just ask the right wing freaks to remember that the next time someone cites Media Matters or other left-leaning partisan site since 9 times out of 10 it is the neocon sheep here who are dismissing the arguments made based on the sourcing.

    By Blogger Elmonica, at 19 October, 2006 21:47  

  • You need to learn about something called the genetic fallacy. You can't just dismiss someone's presentation solely based on the source. The links are provided from conservative web sites, but they present NEWS, and they weren't reported in the liberal media!

    The one looking foolish is you, I'm afraid. Pop!


    You should go back to school and learn how to read... then perhaps you might actually understand the genetic fallacy. Those links were to conservative media which present conservative OPINION about... wait for it... the media. So of course the media origin of OPINIONS about the media *is* relevant and must be taken into account.

    Of course self-serving conservative media are going to present a biased view and try to perpetuate the tired myth of liberal bias in the media. But that myth has been so thoroughly debunked that it's only the kooky wingnut fringe who still cling to it.

    Only an utter fool would believe the media origin of opinions about the media is irrelevant to those same opinions... a fool like you, I'm afraid. Pop!

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 19 October, 2006 21:58  

  • What some of you are forgetting is that the President has an obligation to ALL Americans, not just its extremist right wing and its pundits.

    The press and media had unfettered access to the President during the Clinton administration.

    Those who represent more moderate and progressive constituencies should not have to beg for what it is they are already entitled to.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 19 October, 2006 22:26  

  • Anyone demanding the return of the "fairness doctrine" is, by definition, admitting actual defeat in the arena of political ideas.

    If the only way you can get your political message across to the masses on a day-to-day basis is to compel broadcasters to carry it based on some measure of Guvmint-established 'fairness,' then perhaps you should take some time and examine the weakness of your political beliefs and figure out a way to make them more commercially palatable to the masses.

    Or you could do it the old fashioned way and buy your own frickin' radio station, like Nova-M is doing. That way you can broadcast whatever the hell you like as long as you don't let fly with the Seven Words.

    Hash - "Unfettered access" during the Ultimate Answer's presidency? Remeber Travelgate? The "Secret Service Protection Privilege?" The Rose Law Firm billing records that were under subpoena for more than two years and magickally reappeared on a table in the White House residence level? The renting out of the Lincoln Bedroom to contributors?

    Yeesh.

    Sorry to say, hash, but sometimes you make even The Strawman look intelligent by comparison.

    By Blogger JD, at 19 October, 2006 22:44  

  • Hash, Liberal Outlaw, and the other lefties/secular progressives,
    like you, most liberals I know are as shallow as the thickness of your average loose leaf paper page. They do not reason, they scream their emotions and when confonted with facts and reason, they scream their emotional nonsense even louder. You are nothing different. All you did here was scream louder.

    By Blogger PCD, at 20 October, 2006 08:34  

  • JD, PCD....who cares what you morons think of me? I'm not going anywhere!

    If Bush can't live up to his commitment of being the president to all Americans, rather than just neocons, maybe it's time for impeachment proceedings to begin.

    There's certainly enough grounds already....

    Get him and his filthy minions before they hit the Paraguayan border!

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 20 October, 2006 11:15  

  • PCP,
    The Republicans are cowardly dogs who run from the media if they cannot manipulate it. This is one example of it.

    By Blogger Elmonica, at 20 October, 2006 11:50  

  • 1. headhunter: "Those links were to conservative media which present conservative OPINION."

    READ THE LINKS. Those articles were not opinion pieces; they were reporting NEWS.

    2. elmonica: "I just ask the right wing freaks to remember that the next time someone cites Media Matters or other left-leaning partisan site since 9 times out of 10 it is the neocon sheep here who are dismissing the arguments made based on the sourcing."

    Fine! But Media Matters has often been taken to task on their facts. Have you seen:

    MEDIA MATTERS Watch: A rebuttal to some of the lies, errors, and misleading work of MMFA

    But, yes, a presention generally can't just be dismissed simply because of its source.

    By Blogger frankenlies, at 20 October, 2006 13:44  

  • F'n Lies: READ THE LINKS. Those articles were not opinion pieces; they were reporting NEWS.

    If you get your "news" from fringe blogs and wacko wingnut websites, then that's your problem. It also explains why you're such a twisted freak. To the reality-based community, it's nothing but kooky wingnut opinion stinking up the place like dogshit on someone's shoe.

    But this is just a transparent deflection...

    You wackos keep bleating on and on like old women about liberal media bias so let's do something about it. Let's re-establish the Fairness Doctrine. Snap! All that nasty liberal media bias goes away. All your favorite conservative kooks get equal time on all the MSM networks. It should be a no-brainer for all you wingnut whiners. What's holding you freaks back from eliminating liberal media bias once and for all?

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 20 October, 2006 15:17  

  • Conservatives crying and whining about the "liberal media". Hysterical as usual. The meeting with the lemmings and the drug addled male cheerleader prove that these are not talk show hosts, Hannity, Ingrham and the rst are propagandists,and Limbaugh sitting around with Rove proves it as well. Never again may a right winger scream " soros soros soros lib lib lib media blah blah Franken soros blah blah", it is OBVIOUS at this point "conservative" talk show hosts are PROPAGANDISTS for the RNC.
    END OF STORY
    The FCC should have a warning on these shows "the views are not of these hosts or this station but rather the views of the RNC, the Bush administration and the Republican party. The hosts will present these ideas as their own observations, but they are politcal talking points not ideas of the host".

    The listener deserves to know the show is PROPAGANDA, not opinion. This is outrageous, the FCC allowing this to happen is astonishing.
    PCD is a punk. I have never encountered this creeps drivel. Well, punk meet MINISTER OF PROPAGANDA. I will humiliate you publically in this forum over and over. I suggest you keep your vile mouth shut. "secularists", what does that imply, you are religious, spiritual? You are vile human excrement.

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 20 October, 2006 17:30  

  • "PCD is a punk. I have never encountered this creeps drivel. Well, punk meet MINISTER OF PROPAGANDA. I will humiliate you publically in this forum over and over. I suggest you keep your vile mouth shut. "secularists", what does that imply, you are religious, spiritual? You are vile human excrement."

    That's sure some good embarrassment there, Strawman. I'm sure PCD feels appropriately chastised by your measured and well-formulated comment there.

    Allow me to embarrass you a bit, Strawman: (insert randomly selected MOP nonsensical yawp here).

    Damn. Sure feels good to elevate the level of political discourse in this nation.

    By Blogger JD, at 22 October, 2006 21:55  

  • You mean, like you elevated the national debt and the size of big government??

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 22 October, 2006 22:36  

  • HeadHunter said ...
    You wackos keep bleating on and on like old women about liberal media bias so let's do something about it. Let's re-establish the Fairness Doctrine. Snap! All that nasty liberal media bias goes away. All your favorite conservative kooks get equal time on all the MSM networks. It should be a no-brainer for all you wingnut whiners. What's holding you freaks back from eliminating liberal media bias once and for all?

    Simplistic question, simple answer:

    Most conservatives don't want the government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks. They believe the free market is the best gauge of what the American public really wants to listen to -- not a bunch of politicians in Washington.

    Got it, Head? (Come on, I thought you lefties were big on personal freedom ...)

    Now here's a question for you:

    Other than the fact that your ideological brethren fail spectacularly and embarrassingly almost every time they dip a toe into talk radio ... what is it that frightens you libs so much about the concept of letting the people decide what they do and don't want to listen to?

    More to the point, why would you "progressives" support more government control over our lives?

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 23 October, 2006 07:00  

  • Simplistic question, simple answer:

    How so? Why should I be expected to reconcile the obvious inconsistency of theocon ideology on this question?

    Most conservatives don't want the government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks. They believe the free market is the best gauge of what the American public really wants to listen to -- not a bunch of politicians in Washington.

    Got it, Head? (Come on, I thought you lefties were big on personal freedom ...)


    And yet you conservatives are gung-ho for the government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks when it comes to imposing your theocratic views on decency standards. What is the difference? If for the glory of free markets a broadcasting network is free and unregulated to use licensed public airwaves to push partisan political agendas then why can't they be similarly unencumbered by the FCC to broadcast the word "fuck" or the image of Janet Jackson's boob? Is it a free market or not? What is it that frightens you theocons so much about the concept of letting the people decide what they do and don't want on radio or television?

    Other than the fact that your ideological brethren fail spectacularly and embarrassingly almost every time they dip a toe into talk radio ... what is it that frightens you libs so much about the concept of letting the people decide what they do and don't want to listen to?

    More to the point, why would you "progressives" support more government control over our lives?


    I don't. And it's not as if this current conservative cabal has been reticent about increasing government control over American lives. I'm just wondering why conservatives continually bitch and moan about supposed liberal bias in the MSM on the one hand and yet exalt the free market of ideas in broadcasting on the other. If the MSM has any biases, isn't that - according to you theocons - simply a reflection of the free market of ideas and the decisions people have made with respect to what they want and don't want to listen to/watch?

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 23 October, 2006 13:27  

  • The4thEstate said ...
    Simplistic question, simple answer.

