Liberals trying to silence talk radio?

[6SpeedTA95]

Liberal Democrats are attempting to muzzle conservative talk radio: they are assaulting free speech. Like the communists in the former Soviet Union, America’s liberals seek to crush dissent by consolidating control over the media—especially talk radio, which has emerged as the dominant medium for conservative opinion.



Allies close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are promoting legislation, which if passed, will take off the air prominent conservative radio hosts such as Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly—along with thousands of smaller conservative broadcasters. The bill, entitled the "Media Ownership Reform Act," is sponsored by Rep. Maurice Hinchey, a leftist Democrat from New York. The legislation aims to revive the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” of the 1940’s: “all views” are to be given equal time on radio. In particular, the Federal Communications Commission would have the power to oversee and change radio and television content. The goal is to tilt the ideological balance of power away from the right on the nation’s air waves.



The real force behind the effort to censor conservative talk radio is the progressive–philanthropist, George Soros. The radical leftist billionaire has made no secret of his hatred for conservatives. He says President Bush has transformed America into a militaristic, “fascist” empire. Moreover, Soros champions many of liberalism’s chic causes: abortion on demand, legalization of drugs, homosexual marriage, euthanasia, unlimited Third World immigration, open borders, and one-world government anchored in the United Nations. He advocates all the issues that are anathema to popular radio talk-show hosts like Savage, Limbaugh and Hannity. Hence, he wants these commentators to be exiled to the political wilderness.



At a recent National Conference for Media Reform, sponsored by Free Press, a Massachusetts-based group heavily subsidized by Soros, Hinchey laid bare his plan to silence conservative voices on television and radio. The anti-war McGovernite attacked Savage, Limbaugh and other conservative radio hosts, saying they were “responsible” for leading the U.S. into the Iraq war, as well as for preparing the ground for future military invasions of Iran and Syria. According to Hinchey, these men pose a “threat” to American national security. Hence, under his bill, they would be fired.



"All of that stuff will end," Hinchey said.



In the Senate, the legislation is being supported by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. A self-styled “social democrat,” Sanders is forming a media caucus with the explicit goal of ending conservative hegemony on talk radio.



"Now is the time to begin asking that if networks provide their listeners with 99 percent of talk shows being with right-wing extremists, whether that really is what public trust is about," Sanders said in an address in January. "Now is the time to open the question of the Fairness Doctrine again."



However, this begs the question of why do radio networks have most of their shows hosted by conservatives? The answer is a simple one: They’re popular with listeners. Talk radio is overwhelmingly right-leaning because it satisfies the public’s growing appetite for alternative news and commentary to the liberal media establishment. If the Democrats don’t like the opinions of Savage, Limbaugh or Hannity, then all they need to do is go to CNN, MSNBC, NPR, The New York Times or The Washington Post. There are countless outlets peddling the anti-war, anti-Bush mantras of the left.



The liberal media and political class have tried to marginalize conservative talk radio for years—first by ignoring it, then by demonizing it, and finally by attempting to compete with it. Air America, with hosts such as Al Franken, was supposed to be the great liberal alternative to conservative talk radio. But, in spite of all the puff stories in The Times, The Post and CNN, Air America failed dismally to attract a large audience. When Hinchey, Sanders, Soros and their liberal Democratic allies complain about the need to “give equal time” to left-leaning views on radio, they forget one important fact: The radio audience is not interested. Now, after the failure of Air America, the Democrats are attempting to implement the final solution to their conservative problem: censorship.



Eastern European conservatives have faced similar oppression for the last 15 years. From Georgia to Croatia, Serbia to Slovakia, Soros’ media empire has relentlessly sought to marginalize patriotic and conservative journalists. In many countries in the former communist bloc, there are hardly any conservative voices left in the mainstream media. In fact, the billionaire activist openly brags that the former Soviet empire has become “the Soros empire.” He is now bent on destroying his ideological enemies in the belly of the beast—America.



What Soros understands—like all ambitious leftists before him, such as Lenin, Trotsky, FDR—is that attaining cultural power is the necessary precondition to achieving political power. The brilliant Italian Leninist revolutionary, Antonio Gramsci, outlined this strategy in his theory of cultural hegemony. Gramsci argued that once the left captures the commanding organs of culture and the media, the “state will simply fall into our hands.” He understood that, by dominating culture and stifling all voices of opposition, the left would be free to manipulate and mold public opinion, thereby paving the way to permanent political dominance. This is why Soros and his Democratic allies are determined to smash talk radio, the main bastion of cultural/media resistance to the liberal regime.



The attempt to revive the “Fairness Doctrine” represents a direct assault on freedom of speech. It is a concession by liberals that they are losing the battle in the marketplace of ideas. Unable to compete with conservatives in the arena of rhetoric, facts and reasoned argument, Democrats are resorting to the Stalinist method of stifling all dissenting points of view. Unable to out-argue and out-debate Savage, Limbaugh and Hannity, liberals are hoping to silence them—once and for all.



More importantly, the war on talk radio reveals the totalitarian impulse at the heart of modern liberalism. Above all, liberalism is an ideology based on radical social engineering. Its ultimate goal is to transform America into a society characterized by economic collectivism, personal—and especially, sexual—liberation and multilateral globalism. To accomplish these goals, the left must fundamentally restructure the economy, the family unit, traditional bourgeois values, and even the nation itself.



This is why liberals ultimately rely on coercion to pass much of their agenda. They must raise taxes and propose new entitlement programs (like universal health care) to keep expanding the power of the state; they must push for homosexual marriage and abortion to keep undermining the nuclear family; they must expunge religion and the Ten Commandments from the public square to keep rolling back traditional morality; and they must insist on amnesty for illegal immigrants and subordinating foreign policy to the United Nations to keep subverting America’s national sovereignty and distinct cultural identity. Their favorite tools of coercion are usually judicial activism and bureaucratic decrees. Now, however, riding high after the November midterm elections, they are going for the jugular—the outright silencing of their ideological opponents.



Conservatives must form a united front to prevent this blatant power grab by the Soros Democrats. If not, the return of the “Fairness Doctrine” will not only be a great victory for the forces of censorship, but a watershed moment in the continuing march of liberalism against everything that is good, decent and virtuous in America.

Kuhner: Liberal totalitarianism | Article | Free Access | Insight



While I admitedly do not know a thing about this source, I find this premis very scary and this isn't the first time the democrats have proposed eliminating talk radio in one way or another.

This is particularly disturbing since none of these democrats are wanting to silence the left. They're clearly looking to silence all opposing opinions to promote and further their agenda. An agenda that includes infringing on first amendment rights.

Thoughts?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Kuhner: Liberal totalitarianism | Article | Free Access | Insight



While I admitedly do not know a thing about this source, I find this premis very scary and this isn't the first time the democrats have proposed eliminating talk radio in one way or another.

This is particularly disturbing since none of these democrats are wanting to silence the left. They're clearly looking to silence all opposing opinions to promote and further their agenda. An agenda that includes infringing on first amendment rights.

Thoughts?

I actually remember hearing something about this a while back. It's pretty scary, actually, especially when considering that the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I actually remember hearing something about this a while back. It's pretty scary, actually, especially when considering that the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

I agree completely and yet this is the democrats 5th or 6th attempt to pass such a law since the late 1980s. This is scary business and 100% unconstitutional.

[RMNIXON]

There was talk of this after the election. They will try wont they?

The only problem is that more and more people have become wise to what this really is about. Either forced liberalism that the market does not want to support or shut down any controversial broadcasting in order prevent the small stations from violating vague "Fairness" laws. The same goons who monitor these programs for soundbites now want government arm twisting.

Air American won't need to worry about compliance as knowbody will listen.

Once gain Soros is not just about supporting the politics and candidates he wants. He is about shuting the perceived enemy down.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Once gain Soros is not just about supporting the politics and candidates he wants. He is about shuting the perceived enemy down.

Well said.

[JaJae]

It's not uncommon for these people to try to silence dissenting opinion. They're only for free speech when it agrees with them.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's not uncommon for these people to try to silence dissenting opinion. They're only for free speech when it agrees with them.

I hope by "these people" you mean these particular people, as in these politicians.
There isn't a large conspiracy of people on the left who think garbage like this is a good idea. Anyone who thinks there is one needs to stop drinking the kool-aid.

I think "these people" are retarded. Let opinion shows do whatever they want.

[7960]

“all views” are to be given equal time on radio

If this happens not only will rush, hannity, etc, be off the air, so will NPR.

Fuck that... "fairness" has no place when talking about OPINIONS.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

That article is stupid, and so is the Fairness Doctrine. The FD is well intentioned, but is ultimately too impractical and cumbersome to be applied.

But to say it's an attempt to "silence" voices and control the culture is bullshit. The author went off the deep end with his liberal conspiracy crap...

All the act is supposed to do is mandate equal time to each side of a debate. How in the hell could mandating that people hear all sides before making a decision be construed as fascist? When you want to coerce people's opinions, you give them one view, not many.

One might argue it's fascist to mandate that people hear anything, but I don't think that's true when you have limited public airwaves...it's government property in a way, and therefore the government has a duty to make sure it's used fairly when it comes to influencing something so important as an election.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I agree completely and yet this is the democrats 5th or 6th attempt to pass such a law since the late 1980s. This is scary business and 100% unconstitutional.

They get around that clause by going through the Executive Branch a la the FCC.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

But to say it's an attempt to "silence" voices and control the culture is bullshit. The author went off the deep end with his liberal conspiracy crap...

All the act is supposed to do is mandate equal time to each side of a debate. How in the hell could mandating that people hear all sides before making a decision be construed as fascist?

Because everyone knows what will happen when this takes place. People don't listen to liberal radio. For whatever reason, they just don't. If stations are forced to broadcast shows that no one listens to they will lose money, a lot of it (see Air America) and they will go under. There is a reason talk radio didn't take off until after the "fairness doctrine" was struck down. Stations couldn't afford to stay on the air with that format.

Passing this law means they will be shutting stations and whole formats down. Which is exactly what these Democrats want.

[hsmith]

is anyone prohibiting liberals from starting their own radio stations?

if there was a "rush limbaugh" liberal that garnered that much of the listening public, no one would stop him from being on the air

it is all about money. anyonet hat thinks different is a fucking idiot

[kinggovernor]

nothing new here they have been trying to limit free speech since rush became big. And there is no way this would ever become law again

[7960]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

...there is no way this would ever become law again

I wouldn't go that far. I can see this getting pushed through along with somehting else, and then conservatives having to fight to get it gone.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by hsmith

is anyone prohibiting liberals from starting their own radio stations?

if there was a "rush limbaugh" liberal that garnered that much of the listening public, no one would stop him from being on the air

it is all about money. anyonet hat thinks different is a fucking idiot

Ok, call me an idiot. What money are you talking about?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Ok, call me an idiot. What money are you talking about?

I think he's referring to shutting down conservative outlets so people are forced to listen to the more liberal mainstream media.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Because everyone knows what will happen when this takes place. People don't listen to liberal radio. For whatever reason, they just don't. If stations are forced to broadcast shows that no one listens to they will lose money, a lot of it (see Air America) and they will go under. There is a reason talk radio didn't take off until after the "fairness doctrine" was struck down. Stations couldn't afford to stay on the air with that format.

Passing this law means they will be shutting stations and whole formats down. Which is exactly what these Democrats want.

Oh, I never thought of it as forcing AM radio to give Al Franken a show. I thought it would be forcing Hannity to turn his radio show into Hannity and Colmes or something.

Anyway...

Why should conservative media have the benefit of using public airwaves to profit, when as you say, they couldn't profit privately?

I mean, if in fact the fairness act would silence conservative voices, then you're arguing the free market would not support conservative media elsewhere. If it could support them elsewhere, the voices haven't been silenced, they've just been moved around.

Are there not enough people who like Hannity, O'Reily, et al to make it attractive for satellite radio to pick them up? Would you answer by saying people shouldn't have to pay for satellite radio to hear someone because of government interference?

But how can you call it government interference when the only way these AM shows were profitable was by taking advantage of cheap government airwaves? The previous use of government airwaves for conservative media was an act of government benevolence. It can be taken away.

What's with the sense of entitlement?

[7960]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Oh, I never thought of it as forcing AM radio to give Al Franken a show. I thought it would be forcing Hannity to turn his radio show into Hannity and Colmes or something.

Are you also going to force BET to give some of their time to white shows? Are you going to force the 700 Club to have a "Coffee with Satan" segment? Are you going to force NBC Nightly News to create spots for Hannity and O'Reilly every night? If you want everyone's opinion aired then you can't just target one specific group and make them give up time to "the other side" you have to do it for EVERYONE. And since I didn't see too many spots by Ann Coulter on Air America I'm going to guess they won't like that side of the equation too much.

Why should conservative media have the benefit of using public airwaves ......

Both sides have the benefits of using the public airwaves. Liberals just can't put together a show people care enough about to tune in. They both have the same opportunity.......why legislate against conservatives just because liberals suck at radio?

Are there not enough people who like Hannity, O'Reily, et al to make it attractive for satellite radio to pick them up? Would you answer by saying people shouldn't have to pay for satellite radio to hear someone because of government interference?

What's with the sense of entitlement?

Entitlement? They put on a show people that (a) people are willing to listen to, and (b) companies are willing to buy commercial time on. Where is the entitlement?

Entitlement would be forcing the shows to air an opinion different than theirs. "Liberals" (a generalization...whatever) want this because they can't come up with a format that (a) people are willing to listen to, and (b) companies are willing to buy commercial time on. If they could do that then this wouldn't be an issue. Conservative shows aren't taking up all the air time or all the channels. Liberals have every opportunity that conservatives do.

Why don't the liberals stop bitching about how big Hannity's audience is and get someone people are willing to listen to? Oh that's right....because they tried and nobody listened so now rather than trying to raise themselves up they're going to try to knock everyone else down. Typical liberal bullshit.