Tag: Fairness Doctrine

Al Sharpton ends the year on a high note: “Imagine the arrogance of allowing people to say what they want”

Al Sharpton continued his on-going jihad against Rush Limbaugh. He wants government regulations to stop the world’s highest rated talk show host from saying those horrible things Sharpton imagines that he says.

You put Al Sharpton in front of a camera with Ed Schultz and it’s inevitable that something stupid will be said (again).

Sharpton didn’t disappoint in his remarkably unsuccessful, yet on-going jihad against Rush Limbaugh. He wants government regulations to stop the world’s highest rated talk show host from saying those horrible things Sharpton imagines that he says.

Sharpton: Well, first of all, we’re not talking about censorship. We’re talking about standards. [R-i-i-i-g-h-t.] And there are already standards in place. We’re saying those standards ought to include those that in an explicit or even an implicit way practice racism or sexism or homophobia on the airwaves. And can you imagine the arrogance of saying federally-regulated airwaves should not be subjected to federal public hearings, so they should just grant licenses, allow people to say what they want?

Just wondering, Al, would those new regulations stop you and Ed Schultz from saying the things you say?

Nah, we didn’t think so.

Ed Schultz reveals his foolproof plan to attract an audience

Poor Ed Schultz. No one listens to his radio show. No one watches his TV show. But don’t worry about Ed, because he has a simple plan for success.

Poor Ed Schultz. No one listens to his radio show. No one watches his TV show. But don’t worry about Ed, because he has a simple plan for success.

Bring back the Fairness Doctrine. That way Ed would get half of Rush’s 600 affiliates, but, we suspect, still have a fraction of his listeners.

H/T: MofoPolitics.com

Ed Schultz wants to socialize the airwaves

You have to feel sorry for poor Ed Schultz. No one watches his television show. No one listens to his radio show. If it weren’t for websites like IHateTheMedia.com, no one would know he exists.

But Big Eddie has a solution for that problem. Socialize the airwaves. Give him as many stations as Rush Limbaugh.

You have to feel sorry for poor Ed Schultz. No one watches his television show. No one listens to his radio show. If it weren’t for websites like IHateTheMedia.com, no one would know he exists.

But Big Eddie has a solution for that problem. Socialize the airwaves. Give him as many stations as Rush Limbaugh.

The only problem with that theory is that no matter how many stations Ed was on, he would still have no listeners.

Continue reading “Ed Schultz wants to socialize the airwaves”

Fox News is too successful: Dennis Kucinich threatens Bill O’Reilly

Let this be a warning to you, O’Reilly. Just because Air America has gone belly up and just because conservatives are on the ascendancy and just because Fox has huge ratings, that’s no reason to think things are ok, says Dennis Kucinich. The libs are always out there dangling the threat of the Fairness Doctrine over conservatives’ heads.

Let this be a warning to you, O’Reilly. Just because Air America has gone belly up and just because conservatives are on the ascendancy and just because Fox has huge ratings, that’s no reason to think things are ok. The libs are always out there dangling the threat of the Fairness Doctrine over conservatives’ heads.

Kucinich: You know what? Be careful, Bill, about crowing about your success right now because people are going to start calling for the Fairness Doctrine to come back if they feel their point of view is not being adequately represented.

Oh, that madcap Dennis Kucinich. What a cut-up. What a card. Someone get this guy a newspaper so he can read about the election in Massachusetts last week.

“All Barack Channel” (ABC) refuses to air TV anti-ObamaCare commercial

ABC-TV has refused to run this anti-ObamaCare television commercial despite the fact that it’s running on other TV stations across the country. Take a look and we think you’ll agree there’s nothing objectionable about it. Unless, of course, you disagree with what it says.

ABC-TV has refused to run this anti-ObamaCare television commercial despite the fact that it’s running on other TV stations across the country. Take a look and we think you’ll agree there’s nothing objectionable about it. Unless, of course, you disagree with what it says.

Of course, this is the same magnanimous television network that turned an entire night of its valuable primetime programming over to the President a few weeks ago so he could hype his socialized medicine scheme.

