In Democrat-led Toledo, talk radio still leans to right

And the last election proves a "fairness doctrine" is not needed. Radio stations should be allowed to do what they want to do.
===
It starts at 6 a.m. every weekday in Toledo and continues nonstop for hours, a persistent drumbeat on the radio air waves:

Barack Obama's stimulus plan is larded with corruption, pork-barrel politics, and waste.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090208/ART18/902...
====
Maggie Thurber also reminds us that Debbie Stabenow's husband has had a long history of failed liberal radio startups. Of course, this is not pertinent to the article.

http://thurbersthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/02/evil-conservative-talk-radi...

Of course Debbie's husband was also involved with prostitutes, so his judgement could be clouded:
http://www.wxyz.com/news/story/Stabenows-Husband-in-Prostitution-Bust/lg...

Anyway, more big government hacks trying to flex their power over people.

No votes yet

Oooohhhh Yeaaaahhhh

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

I'm absolutely convinced that those who voted for Obama have elected a potential dictator. Here's why:

America was not founded on the principles of socialism. Socialism is not in our blood. The artificial redistribution of wealth by the force of government to "level the playing field" in order to create a classless, obedient society has never worked

Taking money from one group to give to another group is immoral since it's based on the philosophy that government, is the one who "endows us with rights" rather than our Creator.

To the degree that Americans are willing and able to resist socialism with every fiber of their being, the Obamatons will push back with even greater force which will effectively limit our liberty. In turn, it will ultimately lead to some form of totalitarianism.

...president a dictator? Enacting legislation that has to go through a freely-elected legislative branch?

It's interesting, that following on the heels of an administration that flexed the limits of its power, and many say overextended its reach, that you would be thinking Obama is a potential dictator.

It's apparent Obama dropped the hot potato of Jeremiah Wright to win the election, aided and abetted by ACORN, conservative cowards and massive foreign aid (unaccounted for and much of it undoubtedly illegal), but most importantly: Obama has failed to prove he is a natural born citizen.

Since the liberals miserably fail to maintain any radio audience of worth by merit, they want to force feed the masses with their affirmative action "fairness" doctrine, which is as Luciferian as it gets - calling black white and white black, good evil and evil good.

This is nothing about "fairness" since what is truly fair is for ideas and talk shows and companies to make it or break it on their own, without government interference and control.

Well...at least jayott is listening to WSPD. No matter, the struggling Clear Channel and talk radio in general lose influence everyday among most normal folks. The internet, satellite radio and internet radio will eventually water down their influence altogether. Corporate-controlled media (like most oligopolies) is anathema to competition, and they'll continue to grip tight to the freebie licenses that we citizens give them. Nothing wrong in the meantime with holding them to their obligations of serving the public interest.

Pink Slip

if there is all of this new competition, then this fairness doctrine looks even more silly now because they show they just want to wield power because they can. There is no logical argument on bringing it back if we look at the results of the last election and if there is competition. If they are so big and unmoving then the free market will dictate who wins and who loses and no one has to sweat anything. The idea behind the original radio legislation dates from another era, where all there was was radio. Now with TV, satellite, and the Internet, it does not matter anymore, which is why congresswomen who have spouses who have backed failed liberal radio stations look even sillier talking about it.

I agree with much of what you said. However, the law is the law. If radio stations are required to serve the public interest in return for FREE broadcasts licenses, then shouldn't this law be enforced?

Pink Slip

It's not what the "public interest" is, it's who gets to decide what the "public interest" is. And I'm not ready to let pink decide what the public interest is yet. I believe the public can decide that fairly well and they have by making WSPD successful.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Right--the public should decide. Luckily I happen to be a member of the public. (just got my members' card last week)

Pink Slip

And luckily you're not the only member of the public. Which of course proves my point.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Which of course proves my point

Of course it does (haha)

Pink Slip

on the linked 'Thurbersthoughts' the first sentence says:
'Today's paper has a front-page story about how terrible conservative talk radio is.'

Really...is that what the story says? OK, the article mentions how Democratic U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan thought broadcasting should have more balance and suggested hearings would be held in the Senate on reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

It then quotes Brian Wilson---

Ms. Stabenow's comments infuriated WSPD's morning and afternoon radio hosts, with Brian Wilson telling his listeners, "She's not the brightest bulb in the chandelier."

The afternoon talk show host then went on a rant about her call for Senate hearings on fairness in radio.

"That's their wet dream," he said. "That's what they wish, that's what they want it to be, so they talk about it as if it's actually fact and it's not. It's not fact at all. That was the Fairness Doctrine, but it's not the Fairness Doctrine any longer, because there is no Fairness Doctrine anymore."

All right, so both sides were presented there.

Now it gets into how Carty ran to Washington to try meet with Henry Waxman to try to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

OK, then we have Fred LeFebvre saying that if left-wing radio made money it'd have a voice here but it doesn't so that side was presented.

Then there's discussion about NPR hurting commericial stations going liberal, about financially struggling Air America, about Peter Cavanaugh dissing Al Franken ('horrible') while saying, yes, other liberal talkers were better and might be more successful, about local Democrat consultant Jim Ruvolo saying he's not sure he'd become a loyal listener even if there was a liberal-oriented station in Toledo.....

Where does it say or suggest or insinuate how 'terrible' it is that conservative talk shows are more successful than other political viewpoints?

Too funny. I'm sure that's what conservatives wish the story said or what the slant of the story was. Then all whining and braying about the 'liberal' media could begin anew. Oh wait, I see it already has.

I wonder how many different sides to the story would be presented by WSPD or the Free Press if they were doing a critique of the daily paper's practices and agendas?

Yes indeed, there are big government hacks and there are all sorts of other kinds of hacks.

The slant of the story is that those who want to reinstate the so-called fairness doctrine is that Stabenow, Finkbeiner, et.al. don't like what's being said, liberals get their feelings hurt because they take things too personally, it impedes the liberal socialistic agenda, or liberals' credibility is undermined even if it's by liberals' own words read in context.

So Stabenow's proposed solution [which will help her husband's business] is to "restrain free speech" by setting a "standard" in the name of fairness and fairness being a term that they redefine in order to clear a path for no resistance or opposition.

The slant of the Blade story is the reporter's failure to bother to lookup facts such as this so readers might be able to make up their own minds who should be believed:

The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was tested and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). Although the Court then ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights, the Court cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered. Just five years later, without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded in another case that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate" (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241). In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364). This ruling set the stage for the FCC's action in 1987. An attempt by Congress to reinstate the rule by statute was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and later attempts failed even to pass Congress. (emphasis added)http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM368.cfm

as to your first two paragraphs, isn't this in essence of what Wilson and LeFebvre were quoted as saying in the story? As you upset because they weren't as strident as you'd have liked? Seems like they were given the opportunity. Well, perhaps their direct quotes were chopped out. I'm sure they will tell us on here if they were.

Following that, you're upset because the paper didn't quote the Heritage Foundation?

Personally, I quite agree with the sentiments of David Obey, who said after the House voted to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from using taxpayer dollars to impose the Doctrine in 2007:

“We ought to let right-wing talk radio go on as they do now,” he said. “Rush and Sean are just about as important in the scheme of things as Paris Hilton, and I would hate to see them gain an ounce of credibility by being forced by a government agency or anybody else to moderate their views enough that they might become modestly influential or respected.”

LOL, hey, wasn't Paris used in an ad last fall during the presidential campaign? How'd that turn out?

I love capitilism. If I have a small business, capitalism works. Actually, the way our system works today is that there is a small group of people who are in charge of big business who want to rule everybody else. Germany had a system like that seventy years ago that led to the biggest war ever fought. The business community in the United States is a well disguised Natuional Socialist System.

The business community in the United States is a well disguised Natuional Socialist System

Excellent comment. The big fish eat the little fish, and our gov't hands them the knife and fork.

Pink Slip

"The big fish eat the little fish, and our gov't hands them the knife and fork. "

So... we should make our government bigger then right?

You advocate that in other posts.

MikeyA

MikeyA, better to regulate on the side of the consumer than on the side of big business. Trust-busting is good for competition and ultimately for the consumer

Pink Slip

"regulate on the side of the consumer than on the side of big business."

Ah but the consumer can regulate on their own. I choose not to buy coffee at starbucks. That is self regulation. I don't need the gov't to make that choice for me.

MikeyA

"regulate on the side of the consumer than on the side of big business."

Ah but the consumer can regulate on their own. I choose not to buy coffee at starbucks. That is self regulation. I don't need the gov't to make that choice for me.

And by your own admission the gov't rarely acts on the side of the consumer.

MikeyA

Tell me how a consumer self- regulates while dying of salmonella poisoning? Or from using toys made with copious amounts of lead? Regulating in favor of the consumer isn't some leftist idea. I read Adam Smith discussing it in the Wealth of Nations

Pink Slip

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Athans

His name is Tom Athans. He is the guy who was arrested for paying a hooker AND he is part owner of the revived Air America remnents.

Tom Athans (born 1961) is a notable member of the Democratic Party from the state of Michigan. He is a co-founder and former CEO of the liberal-progressive Democracy Radio, an organization that produced and supported liberal talk radio shows that formerly included the Ed Schultz Show. He is now the executive Vice-President of another liberal talk radio organization Air America. Athans is married to Senator Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat of Michigan and vigorous proponent of the so called Fairness Doctrine for broadcast radio.

Contents

[hide]

//

[edit] Democracy Radio

The company was founded in 2002 by Tom Athans and Paul Fiddick. The plan was to help develop and nurture programming and enlist radio networks and stations to air left-leaning radio hosts. At one point, Democracy Radio produced talk shows for Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, among others. On June 8, 2005, Democracy Radio sold its stake in The Ed Schultz Show to a new company headed by veteran radio executive Randy Michaels, the former CEO of Clear Channel Radio. On November 4, 2005, Athans stepped down as CEO of Democracy Radio, ending the organization.

[edit] Air America

After stepping down from Democracy Radio, Athans became the Executive Vice-President of Air America, a much larger but similar organization. Athans is in charge of developing new programming to expand Air Americas lineup. He will also head Air America’s Washington, D.C. corporate office.[citation needed]

[edit] TalkUSA

After Air America underwent bankruptcy procedures in 2006, Athans co-founded TalkUSA Radio, a liberal radio network.[1]

 

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.