Right-wingers love to be victims. The blood had not yet been wiped off the sidewalk in Tucson they were already whining: "We did nothing!"
The $100 million a year man, Rush Limbaugh thundered three hours Monday denying any culpability for the Tucson shooting, dragging out the bedraggled strawman of the Fairness Doctrine. “I couldn’t be surprised if somebody in the Obama regime or some FCC bureaucrat or some Democrat congressperson’s already written up legislation to stifle and eliminate conservative speech... that’s what this is all about.” [emphasis ours]
Poor talk radio. O endangered conservative speech, once again poised to be censored and stifled... Reality: it never happens. Never has. Never will. The Fairness Doctrine, a long-shuttered FCC policy that endeavored to balance the POVs that came over publicly-owned airwaves has never - could never - come close to again being a reality.
No matter the excesses of talk radio, no matter what violence it may or may not excite. No matter who they offend or try to wound, conservative talk is widespread in the country, and inarguably the most pervasive political point of view in the nation's media.
And once again, when it reasonably should be introspective and considering self-correction, it's instead taking the offensive and protecting its interests, and let's face it: they're business interests.
Fairness, censorship, even self-regulation will not happen. Talk radio instead is circling its wagons; again it's rallying the troops by playing the beleaguered First Amendment victim while liberals - again the true victims - lay bloody on the street from the bullets the extreme right always seems to save for us.
Rush, Beck, even Dori Monson, (Seattle's last extreme-right talker) are product, assets. They're valuable and they will be kept warm and dry as any business would keep any expensive inventory.
When a talker blows through the walls of what the public deems acceptable speech, they will help him or her weather the storm. Sometimes he or she needs to be withdrawn and cleansed as was Don Imus, but he or she will not be banned forever, not if they're earners... as Don Imus was, is. The media moguls are amoral like Tony Soprano: he'll put up with any brutish act by one of his guys as long as he earns.
Talkers who say crazypants things get the headlines they adore, the little ratings spike; the breathless media mini-drama: will they be spanked? will they be fired?
They're ritualistically spanked, put through the motions of chastisement, but never fired or censored.
Don't forget: it's a multi-million dollar a day business. It's huge; it's national; it's been honed down to a small group of big-money earners who are marketed like Safeway to a honed, well-researched boutique audience in markets where local talent has been or is being eliminated. It's an apple cart that will not be upset by anything short of an earthquake, a hurricane, and a tsunami.
Everything the media companies do: whether it's to try to stifle and defund NPR, or lock up the Internets for their own commercial use, has nothing to do with politics... it's business. And business is business.
They'll be "responsible," if someone could make 'responsible' work to make them some dough. There's no reason to believe that anyone is trying to figure out how to do that- and besides, the low-information, ditto-headed, hate-talk loving crowd they've developed wouldn't put up with it.
Talk radio can sleep well tonight.
I don't see how Rush Limbaugh's rantings are relevant. His listeners aren't seeking out information in order to form an informed decision. They've been stuck on the same uninformed opinion many years ago. I'm much more interested in statements from talkers who have pull with moderates, if there even is such a thing.
It's annpying to be watching MSNBC and have Ed Schultz say "listen to what the Drugster had to say today.." No. I wasn't listening to Limbaugh then, and I don't want to listen to him now. And his listeners aren't listening to you now. It's a colossal circlejerk.
Posted by: Andrew | January 11, 2011 at 12:19 PM
Yep, Ed Schultz is a circle jerk and intellectually dishonest all day long.
Posted by: KS | January 11, 2011 at 12:23 PM
>>The blood had not yet been wiped off the sidewalk in Tucson they were already whining: "We did nothing!"<<
More accurately, "the blood had not yet been wiped off the sidewalk in Tucson when Olbermann took every right winger to task for causing this tragedy".
Posted by: Fred | January 11, 2011 at 12:55 PM
well, obviously Rush Limbaugh is still the highest rated circlejerk of them all. Conservative talker telling conservative listeners exactly what they want to hear.
Did Limbaugh ever tell his listeners that conservative intellectuals need to rethink their deregulation mantra after lowly regulated stock trading and home lending lead to this economic disaster? No. His audience just wants to hear about how it was caused by everything except a lack of regulation. They talked instead about how it was caused government initiatives to house the poor, of course.
Posted by: Andrew | January 11, 2011 at 01:01 PM
The main reason that the fairness doctrine has no chance is that people like Limbaugh are careful never to let up on it.
