One of the most hilarious and bizarre obsessions to come out of Talkradioland since The Rise of Obama has been the idea that Obama and the Democrats want to reinstate The Fairness Doctrine to take our Rush Limbaughs away.
Needless to say, as with most of the emissions from the right-wing fever swamp, the truth content is roughly zero parts per million.
The thing is, as much as I personally find the talk radio screamers offensive and repulsive, they’re doing far more damage to their own cause than they are to ours. McCain and the GOP ran the most talk radio-y election campaign in American history, accusing Obama and other Democratic opponents of socialism, atheism, terrorism, Islamism, being-black-ism, and every other ism they could think of, and it blew up in their faces.
Tom Schaller, Tod Lindberg, Ron Brownstein, and others have all documented how Democrats have gained ground in Republican territory while Republicans have been all but evicted from Democratic territory. Obama dominated the youth and Hispanic votes 2 to 1, both groups that will only grow larger and more influential. The future looks promising for the left, and bleak for the right.
The GOP desperately needs to reckon with America’s inexorable demographic march towards tolerance, and right-wing talk radio makes that difficult, if not impossible. Not only do virulent creatures like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage make the Republican Party look like red-faced, intolerant bigots, but they also exert pressure on the Republican Party to pander to red-faced, intolerant bigots, making it ever more toxic to the growing majority of Americans who are reasonably sane and well-adjusted.
As with any other pollutant, I certainly wouldn’t mind seeing Limbaugh and company go away, but it’s not Democrats that they’re poisoning.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
hello, Eli!
Hi, Teddy!
I never listen to Rush Limbaugh except when he is portrayed by Keith Olbermann.
How exactly would reinstating the Fairness Doctrine make Rush obsolete? Wouldn’t radio just have to have lots of Air America in addition to Rush, Vannity, and the many Drs. Laura?
I don’t really understand that part either. But given that 91% of the talk radio airwaves are conservative, equal time would cut their airtime practically in half.
What’s going to be interesting to see is how the “mainstream” corporate media reacts as the Cons get ever crazier. Will they still insist on treating both Con and Non-Con viewpoints on subjects as having equal validity — that is, when they’re not giving the Cons every benefit of every doubt?
Signs point to “yes”, considering the assiduousness with which the corporate press is flinging around the “center-right nation” bullshit lately.
“Should liberals be imprisoned and/or executed? Views differ.”
Dugg right here!
Puppies in their usual 6pm melee
I am embarrassed to say I know their daily routine fairly well now. Of course, it’s watertiger’s fault, she turned me on to them….
Hey Eli,
Wingnut radio has lost it’s new-car
smellstink. Fresh bigots can’t be cranked out fast enough to replace the listeners as fast as fried food, tobacco, and low-quality beer take them out. Until the day the last one finally falls off the pot while eating a giant fried peanut-butter and banana sandwich, better to keep them glued to their radio, lest they wander off, discover exercise and/or heaven forbid… breed.Like I said, the demographics are on our side. Sure, there are liberals dying off, there are wingnuts turning 18, there are liberals turning into wingnuts as they get older, but the prevailing trend is inexorably in our favor… as long as we (and the Democrats) don’t fuck it up.
I am no one in power, but I would love the return of the Fairness Doctrine. Those airwaves are public, they should have to give equal time to opposing views.
I worry about those large fundie families outstripping us demographically, though. You never see two gay men with nine kids in the Castro.
I think we’re probably better off trying to fix the ownership rules so that all of radio (and TV, and print) isn’t controlled by a handful or right-wing media conglomerates.
But do the kids all *stay* fundie?
Although I admit, Idiocracy did scare me a bit…
Ya Know I do wish these baffons would clam up! But at the same time it is funny what they come up with! But if truth be known let a lefty Blogger say some of the same bullshit about the right they would be calling for them to yanked off the air kicking and screaming.
I Dugg it right here!
OtO! Double Diggers Teddy you and Egregious DOUBLE DUGG! And she beat you to it!!
So I just Dugg them both(:>))
This is in part right wing paranoia and in part a pre-emptive strike against re-instating the Fairness Doctrine.
