When liberal bloggers attack

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

The New York Times has a story out today about how liberal bloggers are targeting KSFO-AM’s Melanie Morgan, her co-host Lee Rodgers, and other members of their drive time morning show over allegedly ‘hateful’ and ‘violent’ remarks they’ve supposedly made on their radio program. The bloggers have gone so far as to contact some of the show’s advertisers, play cherry-picked clips, and gotten some of the advertisers to pull their ads.

Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters has a must-read post today which gives you many more facts about this case which you won’t find in the NYT article or the liberal blogs who are on the march to get Morgan, Rodgers, and others on their radio program off the air. The key point Sheppard makes, which I agree with, is that the far left bloggers waging this campaign are not waging it in order to ‘make the airwaves cleaner’ – they’re doing it because they don’t like viewpoints expressed contrary to their own. He also provides context for the ‘hateful’ remarks made, and while I’d say I wouldn’t have made the remarks, they are far from what the ‘outraged’ lefty bloggers made them out to be.

This is nothing new for the leftosphere, who acted similarly when the Washington Post decided to hire a conservative blogger for a blog they created at their news site called “Red America” in March of 2006. They targeted the blogger, Ben Domenech, not because they were ‘concerned’ that he might be a plagiarist, but because they were incensed that the Washington Post had the nerve to add a conservative blogger to its roster of bloggers. In the end, I think the blog was up for barely a week before liberals had dug up enough information on Ben Domenech to forward on to the Washington Post higher-ups, and the result was that Domenech resigned. As I wrote in my post about the controversy, it was wrong of Domenech to do what he did, and that it was good that he resigned, but what was just as reprehensible were the liberal bloggers who targeted him simply because he was a conservative posting at the Washington Post. These are the same people who will assert every day that the administration is working hard to take away your right to dissent, so the level of hypocrisy displayed by these nitwits shouldn’t be lost on anyone who pays attention to the unwritten far left rule of ‘do as I say, not as I do.’

BTW, one of the liberal bloggers involved in going after Morgan and the rest of the KSFO morning show is none other than Daily Kos blogger and notorious far leftie Mike Stark – a hero to the far left who was hired as a ‘contributor’ to an Air America radio show, who is best known in the rightie blogosphere for harassing Senator George Allen, and in one case pushing an Allen supporter in an attempt to get to the former Senator at an Allen campaign stop. This is another factoid the NYT piece (deliberately?) leaves out.

Sheppard’s write-up is long, but well worth the time it takes to read it, especially if you’re concerned at just what some far left bloggers will try next in order to attempt to silence the opposition.

(edited for typo)

112 thoughts on “When liberal bloggers attack

  1. There’s really nothing in this post or the Newsbusters post that is able to explain away the nastiness of the hosts’ speech. Given that, one can’t blame advertisers for wanting to disassociate themselves from hosts that say what these guys say.

    This is free speech as disinfectant.

  2. Pingback: Gun Toting Liberal â„¢

  3. jpe, then, AAR should receive the same treatment, as well as all other leftie shows. I wonder how you’ll like that?

  4. I’ve listened to WABC AM out of NYC for years; if you as a talk show host singular or plural don’t get ratings, it’s bye-bye. The free market at work; censorship is someone else turning off your radio!

  5. Ah. Hah. How’s this for intelligent radio?

    Mr. Stark: “You’ve spoken of the number of apologies you have tried to make. How many apologies does a professional get before they realize they are an incompetent and move on to another line of work?”

    KSFO’s Lee Rodgers: “Well I haven’t apologized for anything and I am not going to start with you. How the hell do you like that, creep?”

    :-s@-)

  6. I have to swallow some pride here and give S.T. her due props for the consistency of her principles.

    I remember when S.T. went into a full-thrated defense of CBS’s right to air the Reagan documentary… and how loudly she recoiled from Melanie Morgan’s group, Move America Forward, when they underwrote a campaign to pressure theaters across the country to forgo the screening of Michael Moore’s Farenheit 9/11. Defense of free speech has always been a core value here.

    Heck, I remember well how she came to my defense, when as a constituent of the former Senator Allen’s, I asked him questions and his staff tackled me – even though they knew who I was from previous difficult questions I had asked the Senator. Let me be clear… They knew the only danger they were in was that the press might hear me ask questions about rumors – kind of the way the press sniffed around rumors of a former president’s dispicable behaviour in the White Houise several years ago.