Pelosi, Schumer, and Durbin were all on record as supporting it. Not sure about Harry Reid, but I do know he has talked about it favorably. Either Schumer or Durbin would have replaced Reid had Reid not beaten Angle.
Kind of tough to ascribe zero chance to something supported by so many top Democrats.
Posted by: woody held | January 11, 2011 at 02:15 PM
Yes, it's too bad that the lenders couldn't be trusted to do the right thing when faced with less rules. However, those "government initiatives to house the poor" (led by our pal Barney Frank and friends) resulted in mandates to lenders to ignore reality and put everyone who wanted a house in one...and it turned into one big house of cards which had no alternative but to tumble down.
Posted by: Radio Queen | January 11, 2011 at 02:16 PM
Thanks Michael. It's the money, and always has been. Dittoheads are just moonie fan-heads attached at the cortex to a stream of market-tested what-they-want-to-hear. The good news is: they're old! Big Radio forgot to plug in the next couple of generations. Don't worry, they'll figure out something. Maybe they'll just off AM radio altogether when they're done.
Posted by: Bangor Dick | January 11, 2011 at 02:26 PM
More whining from the left because they can not find enough left wing talkers to keep the attention of the ADD infested left.
Until a way is found to put pictures on the radio to capture the attention of sufficient lefty's, you are just going to have to watch TeeVee's MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NBC, PBS, HLN, TLC, MTV and the rest of broadcast news and left wing propaganda that comes with pictures. For those of you that can read (which admittedly is all who post here, comprehension not withstanding), you have the Times, Stranger, US News and most other magazines and newspapers to fill your minds with what the elite left wants you to know.
But damned, we need net neutrality and the fairness doctrine because those damned righties can comprehend without pictures and can make decisions when presented with both sides of an argument by the folks at FNC.
But don't you worry none about that. As long as the liberal elite can keep black people in poverty and dependent on their government food stamps and rent subsidy's, keep latinos in low paying labor jobs and the union members doing exactly what the union bosses tell them to do, you will always have some power. Just don't let any of those people advance up the ladder and decide for them selves.
Posted by: Chucks | January 11, 2011 at 02:43 PM
10 million a year? Rush would laugh at that offer. According to the Wall Street Journal Rush signed his latest contract in 2008- 8 years for 400 million or 50 million per year. It is broken up into base salary and signing bonus, adding up to 400 big ones.
Posted by: Tommy008 | January 11, 2011 at 02:46 PM
they can not find enough left wing talkers
You see, chucks, this is what the left talks about regarding you and others on this blog. You seriously declare that everyone in the world is left except one programming outlet.
Every time you post, you make the case of your own ignorance.
The rest of media is not the exception but the rule. Fox News and the mass of right-wing controlled radio is the exception. You are not in the majority. You are one of three million people on the extreme right. That's a fact which you don't want to face. The constant rant you give just gets old. I'm surprised anybody talks to you.
Posted by: The Anti-Dori | January 11, 2011 at 04:55 PM
All is well in the G.O.P. camp' We have MANNED UP, We have gotten the enemy in the cross hairs, We have used our 2nd amendment solutions and watered OUR TREE OF LIBERTY with the blood of opposing citizens including a 9 year old girl. We are now reloaded,armed and dangerous. Halaluja!!!!!!
Posted by: saintrudy | January 11, 2011 at 06:04 PM
ROFLTMAO...
It's too bad that the mental institutions are largely closed down. Some of the posts reflect those in serious mental imbalance and could use some R & R in a padded cell. The left does appear to be aching to show itself to be more extreme and hate filled than the right. More evidence forthcoming...
Posted by: KS | January 11, 2011 at 07:28 PM
Really? Cross hairs and 2nd amendment remedies in political ads is a left idea?
Posted by: Coiler | January 11, 2011 at 07:42 PM
Right wingers like to be victims? Again. Bullshit. Now lets get ready for the pointless back and forth between joonie and nikki006 or whoever it is. BULLSHIT.
Posted by: Crabalockerfishwife | January 11, 2011 at 08:23 PM
The Anti-Dori
You acknowledge my point about the right being in the minority in the news business, yet make an attempt at ridiculing me for that with which you seem to agree. The left probably has ten times the outlets as the right beyond radio, but the left owns TeeVee and print.
We moderates and the right have but the radio and FNC, and FOX allows too much input from the left.
Posted by: Chucks | January 11, 2011 at 08:27 PM
Saying that bringing a knife to gun fight is a right wing idea ? The hell it is !
Posted by: KS | January 11, 2011 at 08:28 PM
the exact quote was; "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
I liked when Sheriff Joe Arpaio told Sheriff Dupnick to shut his piehole after he spewed the political vitriol. He is the one that got this circle jerk finger pointing going by the leftwingers at everyone else except the shooter himself. Sheriff Dupnick is helping to trigger a backlash.
Posted by: KS | January 11, 2011 at 08:41 PM
Arpaio is part of the right wing Phoenix Machine.
Posted by: Coiler | January 11, 2011 at 08:43 PM
Sheriff Arpaio is a "fuck the PC crap, enforce the laws as written and don't coddle the convicted" kind of man. The people of Phoenix know it and chose to re-elect him term after term.
You folks in Seattle have a skirt the law, PC kind of guy in McDermott and keep re-electing him to Congress in your left wing Seattle Machine.
Posted by: Chucks | January 11, 2011 at 09:02 PM
We'll keep what we have here, the elections show this.
Posted by: Coiler | January 11, 2011 at 09:21 PM
Randi was awesome tonight. She kept playing radio bits from conservative programs. Since I don't listen to the right-wing crazy stuff, I had no idea how manic, vitriolic, evil it is. There is nothing like that on any mainstream or left outlet.
BTW, chux, your comment above to Anti-D doesn't really make sense. You assume that everybody but Fixed News is left. I'm curious what happened to the center of the dial? Are you saying there is not center. It is Fixed News or Left? Don't you think that is a bit nonsensicaL? Why would every media be on the left when you say the country is right? How do they make any money at all? I thought you were good at math and a businessman? Why would any business lean to a market that isn't there?
Sometimes you don't make sense.
On Goldman, a guy called in to take Norm on regarding gold. (too many puns here!) Anyway, goldman at some point used Beck's comments about gold as evidence of his propaganda. The guy said that Norm himself advertised gold.
He couldn't see the difference between an advertiser which sells a product and buys time on a radio program and a heretic on the TV who propagandizes and scares people into buying gold for survival purposes.
That's the idiocy - or as Sirota would say - the idiocracy on the right.
But, keep believing because beliefs are all you got. Emotion . . . emotion . . . emotion. . . and you go where the fires of emotion are fanned the best.
And, Crab, always glad to comply with your wishes. There's a tip jar on the right. Click it and donate. Or I might not comply next time.
Posted by: joanie | January 11, 2011 at 09:30 PM
Did she play anything from competing progressive talk radio programs or play back some of her emotionally charged rants ?
If not, why not ?
Posted by: KS | January 11, 2011 at 09:36 PM
"government initiatives to house the poor" (led by our pal Barney Frank and friends) resulted in mandates to lenders to ignore reality and put everyone who wanted a house in one
The government did not at any time tell lenders like Coutrywide to give unemployed borrowers with no money in the bank a zero-down home loan. That was the lender's own creative imagination at work.
The idea that Wall Street brokers only acted greedy because the government told them tthey had to is a transparent load of shit. It was caused by poorly regulated credit markets. Everyone knows this. Everyone.
This a perfect example of how fiscal conservativism is really just a cover for greedy behavior. Conservatives want to take from society and not have to give anything back. "Trickle down economics", "the market knows best", "business does everything better than government", these are all just tunes you hum to yourselves while behaving as selfishly as possible.
Posted by: Andrew | January 11, 2011 at 09:36 PM
Damn, St.Trudy. Tell it like it is…
Chucks, Sheriff Arpaio enforces the law. McDermott legislates. The comparisons may be apt if you compare the offices. The electorate elects base on the conditions within the region of effectiveness. For example, would you elect a law enforcement official like Arpaio for your district? And his endless challenges of the law. The constant threat of suit with the public purse in the balance? I know you’ll say yes, but from McDermott’s point of view, he was right about Sadams WMDs wasn’t he?
Posted by: BlackRhino | January 11, 2011 at 09:43 PM
"The government did not at any time tell lenders like Coutrywide to give unemployed borrowers with no money in the bank a zero-down home loan. That was the lender's own creative imagination at work."
That sounds outlandishly bogus - especially when Frank and Dodd were involved. Where is your source and is it credible ?
Posted by: KS | January 11, 2011 at 09:43 PM
Of course, she didnt play anything from her "emotionally charged rants." She didn't need to. Her emotional discussions - and yes, she gets emotional just like we all do - are never full of vitriolic or evil lies.
You might listen once in a while and try to decipher vitriol and evil and let us know what you hear. And let us know about the lies she tells as well. Enlighten us o wise one.
Please, PS, don't bring on the same old tired example you have which seems to reappear with regularity when this subject arises. We've already heard it.
Not only that Andrew, but the right are the ones (the Republicans in case these idiots don't know what I mean by the right) who took away the regulations from Fannie and Freddie. It was part of the BIG DEREGULATION, remember?
But, when ignorant of the facts, much easier to ERRONEOUSLY BLAME THE LEFT. Idiots.
Posted by: joanie | January 11, 2011 at 09:47 PM
Where is your source?
Posted by: Coiler | January 11, 2011 at 09:48 PM
It may "sound bogus" KS but "sounding bogus" isn't "being bogus."
Posted by: joanie | January 11, 2011 at 09:48 PM
And BTW, you made some idiotic comment about mental hospitals? 'member? Well, if they were still there, some of these mental cases would be in them instead of shooting people on the street.
Thank you, Ronnie. And every other Republican who has shot holes in the safety net and continues to do so. Just be grateful, chucko, that it wasn't one of yours inadvertently in the area. If one of yours gets shot with a gun that no normal individual needs to be carrying in polite society, you'd be singing a different tune. Because you think with your emotions and boy would they be preaching.
Posted by: joanie | January 11, 2011 at 09:54 PM
But then, Andrew, FREDDIE and FANNIE were buying up every one of those loans while Dodd, Frank and Waters (Bush equally as guilty) Cheered and boasted about how safe and secure they were. To this very day, none of them will accept responsibility for their parts in this program.
Posted by: Chucks | January 11, 2011 at 10:00 PM
That last comment was to chux who posted another slur about the left and mental hospitals and will now call me a few names even though what i said is absolutely true.
Sure getting your montey's worth, huh crab. That is, of course, assuming you donated.
Posted by: joanie | January 11, 2011 at 10:00 PM
Yes, I was waiting for that reminder of how the right gutted the mental health in this country. Regarding bringing a gun to a fight, would you want the first black Sheriff fighting Slim Pickens with a knife?
Posted by: Coiler | January 11, 2011 at 10:06 PM
to this day the right (including chux) will not accept the responsibility for the part the banks and the right played in deregulating them.
To this day, chux will not accept responsibility for the fraud and lies and corruption told by the banks when making loans to normal people.
To this days, chuxs will not accept responsibility for the behavior of the financial community for writing up loans with hidden fees and hidden balloon payments on normal people.
To this day, chux will not accept responsibility for the Republicans who gave tax breaks to banks making it cheaper for them to foreclose on people even when they then sold the houses for less than the people in them could actually make payments on if they were allowed to stay.
To this day, chux will not accept responsibility for the fraudulent and corrupt selling of these loans to the rest of the world upsetting the financial markets everywhere and creating despair, disaster and unemployment beyond belief and repair
Oh chux. Your ignorance is beyond anyone's understanding.
Posted by: joanie | January 11, 2011 at 10:08 PM
It may "sound bogus" KS but "sounding bogus" isn't "being bogus."
Posted by: joanie | January 11, 2011 at 09:48 PM
What is your source that it isn't bogus and is it reliable ? I doubt it in this fast and loose environment for facts.
"And BTW, you made some idiotic comment about mental hospitals? 'member? Well, if they were still there, some of these mental cases would be in them instead of shooting people on the street."
It wish that there were still mental hospitals. The so-called idiotic comment was pointed at idiotic comments that I had read here and I see that you took it personally.
BTW, Republicans were not solely in taking out mental hospitals - that is a convenient urban myth. Dems were in control in congress then - remember ? so they were also complicit in this policy, which was bad policy. Other than that, it seemed like there was some common ground on this topic.
Posted by: KS | January 11, 2011 at 10:09 PM
t it isn't bogus and is it reliable ?
convenient urban myth.
Dems were in control in congress then - remember ?
No, they weren't.
You really don't have a clue about anything you post here, do you?
Posted by: joanie | January 11, 2011 at 10:14 PM
"Of course, she didnt play anything from her "emotionally charged rants." She didn't need to. Her emotional discussions - and yes, she gets emotional just like we all do - are never full of vitriolic or evil lies."
More point - counterpoint...
Depends upon one's moral compass - because when I have listened to her in snippets, I must be listening to a different person then. She often comes across as vitrolic as you can be and p[ays fast and loose with the facts and more often than not doesn't give the whole story. She is every bit as vitrolic as Limbaugh.
Posted by: KS | January 11, 2011 at 10:16 PM
State mental hospitals were taken away by Governor Reagan in the seventies, and federal mental health programs were later taken away by President Reagan in the eighties.
When Ronald Reagan was governor of California he systematically began closing down mental hospitals, later as president he would cut aid for federally-funded community mental health programs. It is not a coincidence that the homeless populations in the state of California grew in the seventies and eighties. The people were put out on the street when mental hospitals started to close all over the state.
Not cool.
Posted by: Coiler | January 11, 2011 at 10:18 PM
But then, Andrew, FREDDIE and FANNIE were buying up every one of those loans while Dodd, Frank and Waters (Bush equally as guilty) Cheered and boasted about how safe and secure they were. To this very day, none of them will accept responsibility for their parts in this program.
Posted by: Chucks
Correct, Chucks & that explains why I doubted Andrew's recollection in a diplomatic way. Wonder why Joanie defended that when she probably knew it wasn't fact ? (a rhetorical question)
Posted by: KS | January 11, 2011 at 10:19 PM
Dems were in control in congress then - remember ?
No, they weren't.
You really don't have a clue about anything you post here, do you?
Posted by: joanie | January 11, 2011 at 10:14 PM
Check your facts. This event occurred in the circa late 1970's to early 1980's when the Dems controlled either one or both chambers. You are wrong or ignorant or both.
Posted by: KS | January 11, 2011 at 10:23 PM
false
Seeing an increase in crime, and brutal murders by Herb Mullin, a mental hospital patient, the state legislature passed a law that would stop Reagan from closing even more state-funded mental health hospitals. But Reagan would not be outdone.
In 1980, congress proposed new legislation (PL 96-398) called the community mental health systems act (crafted by Ted Kennedy), but the program was killed by newly-elected President Ronald Reagan. This action ended the federal community mental health centers
Posted by: Coiler | January 11, 2011 at 10:25 PM
BTW. Reagan was shot by a mentally ill man.
Posted by: Coiler | January 11, 2011 at 10:29 PM
I didn't say she wasn't emotional. I said she didn't lie.
There's a difference, KS.
Odd that casual observer doesn't know that.
So you're not taking responsibility either for the fraud and corruption and lies allowed by Republicans under deregulation? That what you're saying?
You know, boys, the Dems only had Congress two years out of the eight under Bush: 2006-2008 and then Bush kicked in and veto'd everything.. My, my. The little angels (republicans) in Congress just don't have any responsibility for any of these, do they?
Posted by: joanie | January 11, 2011 at 10:31 PM
You know, Coiler, there's not enough time in the world to set these idiots straight considering all the faux information they believe.
Posted by: joanie | January 11, 2011 at 10:34 PM
It took Reaganomics only 8 years to increase the national debt from $1 trillion to about $3.5 trillion!
shameful.
Posted by: Coiler | January 11, 2011 at 10:36 PM
And to lower the general IQ of from 100 to 85.
Posted by: joanie | January 11, 2011 at 10:38 PM
Of course joanie, you are off base on the mental hospital issue. The problem is that the US Supreme Court has ruled that you can not force a person to be hospitalised for mental illness. It is not against the law to be mentally ill (note that I am not taking the cheap shot here), thus one can not be forced to Western State.
One may be hospitalised for up to 72 hours if they are an immediate threat to themselves or others. Additionally, a judge may order treatment for somebody found criminally insane or to determine fitness for trial.
(My daughter and grand son were three blocks away from the Safeway at the time of the attack. She had decided to put the trip to Safeway off until later in the day)
Posted by: Chucks | January 11, 2011 at 10:38 PM
Indeed.
Posted by: Coiler | January 11, 2011 at 10:40 PM
Wait, Chucks, are you saying laws up held by the court should not be challenged?
Posted by: BlackRhino | January 11, 2011 at 10:42 PM
Yes, I recall that. Do you deny Reagan's actions? The legislature could enact laws that would accommodate putting people away if they are a danger to themselves or others. But they didn't.
Just like in Citizen's United. A lot of talk but no action. This time the Dems. The Contract on America didn't mention it, did it.
Posted by: joanie | January 11, 2011 at 10:53 PM
KS:
Yep, Ed Schultz is a circle jerk and intellectually dishonest all day long.
I didn't know you listened to Schultz all day long. I thought you got "snippets" from your right-wing stations of out-of-context emotional comments.
Interesting. Do you have two radios on at once? Or do you listen to Schultz every day and Beck every night?
Posted by: joanie | January 11, 2011 at 11:01 PM