Turning down a commercial is an especially puzzling decision since network television rating and revenues have slumped substantially. Money be money. Yet ABC declined to take the income it would have earned by running the commercial produced by the League of American Voters.

Where’s that damn Fairness Doctrine you we need it?

Source: LivingLakeCountry.com

Disgraced media star calls for Media Czar

Dan Rather is out to save the rapidly-depleting stock of journalists, reporters, editors and empty-headed news anchors by asking for a media czar.

"Hello? Mr. President. It's Czar Rather. I have a typo on page 3. Go to DefCon 4."
"Hello? Mr. President. It's Czar Rather. I have a typo on page 3. Go to DefCon 4."

The sky may be falling and the earth may be boiling polar bear cubs at a rapid rate, but Dan Rather, a leading, but by no means only reason journalism is no longer respected, is out to save the rapidly-depleting stock of journalists, reporters, editors and empty-headed news anchors.

Rather, who spoke at the Aspen Institute, called for the Obama administration to create a “commission on public media.” The commission would, among other things, try to find new business models to help save media outlets because, if it’s one thing that the hundreds of years of the free enterprise system has shown us, it’s that people are incapable of creating a business model without the interference from a government commission.

Remember the Commission On 144-Character Micro-Blogging Messages that brought us Twitter?

“A truly free and independent press is the red beating heart of democracy and freedom,” Rather said in an interview. (A free and independent press that is overseen by a government commission?)

The commission might also be able to help forge documents, too, like military letters about presidents whose politics you don’t necessarily agree with.

If the commission is created, we would need another Czar, a Czar of All Media.

Let’s see. Where could we find a liberal, out-of-work journalist who left his career in disgrace and may need another shot at proving his worth before he’s rolled up like newspapers used to be and tossed away in the dustbin of media history?

Hmmm. Who could that be?

Source: Aspen Daily News

Lib talker Stephanie Miller was hilarious on CNN. Unintentionally hilarious.

Stephanie Miller showed up on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” about ten days ago and hinted at a nefarious plot on the part of conservative radio station owners to bring down the “highly successful” lib talk juggernaut.

“Well, you know – I just did a panel on the Fairness Doctrine,” the unfunny Miller said. “I have to tell you, I brought ratings information. And people like me and Ed Schultz are consistently beating conservative shows in many, many markets. And yet – there is 10 percent liberal radio in this country. Ninety percent of the stations are conservative. You just cannot argue anymore it’s because liberal radio can’t compete.”

That would be impossible – and she knows it – for one very simple reason: neither Miller nor Schultz air in “many, many markets.” If the information on her website is up-to-date:

  • Miller has affiliates in just 50 markets (a dreadful total after years of flogging this dog in syndication)
  • She has affiliates in only nine of the Top 50 markets.
  • Eight of those nine have ratings below 1.0 (again, dreadful is the only appropriate word)
  • Three of her Top 10 market affiliates have zero ratings.
  • Eight of her 50 affiliates air her program only on weekends.
  • Thirteen of her 50 affiliates air only a portion of her program or air it at odd hours (or both).
  • Twenty of her 50 affiliates are in markets ranking #120 or smaller
  • Twelve of her affiliates are in markets too small to be rated.

Even worse for Miller, her syndication efforts are going full speed in reverse. She’s lost a startling 62.5% (15 of 24) of the Top 50 affiliates she once had and her problem seem to be accelerating. In the last few months she’s lost affiliates in Miami, Phoenix and Columbus and gained none.

The bottom line is pretty clear:

Stephanie Miller’s talk show is a ratings disaster. Instead of blaming “conservative” station owners, she should put the blame where it belongs. On herself.

AN ADDED NOTE: Is it our imagination or is Miller beginning to look just like Gloria Allred?

Source: NewsBusters

Democrats threaten future of Christian radio

If the democrats have their way, the ACLU could go after Christain radio shows such as this one.
If the democrats have their way, the ACLU could go after Christain radio shows such as this one.

Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe, the most rational man in Washington, DC has given an impassioned speech on the floor of the Senate in defense of Christian radio.

