no bullshit

(Note: If you have not stopped by Christy's post from yesterday, please do.  The blog is struggling financially right now and we could use your help.  We really try not to ask for donations for the site itself, but with the drop in ad revenue we've been having and other expenses, we are calling your attention to the tip-jar.  So, please, if you can, we appreciate your support.  Thank you and god bless.)

As you might expect (and as Taylor pointed out earlier) the Wingnut crowd is not reacting well to the notion of the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.  I don't know why anyone's surprised.  The Right Wing's whole stock in trade is peddling mendacious bullshit to the masses, so naturally the concept of media reform to them is like throwing water on the Wicked Witch of the West.  ("MEEEELLLL-ting!  MEELLLLLLL-ting!  Oh, what a world!  All my beautiful WICKEDNESS...MELLLLL-tiiiiiiiiiiing...!")

Taylor:

Unfortunately, when wingnut trolls attack, they only prove my points. One of them offers: "…MSNBC, CNN are losing their audience in greater numbers, while Fox, Hannity or Rush Limbaugh numbers are increasing. …" Unfortunately, the argument is not only lacking in facts, but illustrates why the Fairness Doctrine is important. For instance, Fox "News" ranted on, as did Rush and Ken doll Sean, about WMDs in Iraq, as well as every other lie put forth by the Bush administration, reaching millions of listeners and viewers, while also slandering the U.N. weapons inspectors, who just happened to be right. If you add political Christian broadcasting to this toxic mix, you get a monopoly that is dangerous.

Let's just call a spade a spade here.  The Right Wing toxification of the media environment, which began when Reagan struck down the Fairness Doctrine, has infected and corrupted our political apparatus in a potentially lethal fashion.  See, the conservative world view looks like this: If two people are standing on the sidewalk and one looks up and says, "Oh, my god!  There's a safe and it's falling straight toward us!  Run!"  You can tell the other person is a conservative when he says, "That safe isn't falling toward us.  It's actually moving away from us so quickly that it only looks like it's falling on us.  We're fine standing right here."

You can see the results of this kind of thinking played out on a grand scale in Iraq, Afghanistan, and New Orleans these days.  And frankly, that's not particularly pretty.  Pox News and the Right Wing robber barons it enables on a daily basis are taking full advantage of one of the salient truths of Hermann Goering and the Nazi party:

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

All those Pox News ranters and screamers are selling the same swill to their uneducated, overly credulous audiences, "We are under attack!  The very values we cherish the most are threatened!" and then they go on to explain how their bogeyman of the week is to blame for all that is wrong in the world.  A textbook example would be Dinesh D'Souza's book blaming liberals for 9/11, which, according to James Wolcott, is getting exactly the reception it deserves in the NYT:

Don't think it's online as yet, but in next week's New York Times Book Review Alan Wolfe administers quite a drubbing.

Like his hero Joe McCarthy, he has no sense of shame. He is a childish thinker and writer tackling subjects about which he knows little to make arguments that reek of political extremism. His book is a national disgrace, a sorry example of a publishing culture more concerned with the sensational than the sensible.

Who is the guilty reeker? Why none other than the Rishwain research scholar at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, our old friend Dinette D'Setta.

You would think that having been wrong about the war, wrong about the environment, wrong about evolution, wrong about the economy, wrong about Guantanamo, Jamil Hussein, Terri Schiavo, "Lonely Kerry", illegal wiretaps, and well, everything, that these people might slow down a little and take stock, maybe reconsider some of their ideas, but no, of course not.  And they're fighting the Fairness Doctrine with a zeal that would be admirable if they were fighting, say, in Iraq, but on these grounds, their efforts are wasted and, well, kind of pathetic.

Here's what LaShawn Barber has to say on the topic:

Whenever things aren’t going well for liberals, they fall back on the only thing at their disposal: Big Government. When outgunned and outmanned, they create more government regulations to inhibit the success and progress of their conservative betters. One way they intend to do this is by resurrecting the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

Au contraire, Miss Barber.  Things are going great for liberals right now.  Or maybe you didn't notice the massively successful legislative sweep this week?  Oh, and our "conservative betters"?  Snort!  Better at what?  Eating Cheetos and drinking the administration's Kool-Aid?  Cos, seriously, that's the only thing your side seems to consistently beat ours in.  We're better writers, demonstrably more accurate, and I believe that the massive inroads we have made in the media in the last year attest to how much better blogging is when smart people handle it instead of a bunch of mouth-breathing Hate Radio listeners. 

Listen to how LaShawn justifies her love for Rush Limbaugh:

I know conservative shows are biased, but the bias is transparent. That’s why I occasionally listen to Rush Limbaugh. I want to hear him cut down liberals, mock their Big Government reliance, fear of competition, and race pandering. On days when I’m sick to death of our not-conservative-enough-for-me president, I turn on Rush, who always makes me feel better.

And that’s exactly what liberals want to dilute. Conservatives win every time in the war of ideas; liberals, bereft of ideas of their own, will try to suppress and regulate the marketplace of ideas at every opportunity.

Honey, listen.  Cheating in the war of ideas is not "winning".  If you're going to be a legitimate competitor in the "war of ideas", then you need to understand that you are bound by the truth.  Playing soccer with an assault rifle may enable you to score more goals than the other team, but it's not exactly fair play, now is it?
 
Now, I'm not saying that hate speech should be taken off the air.  I think it's an important object lesson that liberals can point at as a warning to our children.  ("Now, be good in school and pay attention, Junior.  You don't want to turn out an ill-informed, illogical, incoherent, screeching hate-monger like Melanie Morgan.  Your advertisers will abandon you and no one will ever love you because your hate has made you into a scorched, empty husk of a person...")
 
I just think that shows should have nutritional information.  We're so demanding and scrupulous about the labels on our food, but when it comes to what we feed our minds?  Not so much.  So, LaShawn and friends, here's my plan.  Rush and Snuff Radio KSFO can stay on the air, but they need to broadcast a warning at the beginning of each show:
 
WARNING: The following program is for amusement only.  It is not and should not be construed as "news".  Any resemblance to actual persons, places, and events is purely coincidental.  This program should not be used to formulate your view of the world.  Failure to comply can result in serious injury and death.
 
I think that about covers it, don't you?