    Ugh.

    Your capacity for hypocrisy is startling sometimes.

    For the party of “personal responsibility” (which is the snide snicker emoticon?) you folks sure do a lot of blaming libs for the Domenich travails…

  7. Leslie, Stark is a hate filled liberal who has a great problem with the truth. He never is able to tell the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth.

  8. Listen to the clips! These people are violent, extremist and disgusting, Morgan in particular. The advertisers can choose whether to advertise or not and the listeners can vent their concerns. Just like onemilliondads.com threatens ford anytime they advertise in a gay publication

  9. take the Stern approach. He never shied from this type of controversy. He embraced it and in this case would have called the guy up and debated him on the air. Stop whining and take the fight to him

  10. I’ve never heard anyone on AAR call for the assasination of a political figure. However, if you can come up with an audio clip of that, I will be just as outraged at AAR as I am with KSFO.

    The “leftosphere” attacked Ben Domenech because he *was* a serial plagarist. Do you want special protection for plagarists just because they are right wing or something?

  11. But this is our moment. Progressives control both Houses of Congress. They pass the laws that govern the boundaries of what can be broadcast over people’s airwaves.

    So, this is what you TRULY believe, huh Mike? My, how fascist of you. So much for “free speech” huh?

    You’re nothing but a cowardly imbecile. And to lecture others on ethics? Please. You are the epitome of the term “bottom feader.”

    Now, run on back to the KOS Kids and your little echo chamber so you can pat yourselves on the back and make each other feel better. When it comes to dealing with FACTS, you obviously are outgunned.

  12. Some of the lefties visiting this blog today have got to be among the most ignorant I’ve ever come across. If anyone had bothered to READ what I wrote, I said that it was right for Domenech to resign after what he did, but that the left acting like they were ‘concerned’ about plagiarism was total BS – again, as I noted in my post, had any of the leftos who are reading this site today thanks to Salon had actually READ, the left targeted the Red America blog because they didn’t like the idea of the WaPo having a conservative blog. They didn’t care how they got rid of him, the idea was just to do it.

    As far as someone from AAR making threats, how about this one made against the President (here’s another one)? I won’t hold my breath waiting for the ‘equal outrage’ because there wasn’t much (if any)at the time that they happened from the usual suspects on the left.

  13. In regards to Domenech:

    “what was just as reprehensible were the liberal bloggers who targeted him simply because he was a conservative posting at the Washington Post.”

    Actually, they targeted him because he is a well known right-wing hack. They were rightly concerned that a legitimate newspaper gave a right-wing hack a respected forum to spew BS, without providing any sort of balance. Conjuring up his plaigarism was just the most obvious way to stop this guy from being legitimized…and to prove that the Post (and specifically Deborah Howell) were borderline incompetent.

    If the washington post decided to give Cindy Sheehan a blog, methinks you would have a problem with it (and so would I).

  14. What tripe!

    And I’d WELCOME the Post giving Sheehan a blog to spew venom. I can’t think of a better spokesman for what the left have become. It’d be great ‘exposure’, no doubt.

  15. TeeGee, no one’s tying you to a chair and making you listen to it. Change the dial. Go find Err Amerikkka (if it hasn’t gone off the air in your locality yet). There you can find hosts advocating assassinating the president, which apparently doesn’t strike you or Stark as “violent, extremist, and disgusting.”

    But then, the truth is that all the leftists are interested in doing, as usual, is squelching speech they don’t agree with. babooeyist has a good point – the liberals never try to confront Rodgers or Morgan on the merits. Their approach is always one of gagging anyone who disagrees with them. This is merely the blog extension of the mob mentality they practice on campuses or elsewhere when a conservative speaks.

    Think about it this way. Suppose you’re someone like Stark, whose only mode of action is to disrupt your political opponents’ event by trying to outshout them. It’s gotta be frustrating that he can’t simply take over their airwaves and constantly interrupt them with his nonsense. Ergo, they must be silenced.

    Personally, I find KSFO a gem, and I’m glad they stream the Rodgers and Morgan show over the web. I found it by accident a few years ago when in SF on business. Other than Ghirardelli chocolates, it’s about the only decent thing to come out of SF in a long time. :)

  16. ME gets it all wrong, again…

    If the washington post decided to give Cindy Sheehan a blog, methinks you would have a problem with it (and so would I).

    Are you kidding??? I’d absolutely love to see the WaPo or any other left wing organ give that America-hating monnbat a regular forum!!! Every time she put crayon to paper, she’d generate a gold mine of quotes illustrating how unstable, deranged, and hateful this hero of the left is.

  17. Well, gee, seems to me like a fine example of capitalism in action – corporations concerned with making a profit determine what viewpoints and opinions their advertising will support, and the for-profit media will comply and constantly narrow the range of views from both sides in order to obtain that advertising money.
    Now, someone with a brain could conceivably point out that this is exactly the problem with the very concept of for-profit media driven by corporate interests. But that someone would of course be labeled a communist. And we all know you guys believe that anything a corporation does for profit is sacred and untouchable, so what exactly are you complaining about? No, it’s much more fun to scream at the liberals.

  18. Thanks for the links. I did not know that Rhodes had done such tasteless segments (I used to listen to AAR on my whopping 10 minute drive to my last job; now I telecommute and listen to di.fm all day). I agree with you 100% that those segments were completely out-of-line.

    As for Domenech, you are just ascribing this to anti-conservative bias without offering any evidence. Do you have some links to back this up?

  19. babooeyist has a good point – the liberals never try to confront Rodgers or Morgan on the merits.

    Allow me to make an attempt, then.

    “He’s demonstrated two hundred some odd times where he’s been caught. This doesn’t even count all the times he’s gotten away with crimes. So what the hell is the point of letting some creep like this live? What is the point? Now you start with the Sears DieHard, the battery cables connected to his testicles, and you entertain him with that for a while, and then you blow his bleeping head off. Thank you very much.”

    Well, gee. Can’t say I care to have a 200+ time felon on the streets either. Have to agree with Rodgers.

    I don’t know if I would recommend genital torture and the frickin *death* penalty though.

    “RODGERS: Yeah, she’s dreaming, all right. She’s dreaming of personally strangling Melanie Morgan.

    MORGAN: Oh. We’ve got a bull’s-eye painted on her big, wide laughing eyes.

    RODGERS: Easy, easy, easy.

    MORGAN: Eyes, I said eyes.

    RODGERS: Yeah, well, that’s the only thing about her that’s big and wide. “

    Yes – exactly what merits would I be confronting here? Care to fill me in?

    SUSSMAN: It’s like a feeding frenzy.

    MORGAN: But apparently DeLay agrees that it’s time to put the bull’s-eye on her.

    Clearly that is political rhetoric. I don’t know that it makes sense to highlight that as violent rhetoric.

    She says some pretty stupid stuff, but don’t tell me it’s a free speech issue that people highlight her speech to advertisers. The Christian Right basically invented the political values-based boycott. Disney, Ford, Pepsi, etc. You should be taking it up with the advertisers, not the left.

  20. “As for Domenech, you are just ascribing this to anti-conservative bias without offering any evidence. Do you have some links to back this up?”

    ROTF! You think a far lefty is going to admit to what I accused them of??

  21. I heard some of the comments made on KSFO and thought they were smugly juvenile and I was happy I didn’t have to listen to any more.

    But do I want them off the air? No. One of the great things about this country is that asshats have the right to say asshat things.

    And for all those on the right in a froth over this, I have two words: Dixie Chicks.

    What was it the right said when they rushed to protect our fragile president from hearing this little girl from Texas? Oh, right, that the Chicks have every right to speak and people have every right to ban them from airplay, blah blah blah.

    The difference here is, these unfunny people can say unfunny things without fear of being fired. Unlike the columnists who lost their jobs when they dared to criticize the boy king. Gotta love that liberal media.

  22. How would the Post have known about the plagiarism if the “left” hadn’t uncovered it.
    The bottom line is if you want to be controversial you had better be ready for this to happen. If you are going to knowingly offend a segment of the population then what kind of ninny is surprised by an intense reaction?
    and George Will seems to have lingered on at the Post

  23. LOL! How anyone can compare this to the Dixie Chicks astounds me – “the right” didn’t want the DC’s to lose their jobs, they just wanted them to know that they didn’t appreciate what they said. I’m amused at the attempt at moral relativism, though. Nice try!

  24. David,

    You you trying to say that WE have to buy the crap the Dixie Twits put out? That is not Freedom, but toltalitarianism on your part.