    HeadHunter said ...
    How so? Why should I be expected to reconcile the obvious inconsistency of theocon ideology on this question?

    It's inconsistent only if you believe that the conservatives on this board actually think more government control of American radio would be a good thing.

    HeadHunter said ...
    And yet you conservatives are gung-ho for the government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks when it comes to imposing your theocratic views on decency standards. What is the difference? If for the glory of free markets a broadcasting network is free and unregulated to use licensed public airwaves to push partisan political agendas then why can't they be similarly unencumbered by the FCC to broadcast the word "fuck" or the image of Janet Jackson's boob? Is it a free market or not? What is it that frightens you theocons so much about the concept of letting the people decide what they do and don't want on radio or television?

    Ah, but where's your evidence that the majority of Americans are clamoring for shows like the Janet Jackson Boob Hour and the F-Bomb Show in prime time? If there were a hue and cry for such things, we'd be electing politicians who promised to abolish all "decency" restrictions whatsoever.

    Since it ain't happenin', and since not even the Democrats are taking that sort of stance prior to the upcoming election, one must conclude that the public is not all that interested in it. Which means that in this case as well, the people are deciding what they want.

    Besides, anybody who's itching to see bare boobs and hear people dropping F-bombs on TV has a simple solution. It's called cable and satellite.


    The4thEstate said ...
    More to the point, why would you "progressives" support more government control over our lives?

    HeadHunter said ...
    I don't. And it's not as if this current conservative cabal has been reticent about increasing government control over American lives. I'm just wondering why conservatives continually bitch and moan about supposed liberal bias in the MSM on the one hand and yet exalt the free market of ideas in broadcasting on the other. If the MSM has any biases, isn't that - according to you theocons - simply a reflection of the free market of ideas and the decisions people have made with respect to what they want and don't want to listen to/watch?

    Thanks to the rise of the new media, allowing the people a greater voice in their own choice, the MSM are increasingly just that -- "a reflection of the free market of ideas."

    Which explains why (1) mainstream TV networks continue to lose market share to Fox News, etc., and (2) life isn't so rosy in the Big Three news divisions anymore. To wit:

    This story in November 2004: "Fox News Channel drew more viewers than any of the Big Three at the Republican Convention — an historic first in TV news."
    usatoday.com/life/columnist/
    mediamix/2004-11-07-media-mix_x.htm

    And this story in October 2006:
    "NBC Universal plans to cut $750 million in operating expenses by the end of 2007 by eliminating employees, cutting back on scripted shows, and slashing its news budget ..."
    columbusdispatch.com/business/
    business.php?story=220438

    In any case, none of this discussion explains in the least why this country needs to inflict the "Fairness (sic) Doctrine" on American radio.

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 24 October, 2006 10:03  

  • It's inconsistent only if you believe that the conservatives on this board actually think more government control of American radio would be a good thing.

    It's inconsistent because it is quite clear that conservatives hold absolutely no principle on the issue of the free market vs. government control in American broadcasting. Theocons will fight for government intervention when it suits their political agenda and fight against it when it does not; laud right-wing dominance of talk-radio as the outcome of the free market of ideas but bleat and whine and attack over the outcome that the free market has created in the MSM. This free market god that is worshipped by theocons is just a fraud.

    Ah, but where's your evidence that the majority of Americans are clamoring for shows like the Janet Jackson Boob Hour and the F-Bomb Show in prime time?

    You can try to shift the burden of proof or deflect from the point all you like. But you made an assertion: "Most conservatives don't want the government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks." I merely pointed out through a specific example that this statement should have been qualified with "...unless government intervention conforms to and furthers the theocon agenda"... demonstrating that this "principle" can be cast aside in the name of conservative political expediency.

    If there were a hue and cry for such things, we'd be electing politicians who promised to abolish all "decency" restrictions whatsoever.

    Since it ain't happenin', and since not even the Democrats are taking that sort of stance prior to the upcoming election, one must conclude that the public is not all that interested in it. Which means that in this case as well, the people are deciding what they want.


    Oops! Another dearly held conservative "principle" is shown to be just another fraud. What happened to the inviolable rights of the individual over the tyrannous will of the majority? What happened to individual choice and personal freedom? Why the hell is the (supposed) majority - enabled through government legislation and regulation - allowed to interfere with my personal choices in what I want to watch or listen to on television or radio?

    Besides, anybody who's itching to see bare boobs and hear people dropping F-bombs on TV has a simple solution. It's called cable and satellite.

    I believe you have already amply demonstrated that conservatives think it's OK to have government dictate the programming of privately owned broadcasting networks in some cases and not others. No need to further prove my point.

    Thanks to the rise of the new media, allowing the people a greater voice in their own choice, the MSM are increasingly just that -- "a reflection of the free market of ideas."

    Great. The myth of liberal bias in the MSM can be consigned to the giant slag-heap of previously exposed theocon lies.

    Which explains why (1) mainstream TV networks continue to lose market share to Fox News, etc.,

    Oh really? Latest ratings demonstrate otherwise. FNC took a particularly savage beating. And in the opening of the fall season and in an election cycle too. Ouch!

    In any case, none of this discussion explains in the least why this country needs to inflict the "Fairness (sic) Doctrine" on American radio.

    It wasn't meant to. But it did demonstrate that theocon "principles" such as supremacy of free-markets and the inviolability of individual rights and personal freedoms are fraudulent window-dressing, and that supposed liberal media bias in the MSM that you wackos continually bleat about is a complete myth. Kudos.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 24 October, 2006 14:06  

  • Headhunter said ...
    Theocons will fight for government intervention when it suits their political agenda and fight against it when it does not; laud right-wing dominance of talk-radio as the outcome of the free market of ideas but bleat and whine and attack over the outcome that the free market has created in the MSM.

    Sorry, but there's a dramatic difference between right-wingers complaining about the lack of objectivity on the MSM, versus left-wingers demanding more government control over the programming of private radio stations.

    You, I, the mayor of your city, and the homeless guy under the bridge have a perfect right to complain (and even "bleat and whine and attack") over what we like and don’t like about TV news.

    However, what I don't buy – as I've stated all along - is the notion that we need the government to dictate programming on privately owned radio stations.



    The4thEstate said ...
    Ah, but where's your evidence that the majority of Americans are clamoring for shows like "The Janet Jackson Boob Hour" and "The F-Bomb Show" in prime time?

    Headhunter said ...
    You can try to shift the burden of proof or deflect from the point all you like. But you made an assertion: "Most conservatives don't want the government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks." I merely pointed out through a specific example that this statement should have been qualified with "...unless government intervention conforms to and furthers the theocon agenda"... demonstrating that this "principle" can be cast aside in the name of conservative political expediency.

    Me, deflect from the point?? Need I remind you that you're the one who, from the start of our conversation, has tried to switch the subject from the Fairness Doctrine to decency standards - in a leap that would have made Carl Lewis proud.

    More to the point, despite your claims of conservative hypocrisy, you have yet to supply a single example of how right-wingers support greater government control over privately owned media.

    Show me one and we'll have something to discuss. And this time, try to give me concrete examples, not vague emotionalism.



    Headhunter said ...
    Oops! Another dearly held conservative "principle" is shown to be just another fraud. What happened to the inviolable rights of the individual over the tyrannous will of the majority? What happened to individual choice and personal freedom? Why the hell is the (supposed) majority - enabled through government legislation and regulation - allowed to interfere with my personal choices in what I want to watch or listen to on television or radio?

    The4thEstate said ...
    Huh?? Where did you get the quaint notion that any individual has the right to expect TV and radio programming to be exactly what he wants to watch and listen to?

    Sheesh, if a single person had that much power, "Star Trek" would never have gone off the air.

    Reality check: You DO have a personal choice when it comes to TV and radio -- you can turn it on, turn the dial or turn it off. And if you don't like your choices, you can boycott the sponsors, write the network or whatever trips your trigger.



    Headhunter said ...
    I believe you have already amply demonstrated that conservatives think it's OK to have government dictate the programming of privately owned broadcasting networks in some cases and not others. No need to further prove my point.

    Well, Head, if you choose not to prove your point, that's your business. Unfortunately for you, I have yet to "demonstrate" anything close to what you apparently see amid the sand castles of your imagination.

    What I see is your hapless attempt to draw a parallel between politically oriented opinion shows and expletives/nudity. And you've stretched the comparison beyond the breaking point.

    That's because expletives/nudity fall under the category of what the FCC calls "obscene" and "indecent" programming. To wit:
    www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/
    obscene.html


    Notice that the FCC cites the Supreme Court's definition of obscenity in determining what can and can't be put on the public airwaves. The three-pronged test for obscenity includes the following: "An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest."

    So you see, just as I said, it's about what the average American wants. There is no vast right-wing conspiracy to keep Janet Jackson's boobs and audible F-bombs off TV.

    Now ... if you REALLY want to make a case for an "anything goes" policy, you will make my day. Because then your quandary will be this: Either you want NO restrictions on the public airwaves, or you want SOME restrictions.