“In a straight party-line vote, Democrats chose to adopt Senator Durbin’s Amendment 591, which calls on the FCC to quote, ‘encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership…and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.’ That’s a quote and essentially it makes an end-run around the Fairness Doctrine.”

“The ACLU and other liberal organizations could attempt to file lawsuits against anyone who presents a message that they deem to be counter to federal localism and diversity regulations,” Inhofe continued. “…the chilling effect that the mere threat of a lawsuit will have on religious broadcasters could be substantial.”

“This legislation is so incredibly vague and so potentially far-reaching that I can’t say with any certainty what the end result will be,” Inhofe said. “This is not good governance and it is not good legislative practice to cede such authority to any agency of our government, specifically when the right to speak freely over the airwaves will most certainly be impacted.”

We don’t think the Democrats really want to outlaw religious broadcasters. We suspect they’d be satisfied if they could merely outlaw about seven of the Ten Commandments, pass legislation that Reverend Wright be given equal time on all current religious broadcasts, and have Obama’s inauguration officially designated as the Second Coming.

Is that too much to ask?

Link: Entire speech by James Inhofe at The Hill

Which Senators voted in favor of censorship…uh…we mean the Fairness Doctrine?

dem_donkeyBy now you’ve probably heard that the Senate approved an amendment a few days ago to outlaw the “Fairness Doctrine.” Republican Senator Jim DeMint’s amendment passed by a comfortable margin of 87-to-11.

Although one would think it’s important to know which senators cast their votes in favor of censorship, we can’t find a single news report that calls out their names. So we’ll do it:

Bingaman (D-NM), Conrad (D-ND), Dorgan (D-ND), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Johnson (D-SD), Kerry (D-MA), Reed (D-RI), Rockefeller (D-WV), Sanders (I-VT), and Whitehouse (D-RI).

In addition, Kennedy (D-MA) did not vote, but does anyone doubt that he would have joined them Infamous Eleven had his health been up to it?

Please note that there’s a “D” attached to ten of the eleven of the names. “D” as in Democrat. “D” as in unDemocratic.

Senator Dick Durbin takes it in the back door

dick_durbinSenator Jim DeMint’s amendment to kill the Fairness Doctrine was pretty straightforward.

But an aide to DeMint said Senator Dick Durbin’s amendment requiring “diversity” in radio ownership will “impose the Fairness Doctrine through the back door by trying to break up radio ownership.”

The Democrats can disguise it, rename it, and repackage it any way they want. But DeMint’s aide called it “an attempt to break up companies like Clear Channel and hurt their syndications and therefore putting many local radio stations out of business that depend on those syndicated shows for revenue.”

The measure passed by a vote of 57-to-41 without a single Republican vote.

Censorship is like the Rasputin. You can poison it, shoot it, stab it, and drown it, but it won’t die as long as Democrats are running the show.

Fairness Doctrine: Senator DeMint tells Dems to put up or shut up

jim_demintThe Obama administration may have said it wouldn’t attempt to revive the Fairness Doctrine, but that’s not enough for Republican Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina. He wants to force Senate Democrats to put up or shut up.

In order to prevent the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, DeMint will propose the Broadcaster Freedom Act as an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights bill.

“I’m glad President Obama finally confirmed his opposition to the Fairness Doctrine, which attacks the right of free speech on talk radio,” DeMint said, “but many Democrats in Congress are still pushing it…now is the time for Congress to take a stand against this kind of censorship. I intend to seek a vote on this amendment next week so every senator is on record: Do you support free speech or do you want to silence voices you disagree with?”

We’d guess DeMint is surely hoping the vote will take place before Al Franken can be seated in the Senate. There’s no shutting that guy up.

Ahmadinejad introduces Iranian Fairness Doctrine

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and those fun-loving Iranian mullahs have re-introduced the Fairness Doctrine in Iran by blocking access to several websites promoting reformist presidential candidate Mohammed Khatami.

Reformists say the move is an attempt by the powerful hard-liners to silence Khatami and weaken his challenge to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the upcoming elections.

Khatami, who tried to open dialogue with the West during his eight years as president, believes his sites are being censored because his candidacy poses a serious threat to the increasingly unpopular Ahmadinejad.

“Censorship? That’s nonsense,” a spokesman for the mullahs said. “We’re just trying to assure that a wide variety of approved voices are heard. And, of course, that divisive moderate voices aren’t heard.”

Via InfidelsAreCool

Democrat senator goes on the radio to promote censoring the radio

Every once in a while, Democratic senators visit their home states just to remind the local folks what arrogance sounds like.

Democract Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico visited his home state recently. While he was there, he went on the air with Jim Villanucci of KKOB Radio in Albuquerque.

“KKOB used to live under the Fairness Doctrine,” Bingaman asserted.

“Yeah,” Villanucci replied. “We played music.”

It was somewhat ironic that Bingaman’s was promoting censorship of the radio while speaking on the radio, but that irony seemed to go right over his head.

Quote of the Week:
Republican Congressman Greg Walden

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvoeeq-BH4whttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQfkATCpW3cRepublican Congressman Greg Walden, who once owned a classic rock radio station in Oregon, put the Fairness Doctrine in perfect perspective when he said it’s “the musical equivalent” of “every time we’d play a classic rock song we’d have to play a polka.”

And here, for your entertainment pleasure, are two videos showing you exactly how that would work.

MUST LISTEN: Camille Paglia Trashes “Immature” Democrats for Pushing Return to ‘Fairness Doctrine’

Camille Paglia, noted democrat, dissident feminist, college professor of Humanities and Media Studies, and registered Democrat whose 2000 presidential vote was Ralph Nader, slams her fellow liberals for straying away so far from the free speech ideals of the Democratic Party with their support for the Fairness Doctrine. Forward the link to this article to your democrat representatives.

When do religious broadcasters want the Fairness Doctrine? When hell freezes over.

Christian Broadcaster Pat Roberson
Christian Broadcaster Pat Roberson

Chalk up another vote against the Fairness Doctrine – this one from religious broadcasters.

“If I happen to say declaratively that the Bible tells me that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and nobody comes to the Father but by Him,” said Christian talk show host Janet Parshall, “I am not interested in giving equal time to Buddha, Hinduism, or L. Ron Hubbard.”

We generally think political speech is the target of the Fairness Doctrine, but the only broadcast license that’s ever been revoked belonged to a Christian station. In 1964, a Pennsylvania Christian station carried a program on which the Reverend Billy James Hargis criticized author Fred Cook. When Cook was refused a chance to respond, he reported the station to the FCC. The station’s license was eventually revoked.

Can’t wait to hear Teddy Kennedy’s response to the Ten Commandments.

Axelrod on Fairness Doctrine: “I don’t have an answer for you now.”

Quick Link: On Fox News Sunday today David Axelrod told hold Chris Wallace “I’m going to leave that issue [Fairness Doctrine] to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC, to, and the president, to discuss. So I don’t have an answer for you now.” Read: Axelrod punts on fairness doctrine.

Carter says he’s against the Fairness Doctrine. Is it senility talking?

Former President Jimmy Carter weighed in with his opinion of the Fairness Doctrine.

“Well, I liked it when it first came out,” Carter said, “because I was just a child listening to programs, and I liked to hear some limits on some of the programs. But no. As a matter of fact, when I was president is when we deregulated radio, television, all the communications and relationships, so I have not been in favor of perpetuating the Fairness Doctrine since I’ve been in politics.”

After Carter sat back with that trademark silly smirk on his face, an aide nudged him, then whispered in his ear.

“I just found out my friends Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won’t be covered by the Fairness Doctrine,” the former president is rumored to perhaps have said. “In that case, I’m against it.”

Another Democrat senator wants the Fairness Doctrine back

Bill Press’ floundering radio show seems to be the place where Democrat senators go to say stupid things. Last week is was Senator Debbie Stabenow who wanted the Fairness Doctrine. This week it’s Senator Tom Harkin.

“…They are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another,” Press said. “All we want is, you know, some balance on the airwaves, that’s all. You know, we’re not going to take any of the conservative voices off the airwaves, but just make sure that there are a few progressives and liberals out there, right?

“That’s why we need the Fairness Doctrine back,” Harkin responded.

