For those who want to at least listen to liberal talk (“Progressive” talk) on the AM-broadcast band, there’s 1520 AM Buffalo. It comes in rather well here at night time.

Reception tip for distant stations: Turn off as much electrical items as you can. Definitely your computer. No fluorescent lights running. Have the TV off as well.

Fairness? We tried “fairness” and found that it was more trouble than it was worth. No one ist ever happy. So we had unity of the peoples—-marching bands, parades, songs, and lots of beer for the commoners. For the peoples we enjoyed universal cradle-to-grave healthcare, mass transportation and a job for everyone. I was the messiah.

Well, the FD was put in place when radio was young and there were very few stations. The only other news resource were newspapers. Now there are oodles of news outlets…too many if you ask me. There’s enough “fairness” for everyone to find a forum that suits their needs. The left simply hates that the right dominates the am dail and that’s why they want to reinstate the FD.

As for Eurpoes problem…you seem to be saying that they have 2 choices…except that Islam is their future or…what?

Western Europe is throwing away 600 years of cultural enlightenment and for what… the hurt feelings and tender sensibilities of an 8th century death cult? F88K that. Their appeasment has ensured death and violence. Again.

My concern is that we’re not learning from their mistakes. We’re growing our own enclaves…in Northern Va, Detroit, Philadelphia, Minniapolis, Florida… because we’re also allowing multicult leftists to intimidate and indoctrinate the public into submission and self censorship.

Assimilation, once common sense for a commn unity, has now become a dirty word. “Diversity” is the trendy new fad. Note that diversity shares it’s root with division and divisive…the opposite of unity. It’s a toxic brew and the left is addicted to it for a variety of reasons…most stemming from their psychotic hatred of all things white, christian and western.

Contrary to leftist dogma, America has a common culture and it’s not “white”. It’s American. We’re more like a BBQ than a soup. The foundation…our founding ideas and principles make up the brisket. Everything else is the mop sauce. We slow smoke ourselves using the spice of other cultures to make the brisket taste better. Without the brisket, the mop and it’s spices tate awful. Without the mop, the brisket is bland and boring. But the brisket (our founding principles grounded in western enlightenment) is still the meat of our nation.

Damn…now I’m hungry.

Roger,

Believe it or not I pretty much agree with the basics of what you and Larry are saying even though still discomfort accepting outright some implications.

Our founding fathers, like Jefferson and Madison, argued over some of the same issues troubling today. If one group can hijack the unruly plebian mob by providing convenient tabloid news and paint-by-the-numbers lowbrow opinion is it democracy or demagoguery ? 

I don’t know.

On that other issue, my guess is Europe has already let Pandora out of her box and it’s late in the game now to waste spittle questioning why or how it happened, but if you want to affix blame, a cult of leftism is one obvious choice.

If that weren’t bad enough, the current economic meltdown could provide the impetus for future problems. The spark to ignite trouble.

Or not.  Maybe global cooling will kill us first.

Ed,

The reason liberals want to force stations to carry liberal talk is because they know from past experience that libral talk is unprofitable. If they force radio stations to carry unprofitable programming then the stations will opt out of talk completely like they did prior to 1987.

The other reason is that they can’t stand not being in control of talk radio as they are in every other media outlet, from gov’t funded welfare tv and radio to the networks to the net to Hollywood. They know liberalism can only survive if no other options are allowed…the same mentality that dominates the universities.

“Big Money” interests is that tiresome boogyman so often used to scare the little children of all leftie ages. If liberal talk radio were profitable, it would dominate the airwaves just as conservative radio does in the real, non theoretical, non “big money” conspiracy world. Those evil “big money” interests didn’t get that big money by making stupid business decisions.

As for Englands muslim problem….leftists are directly responsible. It was leftist multicult theory that “celebrated” ethnic enclaves and called anyone who suggested assimilation xenophobic and racist. The same leftist “race over country” theories led to the muslim ghettos in France. Because it was considered “racist” to demand that these people conform to the basic ideals of western enlightenment, the unassimilated immigrants retreated into ethnic ghettos that more resembled the countries they’d come from than London, Paris or Brussels. Because they could not function in the broader society, they were left to fester and breed in these ghettos where they are now ripe for exploitation by Al Sharton like demagouges.

Today the euro left, not capable of admitting fault, has decided to align with the extremists for short sighted political reasons. Antisemitism, driven by islamic nuts and leftist collaboraters, is rising at a rate not seen since the Fuhrer was spouting the hippest “ism”.

So yeah. Just like throwing money at our own ethnic and racial problems has created peace, love, brotherhood and trust in this country, all europe need do is throw a few trillion euros into a Great Society-War on Poverty of their own and the problem will simply melt away. Keeping in mind that they’ve already squandered trillions on welfare for these people already.

Gotta go now. Elvis is taking me to see the Loch Ness monsster in Wonder Womans Invisible airplane.

“Just a concern that the political process is being perverted by the influence of big bucks rolling in from special interests.“

Oh, that’s long bothered me. Well, to an extent—I never take time to really dwell on it. But now that you made that point let’s back up just a minute:

Interest Group A offers beaucoups $$$ to Candidate B and/or Political Party C, with the hopes that Candidate B & Party C will do whatever they tell ‘em.

WHO’S REALLY AT FAULT? We can coerce you, Biscuit, to kill by giving you enough cash. I’m talking a LOAD of greenbacks, safely stored & laundered. But—you have to do the killing. YOU must do what’s morally wrong.

I ask you again: Who’s really at fault???

Leave the air waves alone. Leave radio stations alone; leave radio talk jocks alone. Instead burn all politicians at the stake. Alive.

Mr. Biscuit-You and R.Smith are both right about the situation in the UK.
It is a witche’s brew that is going to blow sky high in the not too distant future.

No rule Jelly Belly.

Just a concern that the political process is being perverted by the influence of big bucks rolling in from special interests.

Is that a valid concern or does that conflict unacceptably with free choice ?

By the same token concerns exist about how free speech will be squelched due to fears over lack of balance putting a damper on Rush type rants.

Is that valid ?

I can lead you to water but I can’t make you drink.

I’m not supporting the Fairness Doctrine yet because with what limited info I have on it seems like a very clunky unworkable idea and I’m not sure I am fully acquainted with all the issues.

“However I did get the gist that one thorny issue with the libs is the undue influence of big money.“

Dear Biscuit, well this makes me even more confused then! So big-time sponsors are paying big money—their own money which is THEIRS—disproportionately toward ‘right wing’ AM radio stations?

Yes I’m more confused now. There is a RULE that tells people WHERE to spend their own money? Is this the idea?

Larry,

I had to Wikipedia the Fairness Doctrine because so far I have heard nothing but the rightwing indignation version, an interesting fact in its own right. Talk about no balance.

Some of the issues are too complex to make a quick judgment. However I did get the gist that one thorny issue with the libs is the undue influence of big money.

The problem with that argument is that money can buy media exposure but it can’t guarantee audience. Then again, you might argue that if you find a charismatic speaker they can preach most any old nonsense and some damn fool will listen in, a variation of the build it and they will come theory.

The root problem is not talk radio but big money. If so, it seemed to not prevent Obama from getting elected. In fact, he was the one with the big bucks this time.

As a nutty conspiracy theory, I do notice that even on the lib media I frequent the conservative viewpoint is most often articulated better than the liberal viewpoint. The conservatives do a better job of getting the message out and squelching opposition for whatever reason.

I don’t have a high opinion of one-dimensional comedic satire on Saturday Night Live or Youtube. If that is what the libs have it isn’t enough to counter talk radio. Nor a high opinion of talk radio itself, or tabloid journalism, or cable TV curmudgeons and shock jocks.

Is that real news and real opinion or just rabble rousing demagoguery for mass consumption.

Roger,

Your theory is that the Britons have caved in to leftist political correctness.

An alternate theory is that Britain has a large underclass of alienated Muslims and is afraid of stirring up riots and protests.

In other words, not related to leftist ideology but to fears over angry poorly integrated Muslims just waiting for an excuse to jihad. You might say what fear.

I say have you forgotten the recent riots in France that went on for days. Some say Britain is a powderkeg of terrorism just waiting for a spark.

You might say the problem is they are not standing firm like Iron Lady Thatcher would have done. I say no that is not the problem. Britain during her era was a bit more manageable in terms of terrorism still being in its early stages.

I don’t know if my theory is right because I don’t know much about British politics. Maybe you are right. Maybe they just lack resolve. I at least propose the possibility they might be scared of letting the genii out of the bottle.

Biscuit: liberals already have their own media outlet—YouTube! Saturday Night Live!

(Therefore, what’s with twisting the arm of AM-band radio stations?)

This says all you need to know about who supports free speech.

“Twenty years ago this month, Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative ministry defended the right of a left-wing author, Salman Rushdie, to publish a book in the face of Muslim riots and the Ayatollah Khomeini’s attempted mob hit. Two decades on, a supposedly progressive government surrenders to the mob before it’s even taken to the streets.“

The remark comes in a column about Britans refusal to allow a member of the Dutch parlimant to enter the country and show a 15 minute movie that describes islam as a violent religion because a muslim member of the House of Lords threatened to have 10,000 muslims “march” on Parliment.

Brit leftists are afraid insinuating muslims are violent it might offend the explosive muslim population and lead to

ta da!

Violence.

Here’s the column.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmVhYzRmOGYzYmQ3ODRhYjBiMzllYzc2NDNhZmZjMzU=

To the left, “free speech” means that which enhances leftist power and isn’t offensive to leftist allies.

Pork,

Your TARP explanation was one of the best I’ve seen in a long time.

Larry,

I don’t really care why conservative talk show hosts do so well. Is there some reason why I should ?

My likely explanation is that they serve a market, fulfill a need. “Angry white men” need an outlet.

Libs either need a different outlet like Hollywood or humor or a good G-rated book and some peace and quiet, based on their own quirks and personality type, or else they need someone funnier than Franken to be their spokesman.

Jon Stewart is funny on Comedy Central but who watchs cable TV ? (Answer: he is popular by cable TV standards but that still translates to a small audience.)

Maybe the issue of why conservative talk show succeeds is more important than I give credit for, but I don’t see it. Even Bob says the Fairness Doctrine is not necessarily a viable idea, just something for people like us to argue over. I don’t know, we’ll see.

Hey Bob-If it weren’t for a few good conspiracy theories we would have to rely on Mr.Obama’s own words for information about his life.
I suppose it really doesn’t matter anyway nobody was interested enough to investigate before they elected him. They were so busy gazing at the “historic’ visage. And waiting for the applause from the rest of the world.
Well done colonials!
I don’t imagine that Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry are considered particularly “loose cannons” but certainly Ms. Pelosi made her determination to bring back the Fairness Doctrine well known.
The premise behind the Doctrine was fairly straightforward, according to the FCC. Older, analog technology limited the number of stations because frequencies were rare. That was no longer the case when Reagan dismantled it.
It is not the case now.
Why does someone like Nancy Pelosi want it reintroduced?
Conspiracy theory anyone?

Agree R. Smith. And speaking of censorship…

... HEY U’NO—they just deleted your post on the mayor’s security protection force story. Congratulations, you just made it to the big leagues. (You hurt somebody’s feelings). Another week or so you will be banned like me! Take it as a compliment!

This is so transparent that arguing it is assinine. Just like the move to take over the census, hate crime laws (national campus speech codes)the laughably named “employee free choise act” and other leftist attempts to solidify power by cracking down on dissent are.

What I find particularly amusing is that the left in America so closely imitates the left around the world when it comes to the elementary quality of their propaganda. When the Fairness Doctrine is reintroduced…and it will be because the lefts principled stand regarding dissent is situational at best…it will come under another Sovietesque name like “the Free Airwaves Recovery Act”. Just like gov’t sanctioned union intimidation is called the “Employee Free Choice Act”. That nefarious bit of legalized thuggery is to free choice what the “Peoples Republic” of China is to actual representitive gov’t.

Not that such flagrant hypocrisy will stop the left. Few people actually believe their bulls**t about civil rights ect. It’s all a front. They’ll try it and likely find out what the lilliputions found out when they tried to tie Gulliver down. It’s no point trying to talk sense to them though. They’re too hyped up on their own propaganda. The’ll do what all movements do…go to far. They’ll be waaay out ahead of the mob when it decides to change it’s direction…just like Bush was.

Bob said “As to Larry’s assertion that the real “serious thinkers “ are on radio, is he referring to WRIR or WRVA ? I like the Coast to Coast show on WRVA where truck drivers call in UFO stories.“

Ha ha. Well Bob, I was referring more to the TYPE of people who LISTEN to radios. AM Radio targets this type of listener—who I assert is of a higher intellectual order than a TV-Watcher or an internet junkie.

Yes I feel I can easily defend that position. But warning to Biscuit—this involves some psychology some of which is not “published”. But I feel I can prove my assertion. If anybody wants to bother.

Of course, if anybody has any BETTER ideas as to why conservative-type talk hosts do so well on AM Radio, then—please—throw it out here!

For those intellectual posters in support of censorship, I offer a refreshing point-of-view. One that has not been censored. This is the TARP in pictures….they say it all.

http://home.att.net/~mlnj2/bailout_in_a.pdf

Now you understand the difference between what is said in the media and reality. Any questions?

I have the same answer for both Bob and Greta: Google “Center for the Study of Popular Culture” and all will be revealed.

There is a war of ideas being waged through popular culture. The right has mobilized and now the left, which formerly had much of the bully pulpit to itself, is fighting back, albeit weakly.

It does not matter whether Fairness Doctrine as a political issue has any inherent significance or not, only that some find it as symbolic of the larger struggle and important as leverage in that larger struggle.

Same is true of the “supposed” hypothetical composition of college campuses. If it isn’t a real issue it is certainly a cultural issue, a wedge issue.

Just because folks can type anything they want in Wikipedia does not mean mis-statements make it into the final version, plus the beauty of facts as opposed to opinion and hot air is that facts can be checked. Opinion can’t. 

You can go to these websites and judge for yourself what they are up to or if the quotes are accurate. You can also look up referenced sources rather than simply assume the footnote is there for no reason. 

The radio I like is NPR. More news than opinion but it is radio.  Maybe Larry is referring to the fact that on radio they at least mention ideas, garbled ideas but ideas at least. There is no reason in my mind why any media needs to have a different focus. Hannity is just a photogenic version of Rush.

Oh Bobby, wrong again. If you take the time to read about the subject, it would make you a more informed poster. The underlying issue is that the US govt. can force radio stations to come up with an opposing view program. If they do not, then the existing one must leave the air. In other words, so you can understand the issue, if WRVA does not give your buddies three hours of time then Rush can be taken off the air. This is called government control of content. It may be what you want.

I think the conservative panic over taking
the fairness doctrine back onto the radio waves,is ridiculous. Except for a few loose cannons, nobody has really been intrested in bringing it back.
  In the legal sense, the Fairness Doctrine is constitutional Let me repeat that so people who belive Obama’s father is Malcolm X, that ACORN is getting Federal Money, that the stimulus package is going to appoint a health czar to kill off old people,ect can possibly comprehend
it inside their conspiracy rattled brain.
  Based on a 1969 case, the Supreme Court upheld the Fairness doctrine. The dissent against upholding it was by William O. Douglas, a liberal jurist.
  In 1987, in a broad consensus by liberals and conservatives, the fairness doctrine was repealed by legislation.
  So, now we have conservative cry babies and alarmists going off the deep end fearmongering that their ideological daddies Rush, sean, cry baby Glen Beck, ect will be oof the air.
  At the same time, they are constantly hammering that “college professors are too liberal.“ And like I always ask, where is the proof ? In the Marxist lion’s
den of the VCU nursing Dept ? The anarchist cabal at the Va Tech Chemistry Dept. ? Maybe secret ChiComs at the Naval Academy ? How about the slightly pink ROTC guys ?
  As to Larry’s assertion that the real “serious thinkers “ are on radio, is he referring to WRIR or WRVA ? I like the
Coast to Coast show on WRVA where truck drivers call in UFO stories. Michael Savage, a serious thinker, yeah right. Oh, i am sorry, real name Michael Weiner
as in Hot Dog before he became macho Michael Savage.

Biscuit-Wikipedia?
Where anybody can enter any type of information they please.
Liberal Talk Radio by any other name failed because nobody LISTENED.
I could argue about the attention span of liberals who think in terms of bumper stickers and the cause du jour.
It is a simple thing to go back and check why Air America and others of that ilk were talking to themselves.
IN the case of Air America their director out in liberal San Francisco said that their target audience got tired of the one note Bush Bashing and the growing number of hosts who exhibited Bush Derangment Syndrome.
Al Franken and the Garofalo woman were obviously disturbed individuals.
I happen to think that Hannity and O’Reilly also need therapy along with their audiences. But at least their faithful are listening in and supporting the radio stations.
They have an AUDIENCE and that is what this debate is all about.

The Center for the Study of Popular Culture quoted by Bart is not some unbiased nonpartisan apolitical public watchdog but a hardcore conservative thinktank dedicated to waging war against liberal culture.

Wikipedia quotes: “...we thought that the significant issue of our time would be the political radicalization of popular culture. The culture is still a battleground…“.

The Center claims credit for a “growing willingness of conservatives to identify radicals as ‘leftists’ and not ‘liberals’” and for getting “mass market conservatives” such as Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Tom DeLay to use terms like “fifth column”, “hate America left” and “Shadow Party”.

Holder says we lack racial dialogue. I think we lack dialogue period.

A Fairness Doctrine might be a clunky and unworkable solution to the problem but that does not mean the problem does not exist. We wonder why Congress is partisan. Could part of the reason be that we are dividing up into two opposing camps and fighting it out in a war -

- a war not so much of ideas but of polemics from talk show hosts vs. Hollywood entertainers, each preaching to the choir, without debate or dialogue.

At least Hannity pretended to have balance when he had Colmes on the air. Now we know the truth. There is no balance. Is this propaganda warfare good or have we let the genii out of the bottle ?

Nice writing. Sorry I missed the column on Friday. Ha ha yeah “requiring” more GOPers in Universities would be a nice start, huh?

I’m totally against Fairness Doctrine. I’m against the government controlling radio and TV.

WHY do conservatives dominate AM talk radio? Simple: Radio is a far more intelligent medium than TV. Television (and the internet) is all about Flash! Bang! Looks & Glamour…what sells to the hormone-driven adolescent crowd. Radio is where you find the real serious thinkers.