    With no restrictions whatsoever, we might expect to see prime-time programs like "The KKK Lynching Hour," "The NAMBLA Dating Game," and "Saddam Hussein's Funniest Home Videos," in which his henchmen slice off hands, gouge out eyes and throw bound dissidents off roofs onto concrete.

    Is that what you're arguing for — no restrictions whatsoever, meaning that 5-year-old kids could turn on their TVs and watch the kind of programming I just described? Yes or no, Head?

    If no, well then ... obviously SOMEBODY has to decide what can and can't be shown on the airwaves. Hopefully those arbitrary standards will conform to where the majority of Americans would draw the line, but regardless, the fact that such standards exist can hardly be blamed on right-wing hypocrisy.



    Headhunter said ...
    FNC took a particularly savage beating. And in the opening of the fall season and in an election cycle too. Ouch!

    Big deal - blue-chip stocks also rise and fall in individual quarters, but generally trend upward over time. And seeing as how CNN and MSNBC took a tumble too, I hardly think Anderson Cooper is popping corks in his office.

    Then again, if you seriously believe Fox News is heading for failure, then please say so for the record.



    The4thEstate said ...
    In any case, none of this discussion explains in the least why this country needs to inflict the "Fairness (sic) Doctrine" on American radio.

    Headhunter said ...
    It wasn't meant to.

    Hmmm ... so you're not trying to defend the Fairness Doctrine, huh? Does that mean you don't support it? Yes or no?


    Headhunter said:
    But it did demonstrate that theocon "principles" such as supremacy of free-markets and the inviolability of individual rights and personal freedoms are fraudulent window-dressing, and that supposed liberal media bias in the MSM that you wackos continually bleat about is a complete myth. Kudos.

    Wow, that's truly hilarious, considering you haven't supplied the first shred of serious evidence that the MSM isn't liberally biased.

    You’re like a schoolkid who, unable to capture any of his opponent's chess pieces, suddenly leaps to his feet and screams, "I won! I won!" as he flips over the board, knocks all the pieces to the floor and runs out the door.

    Nice game!

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 27 October, 2006 02:24  

  • Sorry, but there's a dramatic difference between right-wingers complaining about the lack of objectivity on the MSM, versus left-wingers demanding more government control over the programming of private radio stations.

    Sure there's a difference. Theocons support a free market when it suits their partisan purposes (ie, against the Fairness Doctrine) and support government intervention (eg, support decency standards) when it similarly suits their agenda. In contrast, leftwingers consistently believe that the "commons" - in this case the licensed public airwaves - should not be used for partisan purposes and seek to have these "commons" protected from partisan and other abuse through government regulation (ie, support both Fairness Doctrine and decency standards).

    You, I, the mayor of your city, and the homeless guy under the bridge have a perfect right to complain (and even "bleat and whine and attack") over what we like and don’t like about TV news.

    Sure you have the right to complain (and even "bleat and whine") over anything you like. But it seems a might childish to complain about the outcome of a free market that you theocons wanted so much in broadcasting... like a little kid who wants to play tag with his rough-house rules and then throws a tantrum when he gets punched in the face and loses.

    However, what I don't buy – as I've stated all along - is the notion that we need the government to dictate programming on privately owned radio stations.

    Alright. Now since the government is currently dictating programming on privately-owned radio stations by imposing regulations such as decency standards, and you make a blanket unqualified statement: you do not buy "the notion that we need government to dictate programming on privately owned radio stations",... then to be consistent you must support the elimination of all current government controls including decency regulations.

    It is clearly inconsistent and hypocritical for you to make a blanket statement that we do not "need the government to dictate programming on privately owned radio stations" on one hand and then make a contradictory statement supporting some governent regulations such as decency standards on the other.


    Me, deflect from the point?? Need I remind you that you're the one who, from the start of our conversation, has tried to switch the subject from the Fairness Doctrine to decency standards - in a leap that would have made Carl Lewis proud.

    What a pathetic attempt! The Fairness Doctrine and decency standards are clearly both relevant examples of "government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks". I have been consistently speaking to conservative hypocrisy regarding the issue of free market versus government intervention in broadcasting... of which the Fairness Doctrine and decency standards are both perfectly valid examples of government intervention. My previous posts to this thread clearly show as much. No one would be surprised that such a small and logical step is a Carl Lewis leap for you.

    More to the point, despite your claims of conservative hypocrisy, you have yet to supply a single example of how right-wingers support greater government control over privately owned media.

    Show me one and we'll have something to discuss.


    I have already given you a perfectly valid example of government control over privately-owned media that you theocons support - decency standards. If you are incapable of refuting theocon hypocrisy on the issue of free market versus government intervention in broadcasting because this example that I provided makes it too difficult for you, then tough shit. You lose. Why do you expect me to make things easy for you?

    And this time, try to give me concrete examples, not vague emotionalism.

    WTF? This reference to "vague emotionalism" is a little... well... vague. Put down the bottle and stop your cowardly retreat from the valid concrete example I have provided.

    Huh?? Where did you get the quaint notion that any individual has the right to expect TV and radio programming to be exactly what he wants to watch and listen to?

    Sheesh, if a single person had that much power, "Star Trek" would never have gone off the air.


    And where did you get the quaint notion that you think you can get away with misrepresenting my words? Here they are again:

    Why the hell is the (supposed) majority - enabled through government legislation and regulation - allowed to interfere with my personal choices in what I want to watch or listen to on television or radio?

    Note the phrase "interfere with my personal choices". Contorting my statement into some fantasy that I asserted a right to expect that any/all TV and programming must exactly conform to my specific personal preferences indicates that you're just stupid or dishonest or drunk. Occam's Razor says you're stupid.


    Headhunter said ...
    I believe you have already amply demonstrated that conservatives think it's OK to have government dictate the programming of privately owned broadcasting networks in some cases and not others. No need to further prove my point.

    The4thEstate said ...
    Well, Head, if you choose not to prove your point, that's your business. Unfortunately for you, I have yet to "demonstrate" anything close to what you apparently see amid the sand castles of your imagination.


    Hey, you're the one who dished up the examples of cable and satellite. It's not my fault if you're not paying attention and you end up planting your foot in your mouth.

    What I see is your hapless attempt to draw a parallel between politically oriented opinion shows and expletives/nudity. And you've stretched the comparison beyond the breaking point.

    Then you better finally let go of it because you're obviously going blind. I didn't raise decency standards even once in my previous post. Not once. But the Fairness Doctrine and decency standards are both perfectly relevant examples of government regulation in any discussion of the free market versus government control in broadcasting.

    That's because expletives/nudity fall under the category of what the FCC calls "obscene" and "indecent" programming. To wit:
    www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/
    obscene.html

    Notice that the FCC cites the Supreme Court's definition of obscenity in determining what can and can't be put on the public airwaves. The three-pronged test for obscenity includes the following: "An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest."

    So you see, just as I said, it's about what the average American wants. There is no vast right-wing conspiracy to keep Janet Jackson's boobs and audible F-bombs off TV.


    So you support the "government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks" in the case of decency standards. Great.

    But then you need to understand that such support contradicts your original statement: "Most conservatives don't want the government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks. They believe the free market is the best gauge of what the American public really wants to listen to -- not a bunch of politicians in Washington."


    Now ... if you REALLY want to make a case for an "anything goes" policy, you will make my day. Because then your quandary will be this: Either you want NO restrictions on the public airwaves, or you want SOME restrictions.

    Is that what you're arguing for — no restrictions whatsoever, meaning that 5-year-old kids could turn on their TVs and watch the kind of programming I just
    described? Yes or no, Head?


    Nope. You obviously have trouble following. I've been arguing that theocons are hypocritical when it comes to the issue of free market versus government control in broadcasting. Your statement, "Most conservatives don't want the government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks. They believe the free market is the best gauge of what the American public really wants to listen to -- not a bunch of politicians in Washington." is clearly inconsistent with your support of government controls such as decency standards and is demonstrative of this theocon hypocrisy.

    OK. Your turn to answer some questions.

    Do you or do you not stand by the this statement that "most conservatives don't want the government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks"? Yes or no.

    I provided a counter-example where conservatives actually want the government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks, ie decency standards.

    So do you or do you not want government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks in the form of decency standards? Yes or no.

    If you answered yes to both of these questions, then conservatives don't want government control on one hand and conservatives do want government control on the other. This is clearly an inconsistent position. If you know it to be inconsistent yet still maintain it, then this position is hypocritical.


    Big deal - blue-chip stocks also rise and fall in individual quarters, but generally trend upward over time. And seeing as how CNN and MSNBC took a tumble too, I hardly think Anderson Cooper is popping corks in his office.

    Then again, if you seriously believe Fox News is heading for failure, then please say so for the record.


    That's not what you originally claimed. Nor was that my response. You claimed: "...mainstream TV networks continue to lose market share to Fox News, etc.," I provided evidence that FNC lost market share over the previous quarter. Here's more evidence of Fox losing significant market share over the course of 2006.

    You have provided zero evidence to support your claim.



    Hmmm ... so you're not trying to defend the Fairness Doctrine, huh? Does that mean you don't support it? Yes or no?

    I support one of the two corollary rules of the Fairness Doctrine: the personal attack rule.

    "The personal attack rule could be applied whenever a person or group was subject to a character attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said, and offer the opportunity to respond on the air."

    This rule would at least provide some redress to the gratuitous character assassination that is the standard MO of the current turd-hill of rightwing shills.


    Wow, that's truly hilarious, considering you haven't supplied the first shred of serious evidence that the MSM isn't liberally biased.

    And thus you simply show how arrogantly stupid and dishonest you truly are. Everyone knows that the side making the assertions (ie, your claim of liberal bias in the MSM) carries the burden of proof. Everyone except brainless theocons like you that is. Your side clearly carries the burden of proof on the claim of liberal bias in the MSM. Yet you presume to believe that you can slip by without providing a shred of evidence yourself to support this claim. Instead you lazily expect others to prove the negative... by demanding evidence that something does not exist; a logical fallacy. Your fallacious reasoning boils down to: liberal bias in the MSM must exist because there's no proof that it does not exist. Is that all you have to support your assertion? Pathetic. By this reasoning, you must also believe in Santa Claus.

    Your twisted little schoolboy fantasy clearly demonstrates how perverted your stunted theocon imagination is and how desperately weak your arguments truly are.

    Better luck next time.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 28 October, 2006 00:34  

  • HeadHunter said ...
    Alright. Now since the government is currently dictating programming on privately-owned radio stations by imposing regulations such as decency standards, and you make a blanket unqualified statement: you do not buy "the notion that we need government to dictate programming on privately owned radio stations",... then to be consistent you must support the elimination of all current government controls including decency regulations.

    It is clearly inconsistent and hypocritical for you to make a blanket statement that we do not "need the government to dictate programming on privately owned radio stations" on one hand and then make a contradictory statement supporting some governent regulations such as decency standards on the other.


    You know what, Head? I’m going to save both of us a lot of time and get right to this issue – because most of the verbiage in your previous post seems to hinge on this single choice that you’ve tried to set up – i.e., that a person can’t oppose the Fairness (sic) Doctrine without opposing all government restrictions on the public airwaves.

    But that makes sense only to people who buy into your shaky premise: that one can't oppose SOME restrictions on the public airwaves without opposing ALL restrictions on the public airwaves. Which is pure sophistry.

    See, I've never claimed to oppose ALL government control of the airwaves. My specific argument has always been that the Fairness (sic) Doctrine is an example of the government exerting too much control over the programming of private radio stations and networks.

    But that's not the same thing as me saying, "All government control of the airwaves is a bad thing." (And if that's your interpretation of my stance on the Fairness Doctrine, then may I compliment you on your fine strawman?)

    Fact is, there's nothing inconsistent about opposing some government restrictions and not others – or in saying, "This particular law would amount to too much government control of private radio stations" without also holding the belief that "The government has no right to impose any restrictions on private radio stations."

    Still don't get it? Let's take your "logic" to a different area with a choice that's analogous to the one you offered: I don't hear a lot of people complaining that government regulations against murder, rape, robbery and theft infringe on their personal freedom. Yet if Congress began pondering a bill that would allow cops to peek into the bedrooms of private citizens whenever they wanted to, I rather think there would be a public outcry against it.

    However, HeadHunter logic would contend: "It is clearly inconsistent and hypocritical for you to make a blanket statement that we do not need the government to peek into our bedrooms on one hand and then make a contradictory statement supporting some government regulations such as murder and rape laws on the other. To be consistent you must support the elimination of all current government controls on personal behavior, including laws against murder, rape, robbery and theft."

    Hogwash. Whether it's the public airwaves or personal behavior, one can always oppose SOME government regulations without opposing ALL government regulations. Ergo, your "logial choice" withers like a vampire in the sun.

    That is, unless you can find an example of me saying I oppose ALL government regulation of the public airwaves. Not the evil, sinister, imaginary "theocons" that frolic around in your mind saying it -- ME saying it.

    Didn't think so. Checkmate.

    Next?



    HeadHunter said ...
    Then you better finally let go of it because you're obviously going blind. I didn't raise decency standards even once in my previous post. Not once.
    Funny how my eyes are working well enough to notice that you did mention decency standards in a different previous post. Shall I jog your memory?
    HeadHunter said ...
    And yet you conservatives are gung-ho for the government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks when it comes to imposing your theocratic views on decency standards.

    You see, Head, if you could have actually proved that you NEVER said it, then you might have some semblance of a point. But since you did, in fact, raise this issue, why on earth can’t I comment on what you said about it?


    HeadHunter said ...
    And thus you simply show how arrogantly stupid and dishonest you truly are. Everyone knows that the side making the assertions (ie, your claim of liberal bias in the MSM) carries the burden of proof. Everyone except brainless theocons like you that is. Your side clearly carries the burden of proof on the claim of liberal bias in the MSM. Yet you presume to believe that you can slip by without providing a shred of evidence yourself to support this claim. Instead you lazily expect others to prove the negative... by demanding evidence that something does not exist; a logical fallacy. Your fallacious reasoning boils down to: liberal bias in the MSM must exist because there's no proof that it does not exist. Is that all you have to support your assertion? Pathetic. By this reasoning, you must also believe in Santa Claus.

    Ho ho ho. If you’ll calm down and take an occasional breath, I’ll show you exactly what you claim doesn’t exist: a recent study showing that the media tilts to the left.
    www.newsroom.ucla.edu/
    page.asp?RelNum=6664

    Here's what the study found: "Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal."

    And this study comes from UCLA and the University of Missouri, which aren’t exactly considered leading bastions of conservatism.

    Hmmm, I seem to remember you saying something about media bias … now what was it again? … ah, yes:


    HeadHunter said ...
    Of course self-serving conservative media are going to present a biased view and try to perpetuate the tired myth of liberal bias in the media. But that myth has been so thoroughly debunked that it's only the kooky wingnut fringe who still cling to it.

    "Thoroughly debunked," huh? Methinks it's your serve. Got facts?


    HeadHunter said ...
    You claimed: "...mainstream TV networks continue to lose market share to Fox News, etc.," I provided evidence that FNC lost market share over the previous quarter. Here's more evidence of Fox losing significant market share over the course of 2006.

    You have provided zero evidence to support your claim.


    Oh really? Then I guess you somehow missed this link I already provided – you know, the one leading to the story that said "Fox News Channel drew more viewers than any of the Big Three at the (2004) Republican Convention — an historic first in TV news but one likely to be repeated by Fox and other cable outlets."
    usatoday.com/life/columnist/
    mediamix/2004-11-07-media-mix_x.htm


    Y’know, Head, to me that would indicate a general, yet unmistakable trend: that Fox News is growing more popular while the networks lose audience. But perhaps you’re a bit slow to grasp such things. So let me give you something bigger to chew on – IF you can handle the truth:

    www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/
    narrative_networktv_audience.asp?
    cat=3&media=4


    See that box at the bottom of the page, big fella? Yeah, that's it – the one showing the percentage of the audience that network news (that would be the "mainstream TV networks" I told you about) had in 1993 versus 2003.

    Still with me? Ok, so tell me: Did the mainstream TV networks have a better percentage of the audience in 1993 ... or in 2003? How about cable news – a better percentage in 1993 or in 2003? Take all the time you need to understand the chart, Head; I have all day.

    And while you're sorting that out, let me direct your attention to the top of the page – specifically, to sentences like these:
    * "When it comes to audiences of network news, the headlines are generally grim. Only one or two programs are increasing their audiences. For most, flat ratings are a victory."

    * "The three nightly newscasts have seen ratings decline by 34 percent in the past decade, nearly 44 percent since 1980, and 59 percent from their peak in 1969."

    Well, gol-l-l-l-eeeee ... sure looks to me like the network news audience is declining at the expense of the cable news networks.

    And which cable news channel draws the largest audience ... hmmmm??

    Y'know, Head, I’m so confident of the answer, I’ll even use YOUR link:
    mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/
    q1_06_2554_demo_vs_q1_05_34498.asp


    Gosh, what do my eyes reveal? Fox News may be down a bit lately (as is CNN), but it's still kicking every other cable network’s tushie when it comes to a share of the TV news audience.

    Yet I have "zero evidence" of this overall, decades-long trend, huh? Excuse me for a moment ... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    Can you say "slam-dunk"?

    Really, Head, you should lay off that "Smartest Guy in the Room" routine when it comes to subjects you know next to nothing about. You'll only wind up embarrassing yourself in front of the whole Internet. Again.



    HeadHunter said ...
    It's not my fault if you're not paying attention and you end up planting your foot in your mouth.

    Dream on, kid. As this post vividly illustrates, the only place I’ve planted my foot is deeply into the seat of your pants. (As Toby Keith said, it's the American way.)

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 28 October, 2006 20:39  

  • You know what, Head? I’m going to save both of us a lot of time and get right to this issue – because most of the verbiage in your previous post seems to hinge on this single choice that you’ve tried to set up – i.e., that a person can’t oppose the Fairness (sic) Doctrine without opposing all government restrictions on the public airwaves.

    Nope. YOU set up the choice with a stupid unqualified statement regarding conservatives' free (sic) market dogma in broadcasting; a statement that YOU posted. Let me remind you:
    Most conservatives don't want the government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks. They believe the free market is the best gauge of what the American public really wants to listen to -- not a bunch of politicians in Washington.


    See, I've never claimed to oppose ALL government control of the airwaves. My specific argument has always been that the Fairness (sic) Doctrine is an example of the government exerting too much control over the programming of private radio stations and networks.

    Yes, YOU DID claim "...to oppose ALL government control of the airwaves" and the free (sic) market should reign supreme in broadcasting.

    No, YOUR argument has NOT ALWAYS "been that the Fairness Doctrine is an example of the government exerting too much control over the programming of private radio stations and networks".

    Your original statement again:
    Most conservatives don't want the government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks. They believe the free market is the best gauge of what the American public really wants to listen to -- not a bunch of politicians in Washington.


    But that's not the same thing as me saying, "All government control of the airwaves is a bad thing." (And if that's your interpretation of my stance on the Fairness Doctrine, then may I compliment you on your fine strawman?)

    Nope. That strawman sits alongside your other fantasies about schoolboys. "All government control of the airwaves is a bad thing" is YOUR creation from YOUR words that you keep forgetting so here they are again:
    Most conservatives don't want the government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks. They believe the free market is the best gauge of what the American public really wants to listen to -- not a bunch of politicians in Washington.


    But that makes sense only to people who buy into your shaky premise: that one can't oppose SOME restrictions on the public airwaves without opposing ALL restrictions on the public airwaves. Which is pure sophistry.

    LOL And you accuse me of creating strawmen! That is NOT my premise. I simply refuted YOUR statement:
    Most conservatives don't want the government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks. They believe the free market is the best gauge of what the American public really wants to listen to -- not a bunch of politicians in Washington.

    ... by providing a sufficient counter-example to demonstrate that sometimes conservatives DO want the government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks and DO NOT believe the free market is the best gauge of what the American public really wants to listen to -- not a bunch of politicians in Washington.

    It's really quite simple. YOU made a statement. I refuted it with a sufficient counter-example. And you've been trying to twist off this hook that you've got yourself stuck on ever since... by steadily retreating away from your original statement without explicitly conceding the point that:

    Sometimes conservatives DO want the government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks and DO NOT believe the free market is the best gauge of what the American public really wants to listen to -- not a bunch of politicians in Washington.


    Fact is, there's nothing inconsistent about opposing some government restrictions and not others – or in saying, "This particular law would amount to too much government control of private radio stations" without also holding the belief that "The government has no right to impose any restrictions on private radio stations."

    It IS inconsistent if one asserts:
    Most conservatives don't want the government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks. They believe the free market is the best gauge of what the American public really wants to listen to -- not a bunch of politicians in Washington.

    ... which YOU have done.


    Still don't get it? Let's take your "logic" to a different area with a choice that's analogous to the one you offered: I don't hear a lot of people complaining that government regulations against murder, rape, robbery and theft infringe on their personal freedom. Yet if Congress began pondering a bill that would allow cops to peek into the bedrooms of private citizens whenever they wanted to, I rather think there would be a public outcry against it.

    However, HeadHunter logic would contend: "It is clearly inconsistent and hypocritical for you to make a blanket statement that we do not need the government to peek into our bedrooms on one hand and then make a contradictory statement supporting some government regulations such as murder and rape laws on the other. To be consistent you must support the elimination of all current government controls on personal behavior, including laws against murder, rape, robbery and theft."

    Hogwash. Whether it's the public airwaves or personal behavior, one can always oppose SOME government regulations without opposing ALL government regulations. Ergo, your "logial choice" withers like a vampire in the sun.


    Wow. Another strawman and so soon again. This is NOT my logical choice, it's YOURS. YOU made the original blanket statement, not me. Here it is again:

    Most conservatives don't want the government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks. They believe the free market is the best gauge of what the American public really wants to listen to -- not a bunch of politicians in Washington.

    I was simply refuting this statement with a suffiicent counter-example.

    If YOU still hold to your original statement which YOU have neither explicitly reaffirmed nor explicitly denied, then yes, it is logically inconsistent to hold this statement and then support some government controls in broadcasting. If you understand this logical inconsistency, yet you still hold to these positions, then it is hypocrisy.

    If YOU do NOT still hold to this statement, then repudiate it and concede that:

    In some cases, conservatives DO want the government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks. They DO NOT believe the free market is the best gauge of what the American public really wants to listen to -- not a bunch of politicians in Washington.


    That is, unless you can find an example of me saying I oppose ALL government regulation of the public airwaves. Not the evil, sinister, imaginary "theocons" that frolic around in your mind saying it -- ME saying it.

    You must be off your meds because you keep forgetting that YOU said this:
    Most conservatives don't want the government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks. They believe the free market is the best gauge of what the American public really wants to listen to -- not a bunch of politicians in Washington.


    Didn't think so. Checkmate.

    Next?


    HA HA HA. And you have the naked hypocrisy of accusing me of knocking over the pieces and screaming checkmate.

    And what is it with you theocons and fantasies about under-age boys anyway?

    I have to pause here because I'm having trouble stopping myself laughing.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 29 October, 2006 10:41  

  • The4thEstate said...
    Funny how my eyes are working well enough to notice that you did mention decency standards in a different previous post.

    Shall I jog your memory?

    HeadHunter said ...
    And yet you conservatives are gung-ho for the government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks when it comes to imposing your theocratic views on decency standards.

    You see, Head, if you could have actually proved that you NEVER said it, then you might have some semblance of a point. But since you did, in fact, raise this issue, why on earth can’t I comment on what you said about it?


    WTF? Where did I claim that you couldn't comment on the example that I provided concerning decency standards? You made a statement: that I was "stretching" the comparison between the Fairness Doctrine and decency standards "beyond the breaking point". I was simply indicating that I did not mention decency standards even once in the previous post which demonstrates that your statement about stretching the comparison was nothing more than baseless hyperbole.

    Ho ho ho. If you’ll calm down and take an occasional breath,

    It's difficult to catch my breath when your feebleminded "logic" makes me laugh so much.

    I’ll show you exactly what you claim doesn’t exist: a recent study showing that the media tilts to the left.
    www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
    Here's what the study found: "Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News,"

    The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal."

    And this study comes from UCLA and the University of Missouri, which aren’t exactly considered leading bastions of conservatism.

    "Thoroughly debunked," huh? Methinks it's your serve. Got facts?


    Geez! Not the flakey Groseclose and Milyo study again! How credible is a study that concludes that the ACLU is a right-wing organization, that the RAND corporation is further to the left than Amnesty International, and that the Drudge Report is liberal? Why? The methodology used on this study was found to be completely flawed. Scores assigned to legislators by the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA scores) were correlated against the frequency that various think-tank organizations were cited by these legislators in Congress to determine whether a think-tank was left or right. This flawed approach resulted in the ACLU being found to be a right-wing organization and the RAND organization being found to be to the left of Amnesty International. Then from these questionable results, a secondary correlation - which increases the MoE exponentially - was made against the number of times these think-tanks were cited by the various media outlets. The final results were useless as demonstrated by the fact that the Drudge Report was found to be liberal!

    On top of the flawed methodology and the dud results, the conservative pedigrees of the authors should be enough to emphatically consign this junk-research to the recycling pile. Groseclose was a Hoover Institution national fellow, while Milyo was granted $40,500 from the American Enterprise Institute. Both were Heritage Foundation Salvatori fellows.

    Spin again, pinhead.


    Then I guess you somehow missed this link I already provided – you know, the one leading to the story that said "Fox News Channel drew more viewers than any of the Big Three at the (2004) Republican Convention — an historic first in TV news but one likely to be repeated by Fox and other cable outlets."
    usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2004-11-07-media-mix_x.htm

    Y’know, Head, to me that would indicate a general, yet unmistakable trend: that Fox News is growing more popular while the networks lose audience. But perhaps you’re a bit slow to grasp such things.


    First, it's quite hilarious that the article you referred me to is titled: "For election coverage, we project NBC News as the winner" when you're trying to support the statement "...mainstream TV networks continue to lose market share to Fox News, etc.,"

    But let me get this straight; you believe that the Fox ratings for one isolated event - a conservative event - indicate a "general, yet unmistakeable trend". This is called a "spotlight fallacy" stupid. To use a single isolated event as evidence of a "general yet unmistakeable trend" is completely fallacious. But perhaps you're a bit slow to grasp such things.


    So let me give you something bigger to chew on – IF you can handle the truth:
    www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/
    narrative_networktv_audience.asp?
    cat=3&media=4

    And which cable news channel draws the largest audience ... hmmmm??


    Here's your original statement: "...which explains why (1) mainstream TV networks CONTINUE to lose market share to Fox News, etc.,"

    I provided counter-examples which showed that Fox is currently losing market share at double-digit rates and has been losing market share for most of 2006 clearly refuting your assertion that "...mainstream TV networks CONTINUE to lose market share to Fox News, etc."


    Yet I have "zero evidence" of this overall, decades-long trend, huh?

    Yep. You have shown zero evidence to support your statement: "...Which explains why (1) mainstream TV networks CONTINUE to lose market share to Fox News, etc.,". Nothing you have provided supports your assertion. The spotlight example of FNC coverage of the RNC in the 2004 does not support your assertion. The NBC Universal article - which didn't even mention ratings or market share - does not support your assertion.

    Indeed, I have provided substantial counter-evidence that the cable new networks especially FNC are currently losing significant market share and have been losing market share for some time; a trend that has been demonstrably evident since late 2005/early 2006.


    Excuse me for a moment ... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    Can you say "slam-dunk"?


    There are medications available that will help to stop the delusional cackling and the hallucinations.

    Really, Head, you should lay off that "Smartest Guy in the Room" routine when it comes to subjects you know next to nothing about. You'll only wind up embarrassing yourself in front of the whole Internet. Again.

    And yet you are so embarrassingly stupid to believe that spotlight fallacies, outdated data, and irrelevant articles are "slam-dunk" evidence that: "...mainstream TV networks CONTINUE to lose market share to Fox New, etc.". The only one who has embarrassed himself by this pathetically feeble argument in front of the whole Internet is YOU. AGAIN.

    Dream on, kid. As this post vividly illustrates, the only place I’ve planted my foot is deeply into the seat of your pants. (As Toby Keith said, it's the American way.)

    You're fantasizing again, pops. All that your post "vividly illustrates" is your stupidity and ignorance, and your propensity to delude yourself that your feebleminded "logic" is actually worth celebrating. Then again it seems the simple task of stringing two coherent thoughts together is for you a victory that is worth celebrating.

    And what's with this signing off each of your posts with a little fairy-tale?
    First it was your twisted little fantasy about shoolboys. Now it's my pants and Toby Keith. Sheesh! You perverted little theocons really are quite sick. If you spent less time concocting perverted fairy-tales, then maybe you wouldn't have your head handed to you so often.

    So here's your head, wingnut. AGAIN.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 29 October, 2006 20:36  

  • HeadHunter said ...
    YOU set up the choice with a stupid unqualified statement regarding conservatives' free (sic) market dogma in broadcasting; a statement that YOU posted. Let me remind you:

    "Most conservatives don't want the government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks. They believe the free market is the best gauge of what the American public really wants to listen to -- not a bunch of politicians in Washington."


    And THAT'S the best response you could come up with – taking one quote of mine and repeating it ad infinitum??? Wow, for some reason I expected more game from you ... instead of an answer that was, well, gamey.

    Anyway, Head, when you're done with the giggles, have a seat and get out your pencil and notebook. Y'know, I really hate to break this to you, but I've already covered this point. Several posts ago, in fact.

    But since you obviously weren't paying attention the first time (or maybe you just weren't swift enough to understand it), I'll break out the palette, canvas and watercolors and paint you a picture this time. To make things easier for you, I'll even paint by numbers.

    Ready? Behold the fatal flaw in your logic (or what passes for it in your world):

    The FCC’s definitions of obscenity and indecency AREN'T SET BY "A BUNCH OF POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON." THEY'RE SET BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT!

    (Cue Homer Simpson sound effect:)

    "D’OH!!!"

    Naturally, Head, I'm more than comfortable with the free market determining what programming remains on the public airwaves, and the judiciary determining whether the content of that programming is obscene or indecent. Alas, there's nothing hypocritical about that.

    Unless, of course, you seriously believe that Supreme Court justices are politicians, or that Supreme Court proceedings are a part of the free market (and please, feel free to make either of those assertions, because I could really use another good laugh).

    What's really pathetic on your part is that I not only explained this to you several posts ago – I even gave you the freakin' link, for crying out loud! Yet you proceeded to step on this land mine anyway - voluntarily.

    Join me now in a trip down Memory Lane, otherwise known as the scroll button.


    The4thEstate said ...
    That's because expletives/nudity fall under the category of what the FCC calls "obscene" and "indecent" programming. To wit:
    www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/
    obscene.html

    Notice that the FCC cites the Supreme Court's definition of obscenity in determining what can and can't be put on the public airwaves.


    Oh, and don't try pointing out that Congress gives the FCC the responsibility of enforcing decency standards. I already know that. The problem for you is, responsibility and enforcement aren't the same as defining what obscene and indecent ultimately are. As the FCC Web site notes:

    Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be broadcast at any time. The Supreme Court has established that, to be obscene, material must meet a three-pronged test:

    • An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

    • The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and

    • The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

    The courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

    Dear me, there are those inconvenient words again: "First Amendment ... Constitution ... the Supreme Court ... the courts." Not "a bunch of politicians in Washington."

    Of course, that wasn't the only weakness in your argument. I could also have easily refuted your position by pointing out that my earlier post referred to "programming" -- i.e., the actual programs carried by private radio stations -- not "content," which would encompass the actual language used in the programs. I could also have noted my consistency in saying that the people should decide what programs they want to listen to ... and the fact that the people already decide, indirectly, what obscenity is (through the Supreme Court's "contemporary community standards").

    But why bother with overkill? We're obviously not talking about "a bunch of politicians in Washington" here.

    Tsk tsk, Head. Didn't I advise you once to give up that Smartest Guy on the Room shtick? Sheesh, I tried to save you from yourself, but once again you've demonstrated that you're sadly out of your league on this subject.

    Oh well, thanks for the assist.



    HeadHunter said ...
    Why do you expect me to make things easy for you?

    With that post, you've answered your own question.

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 29 October, 2006 21:54  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 30 October, 2006 12:35  

  • WTF? Why has my post been deleted?

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 30 October, 2006 20:22  

  • And THAT'S the best response you could come up with – taking one quote of mine and repeating it ad infinitum???

    Yeah, it wasn't a lot of effort and it didn't take long. But rubbing your nose in YOUR OWN WORDS was more than sufficient to crush EVERY ONE of your feebleminded arguments. If it weren't for your dismal attention span and your dust-bowl of a memory, I wouldn't have had to remind you of YOUR OWN WORDS so many times.

    I particularly enjoyed this classic:
    That is, unless you can find an example of me saying I oppose ALL government regulation of the public airwaves. Not the evil, sinister, imaginary "theocons" that frolic around in your mind saying it -- ME saying it.

    So I needed to remind you of YOUR OWN WORDS that your defective memory doesn't seem to be able to retain:
    Most conservatives don't want the government dictating the programming of privately owned radio stations/networks. They believe the free market is the best gauge of what the American public really wants to listen to -- not a bunch of politicians in Washington.

    HA HA HA HA HA
    Absolutely priceless.


    But since you obviously weren't paying attention the first time (or maybe you just weren't swift enough to understand it), I'll break out the palette, canvas and watercolors and paint you a picture this time. To make things easier for you, I'll even paint by numbers.

    Ready? Behold the fatal flaw in your logic (or what passes for it in your world):


    Dear oh dear, wingnut. You really need to start taking some of your own advice about paying attention because your latest slow-witted attempt at argument is going to take even less effort to dismember than the last. It's tragic really... to see an ignorant wingnut get his hopes up so high only to see them utterly crushed so easily. Too bad.

    The FCC’s definitions of obscenity and indecency AREN'T SET BY "A BUNCH OF POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON." THEY'RE SET BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT!

    (Cue Homer Simpson sound effect:)

    "D’OH!!!"


    The Homer Simpson sound effect is quite apt because the FCC's definitions of "indecent" and "profane" are NOT set by the US Supreme Court, they are defined by THE FCC in accordance with Federal statutes: 47 U.S.C. § 151, 47 U.S.C. § 154, and 18 U.S.C. § 1464.

    "D'OH!!!"

    The US Supreme Court has ONLY ruled on what constitutes "obscene" material. NOT what constitutes "indecency" or "profanity".

    "D'OH!!!"

    The Federal statutes that empower the FCC were formulated, codified, and passed as legislation by "A BUNCH OF POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON". Through these Federal statutes the FCC has been given the power to define the rules with respect to "indecency" and "profanity" and to enforce such rules.

    "D'OH!!!"

    The FCC is "directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 5-year terms". Current commissioners are:

    Kevin J Martin - Republican
    Michael J. Copps - Democrat
    Jonathan S. Adelstein - Democrat
    Deborah Taylor Tate - Republican
    Robert M. McDowell - Republican

    The FCC which has been given the power through Federal statutes by "A BUNCH OF POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON" to define and enforce rules with respect to "indecency" and "profanity consists of ... surprise, surprise... "A BUNCH OF POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON". Every one of the FCC commissioners is a former politician or party political operative.

    "D'OH!!!"

    "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress."

    So the FCC - "A BUNCH OF POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON" - reports to Congress - "A BUNCH OF POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON".

    "D'OH!!!"



    Naturally, Head, I'm more than comfortable with the free market determining what programming remains on the public airwaves, and the judiciary determining whether the content of that programming is obscene or indecent. Alas, there's nothing hypocritical about that.

    It's absolutely hilarious that a wingnut conservative is actually advocating that the judiciary - especially the US Supreme Court - should be allowed define and interpret TV and radio broadcasting rules in relation to contemporary community standards. Aren't you theocons supposed to be strict constructionalists? Oops! There goes another dearly held theocon "principle".

    But the truth is the judiciary doesn't determine whether the content of radio programming on the public airwaves is indecent. The FCC does. Not only does the FCC have the power to define the rules of what is indecent and profane, it also has the power to DETERMINE whether programming on the public airwaves complies with these rules. From the same freakin' link that YOU provided:

    "Enforcement actions in this area are based on documented complaints received from the public about obscene, indecent, or profane material. FCC staff will review each complaint to DETERMINE whether it contains sufficient information to suggest that there has been a violation of the obscenity, indecency, or profanity laws."

    "If the FCC DETERMINES that the complained-of material was obscene, indecent, and/or profane, it may issue a Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL), which is a preliminary finding that the law or the FCC's rules have been violated."


    The FCC - "A BUNCH OF POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON" - defines the rules and determines whether programming on public airwaves complies with those rules."

    What's really pathetic on your part is that all of this information about the FCC, the rules that it defined, and its powers to enforce such rules is right there in the freakin' link that YOU provided for crying out loud. Right there in front of your face. Yet you proceeded to step on YOUR OWN landmine anyway - voluntarily.



    Join me now in a trip down Memory Lane, otherwise known as the scroll button.

    The4thEstate said ...
    That's because expletives/nudity fall under the category of what the FCC calls "obscene" and "indecent" programming. To wit:
    www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/
    obscene.html

    Notice that the FCC cites the Supreme Court's definition of obscenity in determining what can and can't be put on the public airwaves.


    The FCC rules on "indecency" and "profanity" that were formulated by the FCC - "A BUNCH OF POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON" - are what dictate what can and can't be put on the public airwaves. And it's all there in the freakin' link that YOU provided.

    Dear me, there are those inconvenient words again: "First Amendment ... Constitution ... the Supreme Court ... the courts." Not "a bunch of politicians in Washington."

    Nope. "A BUNCH OF POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON" - the FCC - formulated the FCC rules on "indecency" and "profanity" and these rules dictate the programming on public airwaves.

    Of course, that wasn't the only weakness in your argument. I could also have easily refuted your position by pointing out that my earlier post referred to "programming" -- i.e., the actual programs carried by private radio stations -- not "content," which would encompass the actual language used in the programs.

    Your stupidity knows no bounds. From that same freakin' link that YOU provided:

    "It is a violation of federal law to air obscene PROGRAMMING at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to air indecent PROGRAMMING or profane language during certain hours."

    FCC rules explicitly apply to both programming and language content. For crying out loud, are you severely retarded or just freakin' blind?


    But why bother with overkill? We're obviously not talking about "a bunch of politicians in Washington" here.

    Why do you bother at all? Only the truly stupid would read the FCC indecency rules from the freakin' link that YOU provided and conclude that the FCC - "A BUNCH OF POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON" - which formulated these rules is totally irrelevant. What the hell are you smoking?

    Tsk tsk, Head. Didn't I advise you once to give up that Smartest Guy on the Room shtick? Sheesh, I tried to save you from yourself, but once again you've demonstrated that you're sadly out of your league on this subject.

    HA HA HA HA HA
    After this post of yours, it's absolutely certain that my dog would be the Smartest Guy in the Room if alone with YOU. But with your perverted little thecon habits I can assure that I won't be letting you within a mile of my dog.

    Geez Louise... the same freakin' link that YOU provided which was supposedly intended to expose my "flawed logic" simply strengthened my argument further and crushed your idiotic case completely. You've demonstrated that you can't even freakin' read a simple set of paragraphs on the FCC web page. There is no league low enough or stupid enough that would accept you on your knowledge of this subject or any other.


    Oh well, thanks for the assist.

    No, YOU deserve the entire credit for this spectacular own goal. I insist.

    HeadHunter said ...
    Why do you expect me to make things easy for you?

    With that post, you've answered your own question.


    And therein lies your problem: you're used to the easy ride inside the wingnut bubble. But outside you are sadly left wanting for even the most basic 3rd grade level of brains and common-sense.

    And where's your little fairy-tale? It looks like I was mistaken: even when you skip the perverted fairy-tales, you can't avoid having your head handed to you.

    Here it is. AGAIN.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 30 October, 2006 21:24  

  • Head, I won't waste a lot of time with your last post. You accomplished that all by yourself.

    HeadHunter said ...
    The FCC rules on "indecency" and "profanity" that were formulated by the FCC - "A BUNCH OF POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON" - are what dictate what can and can't be put on the public airwaves. And it's all there in the freakin' link that YOU provided.

    I notice that you've already quietly conceded my point on obscenity and are now scrambling for cover under the word "indecency." And you think (hope, pray) that those politicians in Washington call all the shots on that particular aspect of broadcasting, do you?

    Well, that's very interesting, considering this excerpt from "the freakin' link that (I) provided." Maybe you should try reading it:


    The courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

    Consistent with a federal indecency statute and federal court decisions interpreting the statute, the Commission adopted a rule that broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are prohibited and subject to indecency enforcement action.

    Oops, what were those two words again? Oh, yeah: THE COURTS.

    And WHY was it that the FCC had to adopt a rule that "fit within the indecency definition"? Was it because the FCC can do anything it bloody well pleases with regard to indecency??

    Gosh, no ... it's because the FCC had to conform to "federal court decisions interpreting the statute."

    Not FEDERAL POLITICIANS, Head ol' chum -- FEDERAL COURTS.

    (Cue Homer Simpson sound effect.) "D'OH!"


    HeadHunter said ...
    The FCC - 'A BUNCH OF POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON' - defines the rules and determines whether programming on public airwaves complies with those rules.

    Well, DUH.

    OF COURSE the FCC defines rules and makes determinations on compliance. Tell me something I haven't known for 30 years. But typically, you've presented only half the story.

    Here's an idea ... LET'S LET THE FCC SPEAK FOR ITSELF ON THE MATTER OF INDECENCY:

    www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/
    DA-03-469A1.html


    This definition has been specifically upheld by the federal courts.

    Upheld by WHOM??

    The Commission's authority to restrict the broadcast of indecent material extends to times when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

    But why would the FCC's authority be limited in any way if it "dictated" what could be put on the public airwaves?

    But wait, there's more, again from the FCC's mouth:


    Federal courts have upheld Congress's authority to regulate obscene speech and, to a limited extent, indecent speech.

    Accordingly, Congress may prohibit the broadcast of obscene speech at any time. In contrast, federal courts have held that indecent speech is protected by the First Amendment.

    Well, whaddya know ... seems the judiciary has a major role in determining what those politicians in Washington can call indecent as well as what they can call obscene.

    Let's see what else sprang from your vivid imagination (aside from your usual unimaginative, schoolyard-quality name calling):


    HeadHunter said ...
    The US Supreme Court has ONLY ruled on what constitutes "obscene" material. NOT what constitutes "indecency" or "profanity".

    Guess your concession on the subject of obscenity wasn't so quiet after all. I'll accept that reluctant admission, even if you did try to disguise it as a declaration.

    But don't fool yourself into thinking that the Supreme Court has never addressed the topic of indecency.

    Note the following excerpt from the 2004 "CRS Report for Congress":

    www.fac.org/pdf/CRS.childporn.
    ob.4.pdf

    The Supreme Court has said that “the normal definition of ‘indecent’ merely refers to nonconformance with accepted standards of morality” ...

    Indecent material is protected by the First Amendment unless it constitutes obscenity or child pornography. Except on broadcast radio and television, indecent material that is protected by the First Amendment may be restricted by the government only “to promote a compelling interest” and only by “the least restrictive means to further the articulated interest.”

    The Supreme Court has “recognized that there is a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors. This interest extends to shielding minors from the influence of literature that is not obscene by adult standards.”

    Gee whiz, looks like the Supremes had something to say about indecency after all. Sure, there's no three-pronged test, but that does not -- as you desperately hope -- mean that "a bunch of politicians in Washington" get to "dictate what can and can't be put on the public airwaves" in any final sense.

    The FCC can certainly make indecency rules and rulings, but what do you think happens when a station or network doesn't agree with the findings? Does the FCC get to "dictate" the final outcome?

    Read and learn:


    zap2it.com/tv/news/
    zap-courtstaysfccruling,0,
    1742208.story?coll=zap-tv-headlines


    FCC Gets Time to Rethink Indecency Rulings

    ... The rulings, which involved an episode of "NYPD Blue," CBS' "Early Show" and two broadcasts of the Billboard Music Awards, prompted a lawsuit by several networks challenging the FCC's standards for indecent language.

    The ruling issued Thursday by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York gives the commission 60 days to re-examine its decisions, which were based on the notion that any utterance of "f***" or "s***" on broadcast TV is indecent, regardless of its context.

    Still think the FCC "defines the rules and determines whether programming on public airwaves complies with those rules"? Gosh, when a federal appeals court gives you 60 days to re-examine your decisions, it would appear that somebody else is doing a heck of a lot more of the dictating and determining than you are.

    Here's the key part of the aforementioned FCC link, however. I figured you'd appreciate the fact that I considerately saved the best for last:


    In enforcing its indecency rule, the Commission has defined indecent speech as language that first, in context, depicts or describes sexual organs or activities. Second, the broadcast must be "patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium."

    WHOA WHOA WHOA ... "patently offensive" as measured by WHAT??? Write this down, Head:

    CONTEMPORARY COMMUNITY STANDARDS.

    And those are the FCC'S OWN WORDS. Meaning that, as with obscenity, the FCC bases its decisions on what THE PEOPLE consider indecent. Not what "A BUNCH OF POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON" consider indecent.

    So we've come full circle, right back to the bottom-line assertions I've been maintaining all along: Decency standards -- like the ratings that decide the success of radio programs -- are a measure of what the people want. Ergo, my stance is totally consistent.

    Next ...

    (Cue Homer Simpson sound effect.) "D'OH!"

    Sorry to inform you, Head, but with that last half-baked post, your Smartest Guy in the Room claim is now in serious jeopardy -- even within the confines of your own house (or should I say "mother's basement"). The fact that you own a dog means you could finish no better than second place in that competition.

    And if you have a potted plant ... third.

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 02 November, 2006 19:19  

  • I would be remiss if I didn't also burst your little bubble on Fox News.

    HeadHunter said ...
    Here's your original statement: "...which explains why (1) mainstream TV networks CONTINUE to lose market share to Fox News, etc.,"

    I provided counter-examples which showed that Fox is currently losing market share at double-digit rates and has been losing market share for most of 2006 clearly refuting your assertion that "...mainstream TV networks CONTINUE to lose market share to Fox News, etc."


    If that’s what you seriously believe you provided, then you’d better enroll in a freshman-level statistics course – not to mention an editing course. Because you haven’t come within 10 zip codes of providing “a refutation of (my) assertion that ‘mainstream networks continue to lose market share to Fox News, etc.’”

    Behold the reasons why you haven’t refuted anything (other than your own deluded notions of superiority):

    1. Even if Fox News’ ratings are down by double digits, that’s not the whole story – and I’m frankly astounded that you believe it is.

    Do you seriously not get the fact that documenting a drop in Fox News’ ratings DOES NOT, IN AND OF ITSELF, DISPROVE MY POINT? You don’t??

    Ok then, let’s take this lesson slowly. Remember this phrase: “mainstream networks continue to lose market share to Fox News, etc.”? And remember those Fox News ratings links that you’ve been patting yourself on the back for finding?

    Now ... ummm ... tell me one more itsy bitsy thing, Head:

    WHERE IN THOSE TWO LINKS IS YOUR PROOF THAT THE MAINSTREAM TV NETWORKS HAVE NOT CONTINUED TO LOSE MARKET SHARE ANYWAY, REGARDLESS OF FOX NEWS’ RATINGS?

    Go ahead, look it up -- they're YOUR links:
    mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/
    q1_06_total_viewers_vs_q1_05_34497.asp

    mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/
    q3_06_everyone_is_down_44658.asp


    Ok, since you don’t seem particularly savvy in this area, I suspect I’d better explain this in terms that perhaps even you can understand:

    Both of the links you’re so proud of address ONLY THE CABLE NEWS RATINGS. BUT THEY MAKE NO MENTION OF THE TV NETWORKS’ RATINGS!

    That’s right, Mr. (Third) Smartest Guy in the Room, here are the TV networks that are covered in those “comprehensive” links you’ve been bragging about: FNC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, HLN. Notice anything missing from that list? Like NBC, CBS and ABC??

    (Cue Nelson Muntz sound effect.) “HA-ha!!”

    As anyone remotely familiar with statistics would know, it’s entirely possible that the mainstream TV networks’ ratings dropped even more than Fox News'.

    But it doesn’t really matter at this point – because we already have you on record arrogantly asserting that you proved me wrong ... despite giving us only HALF THE STORY (at best)! Again.

    I freakin’ love it. And that’s not even the best part. But you’ll have to wait a little longer for the entree.

    2. I find it telling that you apparently lack the intellectual curiosity to explore the question of why Fox News AND CNN AND MSNBC would be down by double-digit percentage points during the same recent survey.

    And you know what? If your “research” hadn’t just stopped with the first page of Google results, here’s what you might have found – on the Mediaweek.com Web site, no less: the same source cited by YOUR LINKS:


    mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?
    vnu_content_id=1003157477&imw=Y


    Huge ratings tied to coverage of Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath may have skewed the third-quarter numbers for last year, as cable news slumped in general. CNN Headline News was down 28 percent in total viewers and fell another 29 percent in the news demo, while MSNBC dropped 22 percent in overall ratings and 25 percent among 25-54s. Only last-place CNBC showed growth in the quarter, gaining 9 percent in total viewers (137,000), which was offset by a 9 percent fall-off in the 25-54 demo (61,000).

    Well, hush my mouth! The numbers you’re so proud of yourself for finding MAY HAVE BEEN SKEWED ... says the VERY SOURCE YOU USED!!

    Gosh, you were so thrilled to find a slump in Fox News' ratings that you didn’t even ask yourself what might account for such a sudden, dramatic change.

    Tsk tsk ... bad show, Head. But still, not the worst on your part.

    Wanna know what that is?

    3. Ok, since Halloween’s over, I’ll spare you further suspense.

    The best part (for me, anyway) is that – in your overeagerness to finally score a point against me – you overlooked an extremely important word in my original statement ... you know, the statement you keep quoting. Let’s go over it again, more slowly this time for your sake, shall we?:

    "...mainstream TV networks continue to lose market share to Fox News, etc."

    Ummm ... what’s the last word in that sentence, Head ol’ boy? No no, it’s not “News.” It’s “etc.” And gee, what does “etc.” means? Oh, that’s right:

    “AND OTHERS”! AS IN, “BESIDES FOX NEWS.” YET YOUR “RESEARCH” CAME TO A SCREECHING HALT WITH FOX NEWS ALONE!

    Don’t bother scrolling back to my original statement. You won’t like what you’re going to find in the previous paragraph:

    “Thanks to the rise of the new media ...”

    Whoops – if you’d paid any attention, you’d have noticed that I was talking about not only Fox News, but other cable news outlets, the blogosphere, etc. SO DO YOU THINK THEY’VE ALL BEEN LOSING GROUND TO THE OLD MEDIA DURING THE PAST FEW DECADES, HEAD?

    (Cue Nelson Muntz sound effect.) “HA-ha!!”

    Here, I’ll save you the Google:

    online.wsj.com/public/article/
    SB111643067458336994-dZdpfVsBBc8Y17
    yRcFtFhF_8YWk_20060522.html?mod=blogs

    The six broadcast networks -- ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, UPN and the WB -- are facing big threats. Aside from the ascent of cable channels and videogames, there's the evolution of the DVD and the birth of broadband and wireless technologies -- not to mention the creation of satellite radio, high-definition TV and digital video recorders like TiVo. In 1978, the three original broadcast networks captured about 90% of the prime-time audience. Today, it's less than 50 percent.

    Here, save this for future reference: m-w.com/dictionary/et%20cetera

    (Cue Nelson Muntz sound effect.) “HA-ha!!”

    Didn’t I warn you that you were out of your league on this subject? You should trust me on this ... I’m just trying to look after that Macy’s Thanksgiving Parade-worthy ego of yours before it loses any more helium.

    4. Of course, none of your assertions on this topic have ever been relevant in the first place. (So why do I keep discussing them at all? Because I enjoy making you look silly.)

    Fact is, my original post was addressing a long-term trend in the media: The fact that, since 1980, the mainstream TV networks have been steadily losing their news audience, whereas the new media have been on the rise.(No, Head, the old media trend is not a perfectly smooth line from the upper left-hand corner to the bottom right, nor did I claim it was. As with the stock market, even the strongest trends tend to fluctuate occasionally. But as the evening news ratings demonstrate, the overall trend is unmistakable.)

    Oops, that reminds me – you accused me of using “outdated data.” Hey, that’s cool ... if you didn’t like the previous State of the News Media report, follow these links and you’ll see what the 2006 report found. Hint: The mainstream TV networks’ sagging news ratings didn’t suddenly reverse themselves. To wit:


    stateofthenewsmedia.org/2006/
    narrative_networktv_intro.asp?media=5


    The underlying problems of network news continue without apparent interruption. The evening news lost more viewers in 2005. The audience for news continues to skew old, and advertisers remain preoccupied with the young.
    stateofthenewsmedia.org/2006/
    chartland.asp?id=209&ct=line&dir=
    &sort=&col1_box=1&col2_box=1&col3_
    box=1


    Sorry, your little celebratory ballerina dance was premature.

    HeadHunter said ...
    So here's your head, wingnut. AGAIN.

    Ah yes, here’s my head, all right – right on my neck where it’s always been. But yours looks great on my wall.

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 02 November, 2006 19:57  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger