The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

28 June 2007

Fairness Doctrine Funding Ban Passes In House Vote, Rep Mike Pence (R-IN)

IT'S A BLOWOUT

Symbolic Fairness Doctrine Vote Favors Free Speech, For Now







Take that, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Harry Reid!

At least for the moment, any attempt at bringing back the FCC's former Fairness Doctrine (known as "Hush Rush") has been shelved.

But over the long run, this largely symbolic, 309-115 House romp may not stop increasingly- determined Democrats from shutting down talk radio as we know it today. While today's vote prevents using taxpayer dollars to fund any reimplementation of the agency's past policy, the real test will come after the 2008 presidential election.

That's when an elected Democrat president would have the opportunity to stack the FCC with the party's own directors, which would mean an almost certain reimposition of free speech- stifling regulations. If Congress remains in Democrat hands, this scenario would be even more likely.


For now, however, we can savor what may prove a pyrrhic victory in this nation's culture wars. From The Hill:


Fairness Doctrine hammered 309-115

By Alexander Bolton

June 28, 2007
The House voted overwhelmingly Thursday to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from using taxpayer dollars to impose the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters who feature conservative radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

By a vote of 309-115, lawmakers amended the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill to bar the FCC from requiring broadcasters to balance conservative content with liberal programming such as Air America.

The vote count was partly a testament to the influence that radio hosts wield in many congressional districts.

It was also a rebuke to Democratic senators and policy experts who have voiced support this week for regulating talk radio.

House Democrats argued that it was merely a Republican political stunt because there is little danger of the FCC restricting conservative radio while George W. Bush is president.

Republicans counter that they are worried about new regulations if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said on Tuesday that the government should revive the Fairness Doctrine, a policy crafted in 1929 that required broadcasters to balance political content with different points of view.

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” he said. “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Rules Committee, said this week that she would review the constitutional and legal issues involved in re-establishing the doctrine.

Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), the Democratic Party’s 2004 presidential nominee, also said recently that the Fairness Doctrine should return.

In 1985 the FCC discarded the policy after deciding that it restricted journalistic freedom and “actually inhibit[ed] the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and in degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists,” according to a Congressional Research Service report.

Thursday, the House firmly rejected the prospect of requiring balanced views on talk radio.

Before the passage of the amendment, which he sponsored, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a former full-time radio host, forecast a big majority and took a shot at the Senate, saying: “This House will say what some in the other body are not saying, that we believe in freedom on the airwaves. We reject the doctrines of the past that would have this federal government manage political speech on the public airwaves.”


Especially after their bruising defeat on the amnesty bill for illegal immigrants, don't expect Democrats to give up this fight for even a moment. With right- leaning blogs for now considerably smaller than their liberal counterparts, taking out talk radio could deliver a knockout punch to the conservative movement.


FOR Boston- area talk radio updates, see our other site. New: fresh ratings just released.

SAVE Internet radio: it's nearly too late!


Please help support the Radio Equalizer:

Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, help to further this site's efforts.

Or, if you would prefer, please contribute at the Honor System box in the upper right corner. Thanks again!



Technorati tags:

22 Comments:

  • "Symbolic Fairness Doctrine Vote Favors Free Speech, For Now"

    Brian, your idiotic headline infers Americans actually enjoy freedom of speech now, which is incorrect.

    Talk radio is totally dominated and controlled by neocon agitprop and the interests of multinational corporations. Progressives are essentially denied any voice and have no recourse against right-wing spin machine.

    This must change...

    By any means necessary.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 28 June, 2007 21:40  

  • Hash,

    Is Ed Schultz a neocon? Randi Rhodes?

    Can I pick up the Seattle Times and read an equal number of conservative columnists as they have liberal columnists?

    Shall we change the national media composure, given than more than 90% donate exclusively to the Democrats?

    By Blogger Da, at 28 June, 2007 23:51  

  • Firstly, Ed Schultz is far from liberal, and secondly, what does a fantastic, vital, relevant liberal talk show host (who was deliberately and maliciously prevented through corporate by Limpbowel himself, from being syndicated)like Ms. Rhodes have anything to do with it? Neocons have worked feverishly and tirelessly from day one to derail AAR, to the point of infiltrating its management, and destroying it from inside, going so far as to install crypto-neocon management and now, ownership.

    Not many Americans consider that sort of behavior "the free market at work" or any of the other empty platitudes you pin your own common cannibalization of every American's airwaves.

    You cannot blame legitimate newspapers like the New York Times for reporting on facts you simply do not wish to confront or accept.

    Nor can you explain away the multinational venture capitalist cabal's complete strangleholds on the networks, the frightening proportion of televised right-wing extremist hate pundits,
    and even the purveying of simple faith like "24" as anything other than the very definition of fascism in media itself.

    This deadly drumbeat permeates every facet of America today save one...the progressive blogosphere and internet radio, the lone, unfettered liberal voice of the disenfranchised, in an increasingly ravaged, barren intellectual landscape.

    Given these circumstances, I should worry that you are incapable of finding sufficient media sources to your liking, when you control almost ninety percent of the entire US media yourselves?

    If you wish to whine in perpetuity about such difficulties, I respectfully suggest you pick a less ridiculous rationale to insult the reader with.

    You were more than willing to "change the national media composure" to exclude the interests of virtually every other American whose views differed with yours.

    The effects of this on the nation have been noted and documented.

    It's time to recalibrate the industry, to more clearly meet the essential needs of every other American.

    Perhaps Scaife can hook you up.

    (Again.)

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 29 June, 2007 01:17  

  • So the fact that liberal voices are heard on talk radio doesn't matter.

    And the way to save free speech is to regulate it to force what you believe is a fair and balanced amount.

    Can we apply the same standards to the other media? You choose how much coverage/presence the liberals get on talk radio, I'll choose for TV...

    By Blogger Da, at 29 June, 2007 02:06  

  • ash,

    You are so delusional, you have no credibility, except with whackos like MoPoop.

    By Blogger PCD, at 29 June, 2007 08:42  

  • DA:Shall we change the national media composure, given than more than 90% donate exclusively to the Democrats?


    This is complete insanity, the ENTIRE cable news world is conservative leaning, including CNN. Would "lib media" give an open forum for Ann Coulter such as the liberal MSNBC did? Or CNN?

    How can you continue to alter the truth and continue to spout this myth of "liberal media"? It is complete and total bullshit.

    all you have to do is sit there and watch the f*cing news on the T.V, the news is conservative by omission.... What do I mean? Important stories that cast the GOP in a negative light are completly ignored until the stories reach a conclusion.

    For example The Plame/Wilson/Rove/Libby controversy, where the CIA operative was outed, the story was IGNORED 100% of CNN,NBC,MSNBC,ABC,CBS,FOX until the story was about to wrap up. They covered the Libby trial, but for the 3 years before the Libby story, NO COVERAGE, NO COVERAGE of the outing of Plame, no coverage of the original cross examinations whicxh landed Libby into trouble. NO COVERAGE... I ask you where is the liberal media?
    The media is not even close to liberal, the media is 100% slanted in a way to NOT give people IMPORTANT news about their government, unless a Democrat is in charge. FACT
    Keith Olberman is the only balance in the entire MSM..... So that is ONE HOUR of NEWS a DAY on all of broadcast journalism.

    I'm so tired of having to do this every time some delusional right wing HACK, spouts "lib media"

    Lets's see some other examples. The Subponeas this week, handed to Cheney's office regarding the wiretaps. CNN barely mentioned it, I timed how long the story was on the wire tap issue, 30 seconds, Paris Hilton got at least 16 hours coverage all together. This is CNN folks. "liberal CNN".
    Can a single con sh*t on this board explain to me how a media that ignored as story about subpoenas being given to the V.P's office is not important for more than 30 seconds? THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE may have broken the LAW by allowing the illegal wiretapping and pressuring Ashcroft to sign them into law (which never happened), and the "liberal media" does not cover it? A pro wrestler's death and murder of his family received more COVERAGE than this story!!!!
    CNN will have GLEN BECK fill in for Paula Zahn (I think thats how you spell her name) all week next week, liberal media????????????
    There is basicalyl a conbstitutional crisis in America as I write this, the V.P will most likley ignorew the next round of subpoeans and this will end up a constitutional crisis, ending in the higher courts. Will the media touch any of this? Absolutly not, they are barley covering ANY Of THIs.


    So DA
    I demand of you to site some examples of "liberal media"????

    ABC is campaiging for Fred Thompson, they allow him to keep a blog on ABC's nEWS SITE online!!!!! They allow him to host PODCASTS for ABC news. liberal media? How is the liberal media involved in a conflict of interest with a Republican/conservative candidate?

    Answer me, how is the media "liberal".

    anyone who claims this, is either funstionly retarded, brainwashed by Limbaugh and never actually watched the T.C or they just say it, because it is all they have left to defend their failed ideology.


    again hacks, show me the "liberal media"

    Every time some con sh*t claims it, I will responsd with the f*cking facts.

    Liberal media that sells books for Ann Coulter? you useful idiots,

    WHERE IS THE LIBERAL MEDIA?

    they recite the myth so frequently it is actually scary..... They are totally brainwashed like Good Germans, they actually believe an easily did-proven LIE.

    All you have to do is watch the f*c*ing T.V, dolts.

    and you will see for yourself.

    If you think Im full of crap, I challange any of you, to stay in this weekend and write down the topic of each news story on the MSM. You will see that the MSM is conservative simply by omission and lack of coverage of important stories regarding he disturbing GOP hacks in the executive branch.

    Can anyone take my challange?


    i will be waiting a long long long time
    and PCD, 3 words for you
    as Dick Cheney said "GO F*CK YOURSEF", you have ZERO credibility, your a brainless twit, as in empty headed retard.

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 29 June, 2007 09:44  

  • . They covered the Libby trial, but for the 3 years before the Libby story, NO COVERAGE, NO COVERAGE of the outing of Plame

    Because the leaker was ... Richard Armitage!

    no coverage of the original cross examinations whicxh landed Libby into trouble.

    Probably because the crosses revealed that David Gregory knew about Plame before Novak's column, something he has NEVER reported. Also uncovered during the cross was that Russert filed a false affidavidt with the court. Who wants to guess that if Bill O'Reilly had pulled such a stunt, it'd lead the evening news for 3 months straight?

    ignored as story about subpoenas being given to the V.P's office is not important for more than 30 seconds? THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE may have broken the LAW

    Just because a subpoena was issued doesn't mean anyone broke the law ... unless you're Mike Nifong. Besides, with all the promises the Democratics made that they wouldn't turn the Congress into a "nothing but investigations" sideshow, reminding the public that they broke their promise might drag down their 14% approval rating. And that's hard to do!

    By Blogger BF, at 29 June, 2007 10:34  

  • Jon Keller of WBZ-TV Boston on why he feels Kerry is wrong about the Fairness Doctrine.

    http://www.wbztv.com/kellerblog

    "...Third, Kerry and his fellow whiners are completely missing the point about the new media landscape. A million flowers are blooming there...Just because the marketplace wouldn't support Air America doesn't mean that a vast right-wing conspiracy has hijacked the airwaves, is suppressing liberal thought, and needs to be reined in by federal cops. Air America did a poor job of programming and promotion. Some of its hosts were too shrill; others were too dull."

    By Blogger raccoonradio, at 29 June, 2007 11:09  

  • MOP,

    So who decides what's conservative and what's liberal? You have to do that if you're going to RATION speech.

    And if we're going to apply it to talk radio, then we'll apply it to TV and print as well.

    And if you CAN'T see the liberal bias in the media, then I guess you're hyper-left, where a reporter like Dan Rather is considered mainstream or conservative, never mind he FABRICATED a STORY to destroy a sitting Republican President...

    Look no further than where the majority of journalists send their political donations (hint: 90%+ to Democrats). Or the multiple surveys and polls of the media over the last 40 years (check out the Media Research Center's summaries of the polls).

    See, you're missing the fundamental fact:

    You think the media is conservative. I think the media is liberal.

    If I was making the choices and the Fairness Doctrine was in play, then we'd have a lot more conservative voices on all media.

    If you were making the choices and the Fairness Doctrine was in play, then we'd have the few conservative voices on the media cut back further.

    Either way, it's censorship. You want to go down this path? What happens when the White House stays with the Republicans, and the Senate - and maybe the House - swing back to the Conservative viewpoint? You sure you want to Federally Mandate "political content" on the air?

    Air America failed because most of the content did not support advertising. Not interesting enough for listeners. Pure and simple.

    The fact that a few - Schultz and Rhodes, for example - still survive and are growing a listener base shows that it's CONTENT and PRESENTATION, not just viewpoint that matters.

    Build a network with polished folks like Schultz and you'd have a viable business plan. Short of that, it'll go no where...

    By Blogger Da, at 29 June, 2007 11:32  

  • DA
    When you stack up the instances, you can clearly see the media is conservative by omission. Newsworthy stories are buried if they harm the GOP.
    You can bet your last $$ that if Al Gore was served subpoenas it would be the lead story, all over the media.

    I think this is the most teling example. how can the media ignore an incident, that can lead to impeachment of the V.P?

    The wire tapping was clearly illegal guys. They violated federal law and NEVER changed the LAW either, as Ashcroft refused to sign their version of FISA in to law.

    So you have a story where the executive branch quite possibly violated federal law, and its worthy of 30 seconds??

    Imagine again if Al Gore got handed subpoenas? come on Da, be objective, you know Im right.

    I do not see the liberal bias, anywhere. Dan Rather, is the only case you have to use for a "liberal media", so that would be 1 hour of television 3 years ago. as Cheney would say "that just doesen't hold any water"...... The media is conservative by omission. Just yesterday I saw more Republican bias on the T.V on NBC....
    David Gregory was actually quoting Ann Coulter regarding John Edwardss earning $50,000 ONE TIMe, for ONE speech he made...... Meanwhile Rudy Giuliani has earned over $14 million doing public speaking, so $50K vs $14 MILLION, including 1.7 million in 1 month alone.... yet, Gregory attacks Edwards and ignores the facts I just presented to you.... Again another case of Republican bias in the media.

    This happens all day all the time, you do not notice it , DA, because the bias falls in your favor.

    Again I'm still looking for a conservative Media Matters to prove to me their is liberal bias. If the media is "liberal" why cant a conservative group prove it? Is Dan Rather your only case for a lib media? it appears it just may be.

    Da; The truth is, when I was 15 I was a Republican, what changed me was the obvious bias in the media, I was amazed by it, and I had this revelation when I was 17 years old, many years ago. How come I was able to figure this out so long ago.

    Again a reporters political affiliation has nothing to do with what they report on. This is logic man.. the reporter does not pick what to cover, the upper management does. I know "liberals" who work at WABC radio, does it mean WABC radio presents liberal talk, because some liberals sell advertising and do production work at the studio?
    the reporters liberal politcs play no impact on the on-air product. This is obvious.


    As Far as the Fairness Doctrine, I think it is more important to require disclaimers on pundit radio programs, many pundits use false information on a daily basis, most Guilty: Limbaugh, Hannity and Marc Levin. Last week Marc levin still insisted Plame was not covert, this is after the head of the CIA said she was covert. This is DANGEROUS, my friend. It is one thing to have an opinion, but another thing all together to use false facts to back your opinion. My solution; a DISCLAIMER at the start of each segment on all pundit shows.

    "the following program an opinion based program, not a news program. The host may omit important facts in order to prove his point or change the facts all together in order to make his/her point stronger"

    I think that is fair. RNC radio hosts are LIARS. I know, I listen sometimes. what Marc Levin says does not match with reality. This is why RNC radio is dangerous. Liberals do not twist the facts as much, some of them are guilty, but nowhere near as frequently as RNC hosts. As a host myself, I only deal with FACTS, to form an opinion, we do not twist the facts to prove a point. We may joke and speculate, but NEVER misrepresnet what actually happens. These people mis-represent the facts EVERY F*CKING DAY.
    I think a disclaimer would benefit the listener and encourage free thinking and get people to READ instead of listening alone to a talk show host for news.

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 29 June, 2007 12:17  

  • MOP,

    It's pretty clear that you and I will never agree that the media is liberal or the media is conservative; where you see a heavily conservative media, I see a heavily liberal media.

    So we can argue back and forth forever about it, and get nowhere. Because I really don't think we'll change each other's minds on some forum on the Internet...:)

    HOWEVER, I think this is a SHINING example of why the Fairness Doctrine should be run away from as quickly as possible. WHO decides what is fair? Who decides what ratio is "fair", and which person constitutes the liberal or conservative side of things?

    You want that disclaimer? Great. I want to see and hear it on the Evening News, the NYT, The Seattle Times, and most other news sources. Because bias is there. And it's overwhelmingly tilted towards the Democrats.

    For example, even here (and on NPR and many other places) you've claimed the wiretapping was illegal. To date, that has not been tried; the judge refused to dismiss the case outright, but it has not been tried.

    You claim it's illegal; that is factually wrong. Yet here is the claim, and it's oft-repeated. Should you be censured for that? Should NPR, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN have their licenses yanked?

    No, let speech be free, let it be unfettered, and if you disagree then voice your own opinion.

    You have the right to say what you want, but you do not have the right to force others to hear you...

    By Blogger Da, at 29 June, 2007 13:18  

  • DA
    The fairness doctrine is not about censorship it is about equal time, but I feel a disclaimer is a better way to solve the problem. Stick it on all talk radio programs and newscasts, since the news is conservative by omission.

    Most legal experts agree the wiretapping was illegal, if it was not there would be no subpoenas.

    The law requires a warrent, they got no warrents, cut and dry to me, as simple as Clinton lying under oath............

    And Ronald Reagan's former deputy Bruce Fein argees with me By the way, he made the case for impeachement as well, and Fein is not a member of move on........

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 29 June, 2007 13:59  

  • DA: simple as this the law says you need a warrrent, they never got the warrent, they broke the law, thus the subpoeans, Ashcroft refused to sign what Bush wanted because it was illegal, same for Comey, so you have conservtives who refused to comply with an illegal act, yet you think there is a question still?

    Its as plain as lying under oath about oral sex. The law was broken, cut and dry.......... Any argument in favor of the GOP on this issue is partison hackery.....

    good talk though, you are more interesting to chat with than most hacks on this site

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 29 June, 2007 14:04  

  • MOP,

    It's not illegal; please read up on the issue. One judge has decided it is unconstitutional, but the 6th circuit Appeals court UNANIMOUSLY supported an appeal AND stayed the judgement.

    This happens only when an appeals court expects the judgement to be overturned at a higher court.

    To date, it's not been finished. You may believe it's illegal, but that's not decided. The whole wiretapping thing is still ongoing WITH THE BLESSINGS OF THE COURTS in the form of a stay.

    To me, your take on this issue is incredibly biased. And I'm sure that my take on this issue appears biased to you.

    So back to the root of this thread, who decides what is fair, and what the leaning of any given group or person is?

    Better to just not go there at all...

    By Blogger Da, at 29 June, 2007 15:02  

  • Fortunately, the "Fairness Doctrine" will not gain any foothold in today's marketplace, regardless of how many crocodile tears are shed by the Looney Left. Their desire to go back to the "Leave it to Beaver" days with 3 TV channels is not going to happen.

    The Fairness Doctrine did not work properly the first time and it will run into a world of problems if it is tried again.

    Why? The big question is who will determine what is FAIR?

    Most political stories do not have just two sides to them.

    The lefties want their side to have as much exposure as the conservatives.

    But that faulty logic of two positions is suppressing legiminate responses from other groups - the Islamists, the Latinos, the native American Indias, the Asians, the crazy Ron Pauls, etc.

    Sorry guys. The devil is in the details and this Fairness Doctrine philosophy will not cut it in today's environment.

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 29 June, 2007 16:40  

  • Benson, the only way the (UN)Fairness Doctrine can be revived is for so-called Americans--namely illegal aliens, communists, anarchists, media members and islamofascists to elect A Democrat to the White House.

    And knowing some of the fools on this board--namely those of the RDDB mindset--for them it's END OF DAYS.

    Our nation is in a war for its freedom and people are out buying a $600 iphone?! HAS AMERICA SUDDENLY BECOME THIS ME, ME, ME STATE with the Democrats and their RDDB friends Soros, Moore et al leading the way?

    I SHOULD SAY IT HAS! This is not the country I have spent all 33 and 1/4 years of my life in.

    Back to the (UN)Fairness Doctrine, it would not just affect the big players like your CCU, Cumulus, Cox, Citadel, but also those small radio companies, including the few mom and pop type operations. Ever give any thought to that?

    By Blogger The Real Bob Anthony, at 29 June, 2007 18:19  

  • "...it would not just affect the big players like your CCU, Cumulus, Cox, Citadel, but also those small radio companies, including the few mom and pop type operations...."

    Who cares?

    They'll adapt, and continue to prosper.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 29 June, 2007 21:01  

  • Hashfanatic and others... let's practice what the Fairness Doctrine would be like...

    Hashfanatic: Please present the opposing view in a fair and balanced way, promoting why it would be good to prevent the return of the Fairness Doctrine.