We hereby propose the Congressional Fairness Doctrine. Here’s how it works. Each state gets two senators. If a state elects one stupid senator, an additional intelligent one would have to be appointed to serve simultaneously.

Only problem is New York, Massachusetts, and California would end up with four senators each.

China demonstrates how the Fairness Doctrine would work

Those wily Chinese always seem to be one step ahead of us lately. Even in implementing the Fairness Doctrine.

A protestor recently tossed a shoe at Chinese premier Wen – in imitation of the Iraqi reporter who hurled a shoe at President Bush – during his speech in England.

Chinese state-run newspapers and websites reported on Wen’s speech but ignored the shoe-throwing. Independent websites that mention the incident appear to have been censored. The official Xinhua News Agency reported that Britain apologized for an incident but never mentioned what what it was apologizing for.

Consider this a preview of American radio after politicians implement the Fairness Doctrine and begin their own favored programming.

Liberal talk radio dies in DC today

Ahh...a breath of fresh air in D.C.
Ahh...it just smells better in D.C.

The air seems a little cleaner in the nation’s capitol today. Lib talk radio is dead in the District of Columbia.

WWRC-AM had marketed itself as “Obama 1260,” proving that the FCC doesn’t consider stupidity to be sufficient grounds for revocation of a broadcast license. The station has now flipped to a business talk/news format.

Losing affiliates is nothing new for Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz, Bill Press, Ron Reagan, Rachel Maddow and Lionel. But the loss of the Washington, DC market is a particularly harsh blow for liberal talk radio, because the format is rapidly running out off major markets in which it can be dumped.

Miller, often referred to as the rising star of libtalk, has lost market after market and now retains affiliates in just 11 of the top 50 markets. Like many lib talk stations, WWRC ranked dead last in the Washington, DC ratings, 30th out of 30 stations.

As of today, Miller, Schultz, Press, Reagan, Maddow and Lionel are on the street, where they will presumably organize protests and carry picket signs calling for the re-introduction of the Fairness Doctrine.

US Senator, married to Air America exec, wants to bring back Fairness Doctrine

SEnator Debbie Stabenow and husband
Senator Debbie Stabenow and husband Thomas Athans want to kill your choices in Talk Radio

When you’re listening to someone from Washington, DC, what they don’t say is often more important than what they do say.

For example, Democrat Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow says she wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. What she doesn’t say is that her husband, Thomas Athans, is the Executive VP of floundering Air America.

“Whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else,” she told Bill Press, “I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.”

When asked if she would push for hearings in the Senate this year, Stabenow said, “I have already had some discussions with colleagues. And, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.”

“A law that would force people to listen to me,” Press thought to himself. “That sure seems a lot easier than having talent.”

Ciick to listen.

Fairness Doctrine = redistribution of listeners

slience“Redistribution” wafts ominously over Washington, D.C. these days.

New tax proposals make it clear that this administration wants to redistribute income. The recount farce in Minnesota makes it clear they want to redistribute votes. And the president’s personal attack on Rush Limbaugh makes it clear they want to redistribute radio listeners.

They may call it the Fairness Doctrine. They may call disguise it as new “local content” regulations. But no matter what name they hang on it, the intention is to give radio listeners fewer opportunities to listen to conservative voices by reducing the number of hours those voices are on the air and redistributing those hours to liberal voices. No matter what listeners may want.

Here at I Hate The Media, we always try to put a humorous spin on the days media news.

But there’s nothing funny about this.

Fairness Doctrine vs. Limbaugh Doctrine

Rush Limbaugh ThinDo you think maybe we need to worry about the fairness of the Fairness Doctrine when the president of the United States personally attacks a private citizen.

President Obama put his foot in his mouth yesterday by telling Republican congressional leaders, “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.” Rush released a statement accusing Obama of attempting to turn the argument into a discussion of Limbaugh rather than the real issues. But he saved his best zinger for last:

“(National Review has) documented Obama’s ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals: ‘Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.’”

That’s probably not a quote you’ll find in Pocket Obama.

Rush’s full response at National Review Online

I HATE THE MEDIA ™
Verified by MonsterInsights