True…whatever works.
Didn’t Rupert Murdoch spread lots of money around so he could get from 37% to 39% in some markets recently? And what’s to stop that from happening again? Have we seen any Obama potential appointments to the FCC? How does that work, anyway? Do those commissions have fixed terms or can he fire Cathie Martin’s husband Kevin and start fresh right away?
Or maybe so they can declare victory when the Democrats follow through on their total lack of interest in reinstating it.
That would be a worthy goal… Seems that used to be the rules…. but of course the Republicans changed that for their buddie so they could control; the message that the public got… That is until the internet got so pervasive and the news is now all over the web. so those smart enough to realize that they are being spoon fed the news on the TV and Cable go to the web to get the REAL truth!!
Exactly, because the moment any progressive says, “well maybe we should talk about ownership rules or the fairness doctrine” they rightwingtards can get all huffy and say, “we told you so, dear readers….”
Wasn’t the Pentagon working on a gay-ray, guaranteed to inspire enemy combatants to drop their weapons and pick-up their comrades? Adapted for civilian use it could be used to boost the ranks…
I would assume that a Democratic president would have latitude to appoint a Democratic-majority FCC. Hopefully one not packed with asshats.
lest they wander off, discover exercise and/or heaven forbid… breed.
Hey – I’m tryin’ to eat here!!
And this is why I believe there is a limit to how untruthful the media can be. They can’t afford to give the game away, because their credibility is what makes them valuable.
Whoops… As you were.
ROFL!
Afraid I might have put jayt off his giant fried peanut-butter and banana sandwich.
Those are actually really tasty. My cafeteria at work served them on Elvis’s birthday this year, and they were quite good.
god forbid!
S’okay.
*burp*
You guys are awesome!
I don’t see much value in most of the MSM even the local stations are getting stupid… of course we now have KO and Rachel… seems some of the MSM execs will realize that good progressive newses programs draw large audiences which means advertising bucks… ya know that bottom line thingy!!
I think the key to regaining some quality to media is the breakup of corporate ownership. Perhaps with a owners more representative of the population in general, the nation can find its interests served again. No matter what something must be done to reintroduce integrity and professionalism to media. I’m absolutely sick to death of the current state of affairs.
Yeah, moderation is the key and as we know, that wasn’t The King’s strong suit.
I agree with you Eli, but only because I heard the Rs say it. Yesterday there was a program on cspan of Rs critiquing what went wrong & how to fix it. It was the first sensible panel I’ve heard on that subject. One of the speakers raised precisely that issue: that with talk radio trashing immigrants, they’s never get the Latino vote. Heh. Can’t wait to see what they do about it.
“…but it’s not Democrats that they’re poisoning.”
Correct, it’s the Unitarians.
Doh!
Speaking of food we are having Salmon my son caught in the Nestucca river just over the hills from Suz’s place… Looking forward to broiling it in a bit here for dinner with steamed Asparagus and fried rice….
BTW Eli, a couple of days ago you asked my about my airplane conversation with Senator D’Amato. I responded but it seemed to have ended up in EPUland. Did you see it?
Which bottom line is more important? The news/talk radio division’s, or the parent corporation’s as a whole? My belief is that ad revenue is secondary to the parent corporation’s bottom line, which benefits more from Republican rule.
Good idea IIRC we the public own the air waves!!
There was a time when network news programs were provided as something of a public service and not expected to turn a profit. Afraid those days are gone forever. Now people have so many choices they can select the information source that best suits their prejudices.
Gee, thanks…
Yep! I think we already had this conversation, actually.
That’s quite an endorsement. Try not to let it go to your head.
I agree, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 relaxed corporate ownership rules allowing too much concentration of one owner in large market areas. This needs to be reversed.
… they’s never get the Latino vote. Heh. Can’t wait to see what they do about it.
Maybe Lou Dobbs will get a new co-host.
Cheech Marin?
One benefit of smaller parent companies is that they would actually be more financially motivated to provide a competitive product.
Well dam break em up then, we need to get the news truthfully and not slanted one way or the other and if it means breaking these corporations up then so be it. It is in the best interest of the Country to have the news not be twisted to fit what one side or the other wants. All this bullshit about the public not being able to handle the truth is just more propaganda!
Anything I can do to boost your ego. *g*
My belief is that ad revenue is secondary to the parent corporation’s bottom line, which benefits more from Republican rule.
ayup. And they’re gonna double down.
I may go teevee-free for the next eight years.
It really is kind of surprising that they chose the Fairness Doctrine as their straw boogeyman instead of ownership rules. Maybe they couldn’t figure out a way to spin it, but that would be a first.
:o
http://freetheairwaves.com/
If the media is so liberal, why aren’t the RW screaming for the fairness doctrine?
Good idea, if Cheech can tolerate Don Johnson, what’s one more bad actor?
My imagination is never creative enough to figure out how the wingnuts will react to any particular stimulus.
I subscribe to wetmachine.com – the blogger there is a total communications junkie and follows all that stuff. A couple of days ago I got an all caps 14 exclamation point hooray that Obama’s new FCC peeps are really great. I know nothing about the subject, nor do I know or remember the names but this is a guy who sits through all the interminable, jargon-filled meetings and does say when stuff is fishy. Or not. He’s happy so that makes me think we can rest assured on that part at least.
YUP!!! The public was not served by that ACT and should be repealed. Beside Rupert is not a citizen IIRC so I feel he should not own any of the air waves period!! Not a Citizen no ownership of news companies bottom line!!
Is there any possibility that the “fairness doctrine” controversy is a Trojan Horse for net neutrality?
A little cinnamon, a few raisins sprinkled on top, along with some shredded coconut… Scrumpcious! ;-)
quote>virulent creatures like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage make the Republican Party look like red-faced, intolerant bigots
They make them look that way, because that is who they are. The modern GOP is the party of hate.
I think it’s that they don’t want to bring up ownership rules, that could blow up in their faces because it is something sensible to look at. The Fairness Doctrine feeds into the fears of the rightwingnuts more easily.
Yeah, I’d love to see an answer to that. There’s a definite wink-wink aspect to their complaints about the “liberal media”.
My imagination is never creative enough to figure out how the wingnuts will react to any particular stimulus.
well, if your first guess is always “badly”, you’re gonna be right most of the time.
Partly because it is impossible for an outsider to predict what is likely to push their buttons.
sssshh. don’t give them ‘ideas!’
I with you.
I don’t remeber disagreeing with you before eli but I make an exception here
if not for the elimination of the fairness doctrine we would have not gotten an impeachment of clinton, we would have not gotten bush and we would have not gotten people voting against themselves.
I want the fairness doctrine and I think it’s one of the most important things we can shoot for
Maybe they are afraid their sheeple couldn’t distinguish between Ownership Rules and Bush’s Ownership Society, which used to be code for darker-hued families buying homes — until Fannie and Freddie and Barney screwed it all up and ruined the entire economy.
Sounds pretty much on target to me. Any sane regulation would break up a lot of these media conglomerates and return to stricter rules on how many and what kinds of outlets companies can own in the same market.
Yeah, but they’re supposed to maintain plausible deniability.
Insane is also generally a good bet.
“…I certainly wouldn’t mind seeing Limbaugh and company go away…”
Just turn off the radio? :D
The guy at wetmachine says the Obama picks for FCC are all champions of net neutrality, and Obama has included that in his tech speeches and policy paper.
Exactly.
That might have been true then, but I don’t think it’s true anymore. I think most people are sick of them.
No, seriously. It just came to me in a flash, so I haven’t thought it through. But isn’t there a direct 1:1 mapping of fairness doctrine on net neutrality? It the former is not longer law of the land, then neither should be the latter. The intertoobz should go to the highest bidder.
Yeah, well McFalin pretty much blew that one away.
I have a formula that predicts their reaction precisely;
“if rush says they should be angered they are, if rush is for it they are, if rush is against it they are”
there, plug that in and you’re good to go
Yes, I’ve seen that net neutrality is the one thing that Obama & appointments seem firm on. BUT the fight has just begun. You don’t expect that to be achieved without a BIG fight do you?
I think the results of our recent election would support you here.
For the 365th time…
Promoting tyranny is not free speech.
Yeah, the more viable the internet becomes as an alternative to traditional media, the more important net neutrality is. The right-wing should be very motivated to throttle it.
they need a new shtick, that’s all, the lack of the fairness doctrine is very dangerous as far as I can see
the main thing I think is breaking up the consolidations and forcing locals to carry their own news
I don’t follow. The federal government has control over and assigns frequencies of the airwaves (radio,TV etc) The internet is a whole nother animal – since it is a global entity that no one really ‘owns’ including our government.
Companies that want to charge for access do so because they control huge portals that make it convenient for people to access. However, individuals and small groups can set up portals on their own and have just as much access.
The large ones control so much of the advertising revenue and access that net neutrality has become an issue – but a lot of that is because they de facto control access mostly through the lack of education among net users as to how to access the net.
As young, computer/tech savvy people age upwards – that should be less of an issue – but in the meantime, let’s keep it as open as possible.
public service announcement:
If, like me, you only watch stuff on teevee that you recorded earlier (hey, you can skip all the commercials), the weather reports make no sense whatsoever.
Sometimes I’m retroactively scared about the severe weather warnings from weeks ago.
I still get up and look out the window though.
I think perhaps that this links up with media ownership rules. The media conglomerates may be looking at extending their corporate dominance over the internet as well and want greater control.
Yep, breaking up ownership isn’t necessarily a guarantee, but at least it gives progressive voices a fair chance, and lowers the cost of entry.
there is the vile hatred of bush that got us the win, nothing they could do would overcome that
they still have the bully pulpit and it is powerful
No – I’m not that naive. But it does help if the regulators are on your side!
Rupert is a naturalized citizen. He wouldn’t be able to donate to political campaigns otherwise.
ja, makes sense. Personally, the most interesting recent development is the move the large internet players are making toward cloud computing. I have no sense on how it plays into net neutrality, really, other than the massive amounts of hardware positioned around the t00bz.
The Republican dream would be for *all* media to be corporate-owned.
if a choice, I would rather break up the consolidation then get the fairness doctrine, on that I agree
There is nothing natural about Rupert!
Disagree. Yes, more tech savvy people will mitigate influence but it’ll be hard to get the alternatives competitive. Look at where the traffic is now. Not on alternative sites. If the big sites get preference because they’re willing to pay more, then alternative sites will be slow & users will lose interest.
The Talk Radio people WANT this conversation about the Fairness Doctrine (by the way, Sean Hannity has already renamed it the Censorship Doctrine Eli.)
There are a couple of reasons, Hugh above has got part of this
They want to be in victim mode. They also know that since it is not on the agenda of the left they can easily claim victory when it doesn’t happen or if anyone even mentions it and then doesn’t act.
They are already mobilizing their listeners to protect them from something that will not be happening. The Media Research Center and “Free Speech Alliance” have an ad about stopping the Fairness Doctrine. I heard a caller on Hannity asking, “What can I do to fight this Censorship Doctrine?”
I also think that RW radio is hurting Republicans, but what I really want to happen is for one group of people, the advertisers, to see that the talkers will keep spewing even more extreme rhetoric in order to connect with a base that feels victimized and lost. The talkers will stay true to their “values” before anything and in this process they will attack and keep pushing more and more violent comments, lies and slander. That needs to be addressed to the advertisers. Nobody else will do anything.
Advertisers need to see that this is not something they want to associate with.
I know how they respond to people who question them, character assassination, lies and attacks on people’s privacy. Why is that okay? If I educated the advertisers again at KSFO they would out me, breach my privacy, call me a commie, liar, thief and worse. I would have no recourse.
Maybe name calling is seen as no big deal for some people, but reality of the power of their broadcast platform and the nature of their comments makes them a very nasty force to deal with.
One question I have is:
Why are they treated like journalists when they make a comment that is clearly incorrect and a lie? Where are the corrections at the top of the show?
They are given all the legal protection a journalists but they have not of the responsibilities of them. Since it’s all ‘entertainment’ it okay.
Low power FM is one way to go. There are other low power broadcasting options as well. They have a limited range so it’s possible for a city without public or community radio to put progressive ideas on the air at low cost.
Well off to cook that Salmon up!! Be back later!!
It’s totally insane to even be having the argument about net neutrality. Every where else on the planet, governments and businesses collaborate to provide the fastest speeds, biggest bandwidths and most access to everyone that they can get. It saves billions for businesses and everyone benefits.
Only here are we talking about allowing a few large portals to control speeds and bandwidths and they are talking about freezing people out or slowing down their stuff. Huh? How stupid is that. Oh wait….it generates a lot of money for the big portals and sucks it out of everyone else. Nevermind. Business as usual.
I think we will have to agree to disagree here, I think it was more than “vile hatred”. Personally, I don’t use any form of the word “hate”. I find it self-destructive.
All I’m trying to do is identify the enemy & his tactics early on. That’s why I’m hypothesizing that the fairness doctrine may be the oppositions first try. I’m not giving them suggestions, but trying to keep up with them. Otherwise we’ll lose.
Is the fact that Joe Lieberman, who is simultaneously a member of at least three political parties, is gonna be on MTP tomorrow an example of the Fairness Doctrine at work?
That’s it! Market works! I can hear the chorus already.
I agree with you, but as I already said, am looking to short circuit the attacks. Money talks. Don’t underestimate it.
Big sites are paying whom? They got a portal access the same way anyone does – set up a computer as a portal and start selling access through your server. They are the ones who are ‘punishing’ people with slow speeds and narrow bandwidths if they all don’t pay them – for something that is essentially free if you know how to do it.
The education thing is why the big sites get traffic. They sell access in packages with other stuff, through massive advertising campaigns, and then when you sign up with them it’s almost impossible to get off. And once people get familiar with their ISP, they are reluctant to change – even if the other service is half the price!
I would love to see them starved by their own advertisers. Although I suspect the advertisers might be afraid of them, or at least the biggies like Rush, anyway.
Let’s not forget pirate radio, which is always a hoot. Had one right here in Sleepy Hollow until the radio police shut him down.
I think we will be pleasantly surprised to find that net neutrality will be like Social Security. The rightwing may want to get rid of SS but too many people on all sides scream. I think we will find that net neutrality is very similar.
I think you have hit the nail on the head!
That’s where the money is. I’m immune to advertising & you may be too, but the bandwidth will go to the advertising sites unless we legislate net neutrality.
My folks set one up in a room at their theater, and, about a month latter the FCC raided it and cut the main antenna cable and issued a cease and desist order…!
“The Republicans want to make your internets more expensive.” Yeah, I think we wouldn’t mind that conversation.
That is if we use the net, which we do so well, to bring people’s attention to the issue.
Sell it baby, sell it.
Oh yeah, money talks. If anyone in this country for the last eight years hasn’t realized that at this point…
I appreciate that this is even a topic here – most people don’t even know what ‘net neutrality’ is, and Fairness Doctrine is a) old news, b) don’t know what it is (Repukes especially) or c) whuh?
Gotta keep our eyes and ears open on every single dayam thing!
I am not so optimistic. People understand SocSec because it’s existed for so many years and they don’t have to house their grandparents because of it. But very few people know what net neutrality means. Or the consequences of doing away with it.
Now that sounds like a great use of taxpayer $$. /s
That’s all I’m saying. Fairness Doctrine is a dead duck. So all the heat about it from the right has to be about something else. Net neutrality is the only candidate. Gird your loins.
How many young people use the net hours per day? Where else can you get info out to many, many people at the touch of a key?
That’s why it’s nice to have a tech-savvy Pres-Elect, and a bunch of FCC types who are on the good side of this and are also tech savvy, unlike the previous incarnation. I think that was part of the problem earlier – the FCC Commissioners didn’t really understand it either. But if the Obama picks can explain the ramifications in lay terms and educate the committees members that will go a ways to help. Then all we have to do is beat back Verizon and ComCast and a few others like them.
Well, even that is a problem. Lots of people use computers for stuff – but even they don’t really understand what net neutrality means for them personally. The ones who have heard the term think its just something to do with spam-blocking or big corporations. We have a lot of education to do even in the computer users club.
Heh, they recouped some of it with a $250 fine…!
I still say media ownership rules is another linked issue. Much of their dominance of the airwaves is driven by media consolidation.
Young people don’t vote. Seems like, despite assertions to the contrary, that seems to have been the case in this recent election. Young people also don’t have important policy positions.
If young people mattered, there’d be no opposition to gay marriage.
I totally agree with you on that. That is a typical Repuke trick – set up a false boogeyman, distract, distract and distract. Then pull some crap in the middle of the night.
Like anything else, it needs to be framed in language that people can understand and then saturate the net with it.
Yes, tech-savvy prez is BIG advantage in this area. Gotta watch his contributions like a hawk, though. Wall St contributions are determining his economic team.
Explain it to them in language that they can understand…
Isn’t it kinda funny that those very same airwaves are supposed to be part of the public domain?
good nite all.
be excellent.
You got my point.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that….
Nighty night.
Maybe they don’t, but they do e-mail.
Peace…
Yes, but the Busheviks and other Rethugs have been doing their best to privatize the public domain for decades.
Young people are incredibly important for the future, and should be mobilized as much as possible. I’m just arguing against assuming they’ll be robust participants in favor of net neutrality now.
Rush is too big to fail. They won’t let him be taken down from outside, he will have to destroy himself.
One thing to note is the way that they are twisting themselves into knots about the car manufacturers. GM wants a bailout. Hannity’s “values” says no to government bailouts. What to do?
Hannity attacks the Unions and the Environmentalists for requiring CAFE standards. But at some point maybe the head of GM needs to have a Howard Beale moment with Hannity and tell him to stop attacking the government bailout that they need.
http://www.thetartan.org/2008/11/10/news/elections
Well, the kids are actually doing pretty well, since turnout among adults was 62%. And there was a lot of intimidation of college kids in some states, and difficulties getting to polling places in others due to deliberate placement of precincts at great distances from campuses and transportation issues.
TIME’s Mark Halperin: ‘Extreme Pro-Obama Media Bias A Disgusting Failure’
I agree we shouldn’t assume they would be robust participants. I’m suggesting that if it were “sold” to them in the right way, they would get involved. The rethugs “sell” conservative ideas to their constituents and get action, why shouldn’t/couldn’t we? Just an idea….
In any kind of truly sane and just world, Rush would have taken himself down many times over. What he said about Donovan McNabb that got him fired from ESPN was pretty tame compared to what he says on his show on a daily basis.
And are you saying that the auto industry advertises on Rush & Hannity?
I think they might if someone could just explain in lay terms what net neutrality would mean to them personally – on their blackberries, iPhones or whatever the latest gadget is.
Keep sucking on those sour grapes Mark.
Fair enough. Thanks for the stats. Part of the long uphill slog.
As the mother of a 27 year old wingnut, I’m of mixed emotions about youguns’ voting. *g* Unfortunately, I taught him too well. He ALWAYS votes.
exactly my point.
Night tw3k.I always thought that Mark Halperin was a miserable failure. Maybe it might occur to him that the media are favoring competence and success. He did win the election after all and by a substantial margin.
I’m pretty sure that if we told them Republicans would make their internet and text messaging more expensive, they’d be pretty motivated.
Somehow, the Beltway cut off the circulation to Mark’s brain long ago.
TIME’s Mark Halperin:
‘Extreme Pro-Obama Media BiasA Disgusting Failure’works for me…
Yes, good idea. Instead of being dismissive of younguns in the net neutrality fight, as my prior comment suggest, we need to mobilize them.
Thanks for the stats.
Come to think of it, who does advertise on those shows? I refuse to listen, so I have no idea/
Yes. See my 152. The younguns are a clear constituency who would favor net neutrality and instead of dismissing them as my prior comments did, we should try to engage them. I have a hard time thinking dynamically instead of statically.
I think so.
And if we told them that they wanted to do it to make some fat cats and corporations even richer, maybe we could turn them into socialists. 8-)
Not just cost – but SLOOOOOWWWW! That would really get them going!
You are assuming facts not in evidence.
McCain has had a long career filled with episodes of bad judgment, corruption, temper, etc.. The implication is that the media should have forgotten about all that in order to level the playing field.
They didn’t destroy any of this guy’s stuff. Ran a series of articles in the local rag about it. Did fine the shit out of him though.
me too
You may have something there….:-)
thers upstairs
s’okay. My prob is the other way around.
I spent years working with teens (as a community organizer!) and find that there are ways to get them engaged, even on what most adults think of as ‘boring’ stuff if it’s presented right, and if the kids are engaged in trying to find the solutions – and then that those solutions are honored.
Me three!
So FDL is mostly older DFHs. See bmaz post about 45th anniversary of JFK assassination earlier today.
Is the system set up to get young folks to enter the fray in net neutrality?
Well, actually, they did. No mention of any of his past peccadilloes flare ups or assorted fuck ups. Did we see one mention of the fact that he continued flying even after crashing 5 planes (one is generally a career ender)?
I have heard him say things, particularly late in the election cycle, that were so removed from reality… Can’t recall offhand what it was he said a few weeks back that actually caused his fellow panelists to laugh at him. Poor Mark, he just wants to be loved…
So true. If they are shown how something directly affects them and they are given an opportunity to come up with creative solutions, they dig it.
Agreed, they ignored most of his failings. Barely a mention of Keating 5, which should have ended his career then and there.
There are plenty of blogs and sites out there directed at younger folks, someone just needs to get the ball rolling.
I can’t love him, but I can laugh at him – ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Guess I’m just D, been mostly bypassed by F and H.
I usually wait to laugh until he gets something right. Like, “Wow, I didn’t expect him to say that!” Typically, he follows with something twice as inane to even the score.
Once again, this is Right Wing Projection, and we’d be smart to pay attention to it. The reason that the Right reflexively jumps to this position is exactly because they know that the reason they have the propaganda edge over the Left is because of the obliteration of the Fairness Doctrine.
I don’t think that the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated, because it futilely treats the symptom. I think anti-trust laws should be enforced against media empires. They need to be broken up into smaller, independent organizations with separate, distinct boards. Then the full spectrum of political thought can simply reassert itself – Firedoglake Channel, anybody? Until then, it’s media monopolies, and not a lack of the Fairness Doctrine, that imperil political dialog in this country.
Yes the auto industry in the US advertise on Hannity. Hannity READS the ad about his “good friends at GM” he also pitches the Chevy Volt.
This could be a good chance to “get him into trouble” with GM.
But Hannity’s incoherent when it comes to trade and the auto industry.
In order for Hannity to give the auto industry what they want (a bailout) and still stay true to his “values” he has to twist himself into knots. He does it by blaming Unions and environmentalists for everything.
Hannity is filled with more double speak than usual, check out this part on the auto industry. He is attacking the government is the source of all bad things one second, Japan the next and how they have car tariffs and we don’t and that the government should do something, but he quickly notes, “I’m a free trader”.
Hannity probably doesn’t know that the Japanese drive on the left side of the road and the American’ manufacturers aren’t willing to retool for that. Japanese should just buy our reversed cars out of their sense of Free Trade and love for all things American.
I know it is painful to listen to Sean Hannity, but here is a link from the actual Sean Hannity show on 11/13/08 quoted above so you can see that I was accurate. It is 4 minutes long (Link)
I know Sean screams when you don’t listen to his ENTIRE show for context, so if you want the entire hour you will just have to listen to his entire show, three hours a day. That is all he asks!
(They love screaming “out of context” when you quote them exactly in context.)
In the rest of the hour he is setting himself up as the victim for the “Censorship Doctrine” that will be imposed on him by Obama.
Actually I think he is BEGGING for a fairness doctrine fight, he knows that it would play with the sense of victim hood that he wants.
I love the “out of context” dodge. Every quote is “out of context”, pretty much by definition, because you have to cut somewhere. So they just automatically shriek “out of context!” whenever they get busted saying something awful, despite the fact that adding context never actually makes it any less awful.
But it’s still technically true – though irrelevant – that they were quoted “out of context”.
All of Innannity’s points about car sales in Japan are straw-man arguments. It has nothing to do with CAFE standards or all the rest. As you pointed out – they drive on the left side of the road. But gasoline in Japan has been the equivalent of about $10 a gallon for years – and we have nothing to offer in the highly fuel-efficient categories that brought us the Prius and Incite. They also build almost all small cars – many of which get really huge mileage while not being hybrids. Space is at a premium – and parking is a nightmare there so no thanks to giant vehicles for that reason as well. And the Japanese got really used to the reliability of their automakers compared to Detroit.
So…weaning them off of small, fuel-efficient reliable cars for giant, gas-guzzling Fix-Or-Repair-Daily or CHove-It-Or-Leave-Its? Kind of hard to see any rationale for that.
I like your position on the break-ups the best. What happened to anti-trust? It didn’t get repealed – that’s what they used on Microsoft. But why in the world hasn’t it been used on the media, the banking and financial industry, _______ fill in the blanks here? Oh, right – the Rethugs have been in charge. Nevermind.
When they are pushed against the wall they will parse words finer and faster than a sushi chef on speed. Another thing the do is to take an accusation that wasn’t made and say, “I never made that accusation!”
One of the things that I think we can do to hasten their own self destruction is to get them out of their comfort zones. Rush needs to be with other audiences in a format he can’t control. Hannity needs to be with someone who can actually beat back his debate team talking points. Rush will be smart and won’t leave his zone. But Hannity wants to be loved. He needs to be paired up with Rachael Maddow or Keith to argue policy.
But arguing with Hannity and “winning” the conversation isn’t really satisfying if he uses it for greater ratings. Knowing wingnuts as I do I think that what they argue strongest about is an area that they are weak in. Is Hannity really a “Great America?” I wonder if he gets money from that great American The Rev. Moon? Also, is he a good Catholic? He said in the pews for 20 years and he didn’t learn anything? I guess not, because the current Catholic Church is not pro-torture and and is not pro-war. Hannity is defying the Church if he is pro war. Maybe he shouldn’t get communion.
Sean Hannity did the “You’re a Great American” car giveaway (6 vehicles, I believe) for GM a couple of years ago.
You can never ‘win’ an argument with a wing-nut. No matter what you say to them, they don’t listen or think about what you said. They just repeat their ‘talking point’ over again, louder, as if that will make you convert to their way of thinking.
That’s why, for the most part, it is useless to even waste the time and effort required to have a conversation with one.
Wingnuts pretend that they will be fair with an argument, but when they are busted they do exactly what you say. That is why they need to be disarmed off their turf. I also want the people who pay for them to see just how bad they actually are. And I’d like them to quietly walk away from them.
Let their only source of revenue be herbal pills that make your “member” grow, since that would be good target marketing.
When do they ever leave their own turf, though? I mean, look what happened when BillO showed up on Letterman.
They usually don’t but Hannity has a big ego and is very insecure. For him he needs a “I dare ya. What are ya a Chicken?” kind of deal.
And it would need to be someone who has credibility that HE wants. But there isn’t anyone who would do that.
Rush is another case all together. Someone needs to pay to have a private eye track Rush. His drug use and other sexual perversions will be obvious within about 3 weeks. These people have already revealed their sicknesses to the general public, dig a bit deeper and you will see more.
Two profound things happened to the right wingers during this past election. For a year and a half they were told Obama, Muslim, terriorist, etc. The Powell and McCain came out and said, no that’s not right. The right wingers had to face the fact that rush, hannity and fox had been lieing to them like we had been trying to tell them all that time. When you find out you’ve been played that badly for your vote, well it does something to one’s soul.