    Just picture it if it were implemented across all media:

    - Jay Leno would have to make sure he does one Pelosi joke for every Bush joke.
    - Every Senator would have to post a fair and balanced opposing view on their website.
    - CBS would have had to "forge" news damaging to Democrats too.
    - 20/20 would have to be 50/50.
    - 60 Minutes would have to either be 30/30 or 120 with 60/60...
    - When the news reports that Bush or Cheney did something wrong, the'll have to also report mistakes by Pelosi and Cold Cash Jefferson.

    If it's introduced, then it should cover ALL media.

    But.. really, it is not necessary. TV is dominated on the left, Radio on the right. TV's doom and gloom news and video sells. On the Radio - there are no pictures, so to keep listeners you need a positive message. Something Democrats cannot provide. They own DOOM.

    By Blogger Bob4117, at 30 June, 2007 18:08  

  • Bob;Something Democrats cannot provide. They own DOOM.


    You are a blithering fu*cking right wing hack. The media is all YOURS, the TV is all right wing all the time, including f*cking MTV and their right wing hack Kurt Lauder attacking Michael Moore and selling private healthcare........

    The media is selling all TERROR all the time, did you watch the TV this weekend? This is your media, selling FEAR all the time, when they are not selling FEAR, they are selling gossip. Your side sells FEAR, and DOOM. This is the only way to get votes. The media works very closely with the GOP, only a ditto head (who never watched the TV, and takes Rush's word would think otherwise)

    Take the 'lib media' shove it up your ass, there is no liberal media other than Moyers and Olberman, a few hours a week. Im so sick of you mental cases reciting the same lies, it is terrifying as to how delusional right wingers have become. You guys are mentally ill. Your control the entire media and still cry Lib media?????
    What do you f*cking want, a media not even covering Iraq at all?

    Sick, traitorous slime, taking party over country all the time.

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 02 July, 2007 11:13  

  • Hey MOP,

    We get your point, but try to stay focused instead of all your off-base ranting.

    Suggestion: Cut back on your New York street talk and garbage you throw around. It certainly destroys any logical comments you are trying to present.

    Here are some the MOP Words of Wisdom pulled from this single posting alone.

    Examples?

    These people mis-represent the facts EVERY F*CKING DAY

    it is terrifying as to how delusional right wingers have become

    anyone who claims this, is either funstionly retarded, brainwashed by Limbaugh and never actually watched the T.C or they just say it

    You guys are mentally ill.

    RNC radio hosts are LIARS

    Sick, traitorous slime, taking party over country all the time.

    It is complete and total bullshit.

    All you have to do is watch the f*c*ing T.V, dolts.

    You are a blithering fu*cking right wing hack.

    Im so sick of you mental cases reciting the same lies

    Every time some con sh*t claims it, I will responsd with the f*cking facts.




    To the other readers of this post, keep the following radical far-left words of MOP wisdom in mind, when you reply to him.

    MOP: The media works very closely with the GOP,

    MOP: I do not see the liberal bias, anywhere.

    MOP: there is no liberal media other than Moyers and Olberman

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 02 July, 2007 12:11  

  • Benson: isolated 3 simple statements I made...
    MOP: The media works very closely with the GOP,

    MOP: I do not see the liberal bias, anywhere.

    MOP: there is no liberal media other than Moyers and Olberman


    All 3 are VERY true. Explain judith Miller to me Benson? She printed word per word exactly what the Bush administration wanted on the front page of the NY times regarding the "wmd's in Iraq". She was working DIRECTLY with the GOP, printing the exact talking points they desired her to in the paper. Prove me wrong

    not only is the media conservative, the media is working directly with the Bush administration to get their news and deliver it the way the de-regulator monoploy supporters (GOP) want it I just proved it to you.


    As far as Moyers and Olberman, let me correct it, Olberman is the only left leaning voice on the entire cable news spectrum. I cant count Moyers, he works for non-commercial T.V. And no Alan Colmes is not a liberal, he is a punching bag.

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 02 July, 2007 14:33  

  • Mop said
    Explain judith Miller to me Benson?

    Not much to explain - she reported the truth. The reason you are confused is because the NY Times seldom prints the truth.

    MOP said
    Olberman is the only left leaning voice on the entire cable news spectrum.

    Olby is not left-leaning. He is so far to the left, you can't even see him in the same room.

    Other left Cable sites?
    MSNBC, CNN, and especially CNN International come quickly to mind. Plus you have conveniently forgotten all the other sources of liberal slant - broadcast TV, Newspapers, Colleges, Public Schools, Internet, Podcasts, etc. etc.

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 02 July, 2007 18:48  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger