The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

21 June 2007

Think Progress, Center For American Progress, Talk Radio Study

WHY DO WE CARE?

Left's Faux Talk Radio Study Irks Conservatives







When social conservative Dr Laura was under fire from dozens of major lefty bloggers over a MySpace page that might be linked to her son (evidence of that has yet to emerge, by the way), major right- leaning sites seemed oddly unaware of the issue.

When Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly were both attacked for correctly pointing out that the New York Times had buried coverage of the JFK terror plot bust on pages A30 and A37, the biggest conservative bloggers provided little, if any, cover.

And rounding out just a few of many recent examples, Keith Olbermann largely got away with falsely smearing O'Reilly over a highly controversial libel judgement against the Boston Herald that had nothing to do with the FOX News Channel host.


Now, for some reason, a phony, self- serving (to the point where at least one person involved has had an ongoing financial interest in liberal talk radio's success) study by the Center For American Progress over the content of talk radio has the right up in arms.

Continuing his recent pattern of linking to lefty blogs with low credibility while completely shunning the right, Matt Drudge touted this new "report" as though it should be taken seriously.

Here, syndicated conservative talker Mark Levin blows them out of the water.

As the study appears to represent little more than sour grapes over liberal talk radio's failure, it's laughingly easy to refute.

While this may come as a shock to some of the right's biggest bloggers, there's a culture war underway, the outcome of which will have a major effect on this nation's future direction. It's one thing to get worked up over a study that states the obvious, that conservative talk radio dominates the nation's airwaves.

It's also appropriate to fight attempts by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and others to muzzle talk radio by reimposing the FCC's former Fairness Doctrine.


A major component of this war, however, is that conservative voices need to be defended when under fire. Most of today's major bloggers won't do this, partly because they see these hosts as rivals. And some are still surprisingly unsavvy when it comes to truly understanding the mainstream media.

Whether it's due to their own personal ambitions or the fact that some really aren't "conservative" beyond one or two key issues (usually terrorism, illegal immigration or pork- barrel spending), it's a damaging trend nonetheless. Because talk hosts are directly in the line of fire, they have a much better understanding of the war and what's at stake.

Let's shift the focus from merely reacting to the left's latest Drudge- driven attack to a proactive strategy for winning this nation's ongoing culture war. Defending, supporting and promoting talk radio will be key to any victory.


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:

12 Comments:

  • Attention reader: it has come to the reality based wor;d's attention that Mr. Maloney is again showing contempt for his readers and is guilty of Malicious Intent, otherwise known as lying on purspose to deceive.

    Liar posts:When Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly were both attacked for correctly pointing out that the New York Times had buried coverage of the JFK terror plot bust on pages A30 and A37, the biggest conservative bloggers provided little, if any, cover



    nobody provided any cover for the filthy liar and sexual abuser O'rirley or the drug addled prostitute loving Limbaugh, because they both LIED. The story was on page one and continued on a later page, such as most storiwes in the Times are. This is the NY Times format, but Maloney counts on his readers being unfamiliar with the Times format as does O'riley and limbaugh.

    with that in mind, nobody can take you seerious, you show contempt and know you lie, yet continue to lie, that is malicious intent, you are shameless, have no standards and should be ashamed of yourself, but you take pride in your lies and deception. This is the job of a right wing hack, to spit right in the face of their readers, viewers and listeners with lies, deception and 1/2 truths.

    culture war?

    Yes there is, one between the liars and deceivers and everyone else. You have no morals, you take no pride in your profession, you stoop to the lowest level of hackery known to punditry, mimmicking the biggest least trusted, filthy liars in America. Limbaugh and O'riley. They will not salvage your career Maloney, they don't care about you and your brown nosing either. They urinate on their audience just like you, offer them a world of revisionism and lies.

    This is why the right sh*ts their pants at the idea of a fairness doctrine, the lies and obfuscation do not stand up to the truth. When con lies are exposed in the raw and open, they can't deceive, the fairness doctrine is their worst fear, the left is not afraid of it, the left's arguments stand up because we deal it facts.

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 21 June, 2007 14:52  

  • DAVID HOROWITZ
    DAVID HOROWITZ
    DAVID HOROWITZ
    DAVID HOROWITZ
    DAVID HOROWITZ
    DAVID HOROWITZ

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 21 June, 2007 17:53  

  • Only the crazed far left would consider a 1 inch blurb on page 1 to be "a story on page one".

    A one inch blurb is not a story, it is a "gee look at this inconsequential but interesting tidbit-dig to the middle of the paper to find it.

    *shakes head*

    Lefties please don't go anywhere. We get informed interesting pieces by Brian on his blog, and then we get to turn to the comments to be intertained.

    By Blogger Linn, at 21 June, 2007 18:50  

  • MOP: The story was on page one and continued on a later page, such as most storiwes in the Times are. This is the NY Times format, but Maloney counts on his readers being unfamiliar with the Times format as does O'riley and limbaugh.

    Not quite...

    Elaborating on what Linn wrote:

    If you follow the appropriate link in this very article to the original Radio Equalizer article, you see a photo of the full front page with several paragraphs of the standard stories, plus a blow-up of the tiny one paragraph teaser.

    MOP, next time try to make your misstatements harder to catch.

    By Blogger Missouri Show Me, at 22 June, 2007 09:54  

  • Missouri,

    MoPoop and the rest of the libs aren't satisfied with lying about balance, they are going for government censorship. How George Orwellian of them.

    You bozos lost and can't admit it, so you have to censor, eh hash, MoPoop, elmo, ...

    By Blogger PCD, at 22 June, 2007 10:26  

  • Missouri: Hackery
    Maloney in his refrence to the story on JFK said the following:

    "or correctly pointing out that the New York Times had buried coverage of the JFK terror plot bust on pages A30 and A37....."

    So Missouri, he did not mention the story was on page one, Oriley did not mention it at all either. Both show complete contempt for their readers.
    Again Brain
    "or correctly pointing out that the New York Times had buried coverage of the JFK terror plot bust on pages A30 and A37"

    Maloney implied it was not on the front page. Where in that sentence does it imply that the story was on page one? The story was on page one, Maloney, like that sexual abuser Oriley LIED


    Now on to the Marc Levin hit piece

    The Center for American progress is a NON PROFIT, therefore CAN NOT BE advocating for Hillary clinton.

    your little hack, LIED, when he stated that CFAP is alligned with the clinton campaign, that is a blatent LIE. Non profits are non-partison.

    Anyone care to refute me?

    I caught another right wing freak counting on your ignorance, to make a point. This is malicious intent. Levin is guilty of it in 2 ways.

    A. claiming CFAP is advocating for Clinton, this is a LIE, they are a non-profit. The head of CFAP's former job with the Clinton administration has NOTHING to do with the groups affiliation with Clinton, they are a NON PROFIT

    B. Levin than distorts the name of CFAP by calling them The Center for American Progress and Free Press, the Free press is an orginization independent of CFAP


    So actually Maloney, your butt buddy levin, is guilty of SLANDER, he mis-represented CMAP as a group advocating for clinton:

    Levin:
    . My guess is that Podesta is in regular communication with the Clinton campaign and he or others may well be coordinating some of their activities on her behalf and on behalf of the Democrat Party.

    Levin: a professional liar, stretcher of reality and HACK. Maloney he blew nobody out of the water, he was unable to dis-credit the report and unable to smear Center For American progress. He FAILED big time

    and not one of you HACKS can ever stand up to FACTS

    If Levin "blew someone out of the water" would he not be able to refute the report

    you snot nosed 21%ers , lose every single debate , ALL THE TIME

    The only thing Levin "blew" was the P.D to get his job. Dont like it , too bad.

    I read the snot nosed sissy boy Levin's piece, he did not refute the article, he used smear, heresay and lies in a weak attempt to discredit CFAP. speaking of CFAP, time to donate money to them !

    Maloney you stated "he blew them out of the water" , yet I refuted his little hit piece as bunk, he lied about the group advoating for Clinton and falsly connected CFAP to the Free press. So brian, who did he blowe out of the water?

    lies
    lies
    lies

    the 21%ers fail over and over again to have a decent argument for anything

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 22 June, 2007 10:38  

  • MOP, you deny that CAP is headed up by former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta? Just because an organization deems itself as non-profit doesn't mean it can't break the rules (as we saw last election where folks from the Kerry campaign left to join MoveOn / CAP / ACT and vice-versa).

    You 14%ers crack me up sometimes.

    By Blogger BF, at 22 June, 2007 10:45  

  • BF:"You deny that CAP is headed up by former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta?"

    I mentioned that in my post. One thing has nothing to do with another. I mentioned that fact, did you bother reading?? Just because Podesta works for them, does not mean they advocate for Hillary Clinton. Levin is guilty of slander. Levin also on purpose called the center for American progress the center for American progress and free press, in order to confuse you and make sure you never actually read anything CFAP has to say. And you trust him?????


    Good try BF, only problem was I addressed Podesta. One's previous job, has nothing to do with what the current mission of a non profit is. CFAP is indeed progressive and liberal, but they are obviously not campaigning for hillary clinton. Have you ever read their web page?

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 22 June, 2007 11:02  

  • First, the New York Times story is not on page one, it's buried on page A37.

    Then "only a tiny blurb" is on page one.

    Well, which one is it, doofus? Make up your obfuscating mind.

    If I was editing that right-wing pandering rag, The New York Times, I'd bring it back to real journalism by actually putting that ludicrous story in the back of the paper, where it belonged, with nothing on page one at all.

    That was a total non-story. These were wannabe terrorists, with no money, with no access to money, with an ineffective plot that wouldn't have worked even if they had tried to do it. Just like those idiots who wanted to blow up soldiers with pizza boxes at Fort Dix or the guy who was going to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch!

    These were losers who were in no way a major threat to this nation. The right thing was done with them: they were arrested and thrown in jail. Let's just hope they get an actual trial, just like you would deman.

    By Blogger Scott, at 22 June, 2007 11:07  

  • MOP: So Missouri, he did not mention the story was on page one, Oriley did not mention it at all either. Both show complete contempt for their readers.

    I call it Maloney's respect for his readers' ATTENTION SPANS. Some of us can read something on one day and STILL REMEMBER IT A FEW DAYS LATER!!! And when a poster points out that it was covered before, some will even go back and CHECK OUT THE EARLIER MALONEY ARTICLE. All you have to do is click on the highlighted word, like I told you.

    Scott: A major newspaper story is something that contains SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS. Think of a baseball game. The story will be in the sports section. However, the score may be given on the front page. Some of us distinguish between a "teaser" or "blurb" on the front page (like the final score or who hit a home run) versus a story.

    In this case, there was a blurb on the front page, story on a deep interior page: No lies, no contradictions.

    Also Scott, if you are not at all concerned about pizza delivery people intending to get the layout of our military establishments and kill soldiers, I am speechless.

    By Blogger Missouri Show Me, at 22 June, 2007 18:34  

  • "Also Scott, if you are not at all concerned about pizza delivery people intending to get the layout of our military establishments and kill soldiers, I am speechless."

    If you expect sensible, level-headed people to take these manufactured little "plots" seriously, I suggest you should remain speechless.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 23 June, 2007 03:01  

  • Hash,

    There was an old song called "Backstabbers" that basically said you are more likely to be hurt not by your known enemy, of whom you would be wary, but by "miling faces" that would stab you in the back unexpectedly.

    I have seen pizza deliverers and various repairmen (phone, copiers, computer) walk right by security at several of the companies I have worked for. I think our military installations should be wary of any visits, even by smiling faces and people wearing uniforms.

    By Blogger Missouri Show Me, at 25 June, 2007 09:31  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger