The fundamentals of civil conversation at Ohio State University

President Gee in wanting "civil discourse" isn't mentioning any names, of course, but who do you really think he's including in this condemnation of the national civil debate? Surely not Katie Couric, or Keith Olbermann, or NYT opinion pieces disguised as news. He's not going to condemn union protests over capping pensions, or students protesting tuition hikes, but I'm guessing he's terribly concerned that peaceful Tea Party protests have been held in every state and the capital and the movement is growing.

"The profusion of fractious talk radio and bias disguised as cable news." Do you think he has ever watched Glenn Beck for a week and followed an American history lesson on his chalk board, or read one of his recommended books? Has he watched a Fox panel, where not two sides, but perhaps four are represented, and no one is shouting, or labeling? No, he's probably getting his "news about the news" through a filter like other liberals and academics.

He's not lifting up our current U.S. President as the most thin-skinned, whiny, petulant national leader in memory is he? He doesn't criticize the national media for NOT performing their role in keeping the administration on track by investigation and thorough analysis. No, he's going after the talkers and alternate media that actually do analysis. Glenn Beck, love him or hate him, is doing the job of the press--he's peeking under the skirts of the girlie men of this administration. College presidents never concern themselves over the bias of the regular broadcast media or the major newspapers (which are dying from lack of advertising). Has Gee ever spoken out when Christians and Conservatives are shouted down or denied access to an audience on college campuses? Do conservatives feel safe speaking out on the Ohio State campus?

"We cannot allow the diatribe and venom to shackle our nation’s progress." (Gee) This is the leading up to reinstating the so-called "fairness doctrine."

The fundamentals of civil conversation : onCampus

Finally, I've agreed with Obama!

Although I didn't hear it directly, I heard it reported that Obama thinks the government should extend the time on the digital conversion. He's not President yet, but I'm guessing someone's listening--especially since they ran out of money, and there aren't enough landfills to accept all the old sets. I never saw the importance of it anyway--TV being the wasteland that it is, why do something to expand it? No one in Obama's administration wants more views on radio. As soon as Obama appoints just one liberal to the FCC vacancy, the fairness doctrine will go away (fair to conservatives, that is). Yes, it doesn't have to be Pelosi or Reid or Obama that takes away our right to hear the whole story, it only has to be a regulatory commission. This is how groups like ACORN brought down the banking industry and started the world wide recession with the CRA--any group under these rules is allowed to complain about treatment or coverage. The way I figure it, there are 60 different viewpoints on religion, politics and gender in the country, so by the time a station manager/owner has to file all the papers and hire a lawyer, the talking heads will be removed and we can all go back to do-wop and hip-hop top 20 formats and destroy the radio industry by having them all move to the Internet.

I really do listen to Obama's speeches, at least the first 2 or 3 minutes, before I change channels. I swear I don't know what excites you libs. The man says nothing but platitudes, promises and proverbs. Off teleprompter he's a worse speaker than Bush. Ah, ah, ah, er, um. And if he hadn't sat under the tutelage of Rev. Wright for 20 years, he wouldn't even get the cadence correct that makes it sound like he's God's oracle. You don't learn that in Hawaii living with white grandparents from Kansas.

But back to the digital TV conversion boxes which I wrote about the other day. My daughter came over last night to work on our two TVs that aren't hooked to cable. The kitchen TV which is also an am/fm radio, its primary use, may be a lost cause. The TV in the guest room is going great guns, even though it looks a little odd. The cord runs from the back of the TV, then drapes across the second bed, where an old pair of rabbit ears is propped up with several pillows, and from there to an outlet too far. She thinks we can buy a new set of rabbit ears for about $10, and then if we get an extension cord/surge protector we can construct something a little less hill billy.

As I mentioned before, I used to get WOSU fairly clear if I was lucky. Now I'm getting all sorts of channels--don't recognize the stations even. For instance, Channel 4 (NBC) and Channel 6 (ABC) come in as 4.1 and 6.1, then they both have sister stations 4.2 and 6.2 that seem to be 1950s-1980s reruns. Weird sci-fi movies, Martha Stewart. Sort of neat. It has a remote and there's an on screen menu. If a channel doesn't broadcast in digital the screen shape is a bit narrow, but nothing seems distorted. Now, WOSU is the poorest. I may try to put it on the dressing table so I don't have to drag it across the bed. First we'll try those new rabbit ears.

The unfairness doctrine

If it were up to me, and it is because I change stations or channels, I'd eliminate these guys from the airways and TV screens of America

Anderson Cooper

Chris Matthews

Larry King

The View

Charlie Rose

Mostly it's just their liberal twaddle--global warming, health scares, what's wrong with our culture--that makes little sense because they spew sound bites we've been hearing for 30 years. But Larry and Charlie just look worn out and bored; Anderson takes himself way too seriously; Chris shouts; the View insults women's intelligence. I know some of you enjoy this, so it's OK by me if advertisers and consumers want to support them. I can change channels. And I expect you to do the same when my favorites come up and not legislate/regulate them off the air.

The Fairness Doctrine and the Democrat

Nothing could be sillier than reinstituting the badly named "Fairness Doctrine." We have an information glut. If I want liberal bias, I can pick up the WSJ or the NYT. If I want loud, ear-splitting boomer bumper music with conservative opinion, I can listen to Glenn Beck on radio or watch him on cable. If I want to know what to watch for on the left, I just read Moveon dot org on the internet. Every McCain and Obama and Clinton support group has a web site. I'm still getting mailings from Mike Huckabee! If I want fundy greenies, I can tune into PBS, or if I want liberal greenies, well, I can just open one of my husband's professional magazines. Christian information sites bloom like mold on cathedral walls. (Can you tell I've been to Europe?) But "they" are trying it again. Not just to silence talk radio, and any conservative or libertarian view points, but to stifle Christians on Sunday morning from preaching some of the tough stuff on sex, marriage, greed, politics, parenting, etc. even from the pulpit. How could any single program, paper, editor, reporter ever squeeze every opinion into one story? The law suits would abound; silence, fear and dullness would reign. Here's a little background by WDUN AM 550 in Gainesville, Ga. talker Martha Zoller:

"Until recently, America had a large and robust variety of newspapers and other printed media, but a smaller amount of broadcast availability due to limited frequencies. The Fairness Doctrine came about during the age of Communism and argued that since the airwaves were limited, there should be balance or “fairness” in the points of view that were presented. It applied only to radio and while in place, radio stations avoided controversial topics altogether in order to avoid any problems with the FCC.

In 1984, due to new technologies, the Supreme Court decided the scarcity argument no longer applied and lifted the Fairness Doctrine. And that was before the Internet allowed for limitless voices. There wasn’t much resistance at the time, because radio was thought to be old media.

The end of the Doctrine allowed the explosion of talk radio, saved AM radio and created thousands of new jobs in the broadcast industry. It was one man, Rush Limbaugh, who at the time showed ailing Top 40 AM radio stations they could flourish and be profitable as news/talk stations. Since then, the left has hated the power of talk radio and has made noises recently that they want a return of the Fairness Doctrine. If that happens, talk radio as we know it will cease to exist. Continue here.

I think the NYT is biased and unfair, and should stay that way if it pays their bills. I like the editorial page of the WSJ, but not the editorializing of its reporters. If their advertisers and investors are happy, I can just not read them. I don't want my government to select my news and opinion sources.

HT Newsbusters

4207

The Hush Rush Senators and the Fairness Doctrine

You'll find an interesting history of the Fairness Doctrine over at The Volokh Conspiracy. It's fascinating that Democrats in the 1960s were so fearful of free speech (I was a passionate Democrat then, but didn't know about this), even the snippets of outrageous speech that few bothered to listen to (like some fundamentalist radio preachers squawking in the middle of the night--there was no talk radio or news analysis at the time). Silencing Rush Limbaugh by threatening Clear Channel or censoring him on the floor of the Senate for calling a phony soldier a phony soldier is just a tiny part in the plan to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine." I think I would call it "kill the media doctrine" because high tech communication has made the doctrine obsolete. Now we have so many other ways to get news. Many of these talk shows are wealthy enough to just use other methods and by-pass radio or TV altogether.

Who are the smug beltway buffoons who say there are only two sides (Republicans and/or Democrats, liberals and/or conservatives)? What about the Libertarians, the Socialists, the Communists, the anarchists, the academics, the ethnics, the retirees, the labor unions, the Muslims, the Jews, the Dispensationalists, the polygamists, the reparationists, the radical environmentalists, the man-boy love association and vegans for chicken rights? What if the news story had to present EVERY viewpoint of what to do with unwanted or disabled horses--even the Japanese who eat them and the children who hug them?

I get e-mail news stories daily from groups that hate both Bush and Rush, but some are right wing. . . way right of both men. They doubt Bush's religious faith, they think he's giving the country to the Mexican government, buying up land to make another hi-way to Canada to sell us out, and that his family is in one big business cabal with the Clintons. They think Rush is a traitor because he used the ACLU in fighting charges of prescription drug abuse and leaking his medical records and are horrified by his marriage track record.

I also get e-mail from that bald, skinny elfish-looking guy married to Mary Matalin, whose name escapes me at the moment explaining how the DNC is going to take advantage of every misstep the RNC makes. And during a run-up to an election, any election, will our local school board candidates be able to discuss issues without including the views of every homeschooling parent who pulled her children out of public school 5 years ago, and will the Obama people have to side-step Clinton's ties with Hsu because she would be required to come back with his time spent in a Muslim village? Does a Chinese money source trump an Indonesian terrorist connection in the Fairness Doctrine, or are they equal, fair and balanced?

I really think the broadcast media--ABC, NBC, CBS--better stomp on George Soros and Hilliary Clinton before this goes any further, or they might find themselves having to parse every syllable and minute and go back to having Katie interview Britney for safe news. Oops. Maybe not. She'd have to give K-Fed equal time, and then the babies. . . and on and on. Meanwhile, advertisers will look elsewhere, and the entire media industry would collapse. Which would make George Soros the only winner in this contest.

Pay attention to the man behind the curtain pulling the strings

More on talk radio and fairness

After some excellent links to commentary (Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was a keynote speaker at ALA recently and beat the Fairness horse for applause) Heretical Librarian pretty much sums it up

Whatever form it takes, it is clear that the Democrats' impending assault on talk radio has nothing to do with "fairness" or "diversity" or "media consolidation"; rather, it is a naked attempt to silence conservative talk radio. After all, why is there all this concern about ensuring a fair representation of views on public airwaves, yet no concern about the equally one sided dominance of liberal and leftist viewpoints at public universities? Besides, does anyone really think that liberals would even be making an issue of talk radio if Air America had been a roaring success instead of a bankruptcy ridden failure?

3943

Conservatives and Talk Radio

Liberals can't walk the talk on freedom of speech. Particularly when it is talk radio. Liberals don't do well in competing for listeners in talk radio--can't get the advertisers (they are anti-business) and they are boring (haven't had a new idea since the Johnson administration). So they want to reinstate the "fairness doctrine" which would so tie up the radio stations in regulations and law suits that they would drop that format. Imagine if every time you spoke about marriage between a man and woman you had to give equal time to gay couples, or polygamists, or man-boy-love groups. Or if you interviewed a veteran of WWII you had to also interview a Nazi veteran, or an anti-war Mennonite or if you did that you had to also give the same number of minutes to the fanatical types who blow up little children in government buildings in Oklahoma. What if the host of the show was pro-choice--he'd have to give equal time to pro-life groups; or what if the host didn't like President Bush and had to give equal time to Cheney or Rove? No, the programmers and producers and owners would just throw their hands up and we'd go back to dead air, endless NPR type programming or musak 24/7. And the people who want something other than what the MSM spew and spit at us on TV would find another way to get information from Gallager, O'Reilly, Malkin, Hannity, Ingraham, Beck, Medved, etc. Read Adam Theirer's article on The Media Cornucopia.

"That leftist media critics start sounding so authoritarian is no surprise. In a media cornucopia, freedom of choice inevitably yields media inequality. "In systems where many people are free to choose between many options, a small subset of the whole will get a disproportionate amount of traffic (or attention, or income), even if no members of the system actively work towards such an outcome,” writes Clay Shirky of New York University’s Interactive Telecommunications Program. Overcoming that inequality would require a completely regulated media." "

Democrats and talk radio.

Top 100 talkers.

3908

The new media

Yesterday we got some sort of cable upgrade--not only does it now ring our phone, but we have more channels to not watch. I haven't yet read all the instructions and am just learning to use the new remote.

There is no reason in today's world of cable, broadcast TV, radio, satellite, wireless, iPod downloads, internet, usenet, blogs, digital archiving, on-line library collections, creative commons, etc. for anyone to be information deprived or only informed on one or two topics or viewpoints. An article, The Media Cornucopia in the Spring 2007 City Journal by Adam D. Thierer will show you the pictures, if you're tired of reading. We have somewhat of a free market in the media, and that drives the democrats crazy. They want more restrictions, not less.

So what's the problem? Well, the biggest one is that conservatives are able to get their message out (and so are radicals, anarchists, marxists, libertarians, pedophiles, polygamists, pornographers, pianists, go-fers, gamblers and golfers) unincumbered by the mainstream media's control. They see this diversity, which liberals usually try to cram into our thought world as positive, as a negative because some conservatives, like Murdock who owns Fox Network, owns more than one information source. Like ABC, NBC, CBS and AP aren't all clones of Twiddle-dum and Tweedle-dee despite the ownership?

Theirer gives an example of a "a lesbian feminist African-American who likes to hunt on weekends and has a passion for country music" who can program her television tastes to exactly suit her. But it also means that when PBS does a half hour bio on Ruth Graham (Billy Graham's wife) they can leave out any mention of Jesus. This also gives us hours of Paris Hilton in jail and who was the father of Anna Nicole's baby.

The latest hoop-la has some Democrats and Republicans united in efforts to close the ears and mouths of the people. And that's the immigration issue. We know too much because we have too much information and we're calling and writing our president and congress. For shame!

"When Rush Limbaugh has more listeners than NPR, or Tom Clancy sells more books than Noam Chomsky, or Motor Trend gets more subscribers than Mother Jones, liberals want to convince us (or themselves, perhaps) that it’s all because of some catastrophic market failure or a grand corporate conspiracy to dumb down the masses. In reality, it’s just the result of consumer choice."