|To: American Spirit who wrote (1472)
|6/7/2008 12:36:42 PM
|Democrats will weigh challenge to John Kerry
By Associated Press
Saturday, June 7, 2008 - Added 5m ago
E-mail Printable (0) Comments Text size Share (0) Rate
Some 3,000 Bay State Democrats will gather inside a cool, dark arena in Lowell today with one question on their mind.
Does John Kerry, less than four years removed from being about 60,000 votes short of the presidency, deserve to face a challenger from his own party while seeking re-election to the U.S. Senate this fall?
A Gloucester attorney, some Democratic activists and a group called the Progressive Democrats of America think he does.
They alternately argue that Kerry has neglected his home state, ignored the will of his fellow Democrats by endorsing Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, or betrayed liberal principles by voting in 2002 to authorize military force in Iraq.
Edward O’Reilly, a Watertown native who worked first as a firefighter before putting himself through law school, decided to challenge Kerry for the Democratic nomination in part over the war vote.
“John Kerry voted for the war knowing the war was wrong,” O’Reilly said yesterday by telephone. “If we look at the past, we know that John Kerry did not vote his conscience.”
The 54-year-old Gloucester attorney also criticized Kerry for opposing same-sex marriage and for not expressing sufficient outrage over windfall oil company profits amid $4-per-gallon gasoline prices.
Another Kerry critic, delegate Charles Motta of Mattapoisett, said he’s concerned about a report Kerry is angling to become secretary of state in a potential Obama administration.
“Are we doing all this for nothing?” Motta asked. “Are we electing him to a senatorship and then he goes to serve in the Obama administration?”
The issue for delegates today is whether they award O’Reilly at least 15 percent of their nomination vote, so he can make the primary ballot.
Kerry campaign manager Roger Lau denies suggestions the senator is trying to keep O’Reilly off the ballot; in fact, he’s girding for a primary challenge
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
|To: American Spirit who wrote (1476)
|12/22/2008 6:31:07 AM
|Limbaugh Is Right on the Fairness Doctrine
Liberals don't need equal-time rules to compete.
By JON SINTON
Mr. Sinton is the founding president of Air America Radio.
Conservative talk radio has worked itself into a tizzy lately over the rumored revival of the Fairness Doctrine -- the FCC policy that sought to enforce balanced discussion on the nation's airwaves.
As the founding president of Air America Radio, I believe that for the last eight years Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have been cheerleaders for everything wrong with our economic, foreign and domestic policies. But when it comes to the Fairness Doctrine, I couldn't agree with them more. The Fairness Doctrine is an anachronistic policy that, with the abundance of choices on radio today, is entirely unnecessary.
Instituted in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine obligated stations to "afford reasonable opportunity" for opposing views on topics of "public importance." At the time, most cities outside of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles had only a few stations. AM radio was in everyone's car and home, but there were just three or four stations per market. FM radio was still a quarter of a century away from commercial success.
Policy makers who introduced the Fairness Doctrine were worried that crafty special interests could overwhelm the airwaves with one-sided propaganda and tilt elections, sway public sentiment or foment civil unrest. Their fears were understandable. Joseph Goebbels effectively used radio in service of the Third Reich.
Contrary to what some people would have us believe today, the Fairness Doctrine was primarily an issue on TV, since radio didn't have much talk. Until the 1970s, AM stations had a steady diet of music with a couple of minutes of news at the top of the hour. But by 1978, music had migrated to FM, leaving AM in a programming lurch. The history of media is replete with new technologies stealing the content of the ones they supplant. Motion pictures killed vaudeville; radio was full of dramas and comedies before Jack Webb and Jack Benny switched to TV. As for AM radio, it was not until Rush found an audience on WABC in New York City in 1988 that the AM operators knew what to do with their once mighty stations.
The conventional wisdom is that Rush's success depended on the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. Some say that if he had to make time for opposing opinions, Rush would have flopped. Personally, I think he is most entertaining when he is dismantling opposing arguments. He's successful because he is a superior entertainer.
Rush created the new AM template, and it spread like wildfire. When programmers and sales managers get a whiff of success, it is cloned in every conceivable way until the audience, once grateful for innovation, tunes out.
So why didn't liberal talk radio flourish as well? There are several reasons, none of which has to do with a lack of talent. Bill Maher, Al Franken, Stephanie Miller, David Bender, Janeane Garofalo, Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow all have the chops.
First, boring hosts made the occasional, unsuccessful foray (sorry, Mario Cuomo). Second, some talented lefties like Mike Malloy were cast into the abyss of right-wing talk radio where they were completely out of place. (Radio is a mood servicing drug; format purity rules.)
Finally, most broadcast owners are conservative. Programs like Rush's have made them rich, so the last thing they want is to mess with success, particularly if it entails airing opinions they don't share. Trust me, it took us years to get them to play rock 'n' roll.
No one tried a national, 24-hour liberal station before Air America Radio. When we founded Air America, we aimed to establish a talk network that lived at the intersection of politics and entertainment. Of course, we were motivated by our political leanings. But as a lifelong broadcaster, I was certain that at least half the American audience was underserved by conservative talk radio. Here was an opportunity to capture listeners turned off by the likes of, say, Sean Hannity. The business opportunity was enticing.
It never occurred to me to argue for reimposing the Fairness Doctrine. Instead, I sought to capitalize on the other side of a market the right already had built.
When conservative talking heads wave a red flag about the possible revival of the Fairness Doctrine, they know it's a great way to play the victim and rally supporters. But I'll let Rush continue with his self-righteous indignation -- and if I want, I'll tune into Rachel Maddow, or one of the thousands of other voices that populate radio today.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
|To: Bill who wrote (1497)
|1/10/2009 11:22:10 PM
|From: American Spirit
|Limbaugh and his 400 million dollar contract has been DEAD WRONG and clearlty dishonest on just about every single issue facing this country since he first went on air. He's also a total hypocrite and never practices what he preaches. He's not only a drug addict put either a gay or a straight who likes young girls. And his methods are no different from those of Hitler's propaganda artists. Tell big fat lies to divide and conquer. But he's totally failed at it.
When are you people going to realize that Limbaugh and Hannity don't give a damn about people like you. They use you as suckers in a big con game for the billionaire corporate class so they can exploit you. That's the way it's always been, disguising their true elitist white collar criminal agenda in sensitve wedge issues, like keeping alive the confederacy, racism, gay-baiting, sexual phobia, xenophobia, distrust of foreigners, distrust of anyone and everything that might threaten the profits of the very same companies Bush-Cheney and Delasy were pimping for, all the industries which need to be regulated for the public good. That's all it's ever been about, basically pure greed. But it has totally backfired and now even clobbered the most greedy.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)
|To: Bill who wrote (1499)
|3/16/2009 10:46:47 AM
|From: Peter Dierks
|Newsweek and Air America Join Forces -- Both Reputations Tarnished
by Seton Motley
It’s official -- what we the sentient public, doctor and dentist patients in waiting rooms across America and the eight diehards still subscribing have long known: Newsweek is a horrendously biased left-wing rag.
Newsweek announced on Tuesday that they are partnering with liberal radio uber-failure Air America to syndicate their show Newsweek On Air. They are the first outside “talent” to join with the newly rechristened Air America Media (AAM).
Longtime Newsweek On Air producer and host and Newsweek Contributing Editor David Alpern said of the conjoining, "AAM Syndication is a great partner for Newsweek On Air. We look forward to maintaining the same high-quality content, balance, and listener interest that has won our program various awards and a place on so many station schedules, some for nearly all of its 27 years on the air."
After more than a quarter century of their “balanced” programming, I would venture to guess that most of you have never heard of Newsweek On Air. This state of anonymity will likely continue with their Air America Media partnership. It seems they sought to collaborate with an entity whose listenership mirrors their readership – minimal and declining rapidly.
What is it that has Newsweek thinking that Air America Media is such a “great partner?” Is it that they are they looking forward to sharing the same airwaves that gave us the likes of Mike Malloy, who on February 3, 2009 said “the Republican Party needs to be executed, preferably at dawn, preferably without a last cigarette” and the next day proffered “the Republican Party needs to be murdered”?
Or perhaps it’s someone more like Thom Hartmann, who on January 23rd of this year alleged that the 2001 anthrax mailings to then Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy were an inside job designed to scare these two into allowing a vote on the Patriot Act? “Now you tell me that that's a coincidence and I'll tell you, and if you really believe that's a coincidence, I got a bridge to sell ya in Brooklyn.”
Neither of these integrity-riddled broadcasters is still with AAM, which must be a disappointment to the folks at Newsweek. But it is into this cesspool that they are now enthusiastically diving. They must be so proud.
And is the timing of this partnership announcement coincidental, or just really stupid?
The same week Newsweek announces that they now have new skin in the radio game, they use their cover and the accompanying story to bash Rush Limbaugh, the undisputed king of syndicated talk and someone who is ideologically opposed to the magazine's new syndication partner. Thereby hiding their new business interests -- and their old ideological ones -- behind the battered veneer of their journalistic integrity.
It’s Pepsi assaulting Coca-Cola under the guise of objective reporting.
And as if they were priming the partnership pumps, when Air America Radio launched in 2004 Newsweek did a fawning, glowing three-page announcement story featuring host Al Franken -- including a President Bush-mocking “photo illustration” of Franken standing on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit beneath a “Mission Accomplished” banner.
After what we witnessed from the media during their coverage of the 2008 Presidential campaign, these sorts of things are less and less surprising. And we will be seeing more and more of them.
Last year, the press sold out in a whole new way to now-President Barack Obama. They’ve always been this biased; never before have they been this blatant. In 2000, they wanted Al Gore to win; in 2004, they wanted John Kerry to win. But in 2008, they took an active, participatory role in ensuring Obama won. And over the course of their coverage, they became decreasingly concerned about hiding it or who knew it.
So it should not surprise us when things like Newsweek partnering with Air America occur. This is just the official inking of the deal. The agreement had long ago been reached. Newsweek themselves brought on Daily Kos mega-liberal Markos Moulitsas as a contributor in 2007, but claimed to have “balanced” it out by also adding Karl Rove.
It speaks volumes that Newsweek views as equals a man who managed two successful campaigns for the White House and someone who wrote in April 2004 of the Blackwater contractors slaughtered in Fallujah, Iraq “I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. [sic] … Screw them,”
Were we at the Media Research Center to write any of this into our intentionally (and extraordinarily) humorous DisHonors Awards Gala script for next week, at which we make much fun of the unintentionally (and painfully) humorous media, I’m not sure it would play.
For all good humor must be rooted in truth, and this would seem just too… fanciful to be true.
Sadly, it is indeed another frightening reality in the Brave New Post-Obama Media World.
Mr. Motley is the Director of Communications for the Media Research Center. If you like, or dislike, he may be reached electronically at SMotley@MediaResearch.org.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)