  25. Dixie Chicks??? DIXIE CHICKS??? You can’t be serious.

    Maybe you didn’t notice, but no one tried to gag the Chicks, or prevent them from making their records. On the contrary, their most recent album got a deluge of free positive publicity from the reliably left-wing media.

    What many of us did was simply not buy their music, and change the dial when a radio station played it.
    No listeners = no ratings = no advertisers = no revenue. THAT’S what led to stations refusing to play their music.

    So all you gotta do, David, is convince all the KSFO listeners to change stations. Free advice: don’t hold your breath waiting.

    There’s a world of difference between people switching because they don’t like what they hear (the Chicks) and when some dime-store commissar like you tries to tell them they’re not allowed to hear something because he disagrees with it.

  26. we have an imbecile in the white house who just sent 20,000 more troops into a failed mission…who just committed billions more of your kids money on the same failed mission…and y’all are worried about a few b-level shock jocks who will say or do anything for ratings? your priorities are f’ed.

  27. Angryflower, how about posting a link to the full show transcript instead of a few cut-and-paste random comments, so we can tell what the topics actually were here?

  28. The Christian Right basically invented the political values-based boycott.

    Bizzare comment – and on Martin Luther King day, of all days. Is it possible you are that ignorant of history?

  29. And this is different from what Brent Bozell and the MRC have done for years how?

    Putting pressure on advertisers to make them responsible for where they put their advertising dollars is fair either side of the aisle.

  30. Ah, I knew we’d have a bit of BDS incoherence here sooner or later. Thanks for not disappointing us, jay.

    Ed – the MRC’s goal is to bring some balance to the MSM, not force anyone off the air. Your analogy would well taken if there were no liberal commentary on the air in San Francisco. But if there’s one place in the known universe that does not suffer from a shortage of moonbat opinion, it’s SF.

  31. Bizzare comment – and on Martin Luther King day, of all days. Is it possible you are that ignorant of history?

    Touche. I wasn’t alive, so yes – I am that ignorant. You’re right. The Christian Right have never boycotted anything for any reason and I am out of my mind.

  32. ST,

    Why delete my comment? You’re not trying to silence someone you disagree with are you? Keep up the good work.

    Huh? Attempt to repost, please. –ST

  33. It seems to me that if a politician says things his supporters wouldn’t like and someone works to make sure his supporters hear about it then the politician is the one to be held accountable if they lose supporters. Not the person who broadcast the politician’s views.
    In this case, it is the advertisers who support the shows and if they hear they are supporting views that they think cross the line of what they want their products or services associated with then it is in their rights to pull their support.
    The broadcasters have a right to free speech but they don’t have a right to a job on radio any more than the next person has that same right.

  34. Wow, my last post was deleted. I was making the point that the right will use any means at their disposal to silence dissent when it’s in their interest. The Dixie Chicks and Phil Donohue are two perfect examples. The Dixie Chicks weathered the storm and found new markets outside the old Confereracy. Phil Donohue, who’s show was number one on MSNBC before he was axed for being too left-leaning, has not been able to mount a comeback.

    Did you know that Melanie Moore’s group Move America Forward lobbied hard to get movie theaters not to air Farenheit 911? How is that protecting the marketplace of ideas? Like I said in my preivious post which was deleted, nobody’s buying it when the right tries to play the victim. Melanie Moore has every right to say anything she wantand Visa has every right not to foot the bill if they find her views offesive.

    No your last post was NOT deleted – it got stuck in moderation. But since you’ve chosen to essentially repost it, it has been deleted now so this one will stand instead. — ST

  35. Oh, and the Air America comparison isn’t very compelling because they still haven’t been able to show they can be economically viable in the long term because the types of advertisers KSFO now enjoy have never supported Air America in any real numbers.

  36. Edited. Cut it out. –ST

    My previous edited. –ST post asked you wingers to keep prattling on about this. It’s wonderful entertainment and exposes you for the petulant hypocrites you are.

    Please, please, please keep whining about this. The double standard you employ, documented by other posters, clearly demonstrates you are for free speech except when you are against it.

    Any guesses as to whose speech the wingers think should be protected and whose should be silenced?

  37. carsick,

    So if KSFO loses those advertisers that’s just capitalism isn’t it? I don’t believe there is a first amendment right to advertisers. Nor do I believe there is any reason a private citizen can’t or shouldn’t bring to the attention of advertisers reasons he or she finds a program, they advertise on, to be offensive.

  38. As far as the Dixie Chicks are concerned, there was a concerted effort to contact as well as boycott the Lipton Tea company among others. Is the campaign over KSFO really so different?

  39. Anthony,
    I’m not sure of your point. I was pointing out that some folks want to attack the person pointing out what KSFO is broadcasting on those programs as though they were trying to censor. Censorship and losing advertisers are two wholly different animals.

  40. I think liberals who want to see the Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan program silenced are, as Winger put it, “Headin’ for a heartbreak.” :)

  41. Ryan,
    Just as folks who wanted the Dixie Chicks silenced I’ll presume. Controversy breeds listeners and viewers but not always with the advertisers that brung ya. Or maybe the Mouse in this case.

  42. What everyone here seems to have forgotten is that ABC already has a blackout list for ads on ABC affiliates that carry Air America’s programming. For every one of the advertisers on the Air America blackout list, someone at some point probably wrote a letter or email to the company and complained about it supporting the views expressed on AA. While some may have actually had a corporate concern about supporting AA (ie, Phillip Morris, Exxon Mobil), most just wanted to shy away from controversy (ie, American Heat Assoc, Toys ‘R Us)–let’s face it, large corporations don’t like controversy. Moreover, it is the right of advertisers to pick what programming they’re ads are associated with.

    For the AA blackout list:
    http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/hp-aa-20061031-lg.jpg

  43. GWR wrote:
    What many of us did was simply not buy their music, and change the dial when a radio station played it.

    No listeners = no ratings = no advertisers = no revenue. THAT’S what led to stations refusing to play their music.

    And that is the crux of the whole debate, the listeners have FREE CHOICE, they can turn the dial to another station, they can turn the TV channel if something is on they don’t like (I do that to Letterman each night), they can even turn the TV off or the radio….

    Wow there is a novel concept, being able to CHOOSE what you listen to.

    Same was mentioned about Howard Stern, if you don’t like what he has to say, then change the channel. Same with IMUS, don’t like what he is saying turn the channel…you have that ability.

    You don’t like an artist, say like the Dixie Chicks and you have probelms with what they say, don’t buy their music, that is YOUR choice.

    It allows your freedom to choose and it doesn’t impede on their freedom of free speech.

    As for what is said on a program, it is up to the station if that is what they really want coming from them and being associated with. If that is the format (an I am quite certain station owners and managers are well aware of what gets said) that they want, then change your channel if you don’t like it.

    Most have XM or Sirrius, so I am sure you have no problem finding something you like listening to, and even if you don’t have satellite there are plenty of FM and AM stations also.

    As for contacting the sponsors, while some may think this is an attack, I think this also is a right someone has if they feel something is inappropriate. That too is free speech, to be able to contact those that support a program or station and let them know how you feel about what you hear and see. But I think personal responsibility is also needed, and that when dealing with sponsors you are TRUTHFUL, and not cherry picking small quotes and audio clips to make it seem like everything said is complete trash.

    It is all about being able to CHOOSE.

  44. Thanks for the reference to the NewsBusters article. It’s utterly clueless expectation that the sponsor AT&T would be more comfortable with the torture quite “in context” — which reveals that it was not a single isolated remark in bad taste, but part of an extended tirade on the topic–provided me with considerable amusement.

    Complaining to advertisers is a tactic that has been extensively used by the right wing to control the media. Hearing the cries of rage when the shoe is on the other foot, even in a very minor way, is also amusing. One thing that the right wing has never seemed to realize–whether it is about blocking the judicial nominations of the other party’s President, or abandoning our national principles when it comes to treatment of prisoners–is that what goes around inevitably comes around. Their wide eyed astonishment and outrage when they find themselves (or worse, our soldiers) the targets of the very tactics that they have promoted never ceases to amaze me.

    And by the way, this is not a free speech issue, no matter whether the complainant is on the right or the left of the political spectrum. Advertisers are entitled to choose what sort of views they want their products associated with. That’s free enterprise. And citizens are entitled to complain to advertisers if they don’t like what they hear next to those ads. That’s free speech. The heavy-handed attempt to use copyright law to suppress complaints is unlikely to succeed long-term (it will almost certainly be ruled fair use if it ever comes to court). And if it does succeed, the biggest price will probably be paid by the right wing, which has made much heavier use of the complain-to-advertisers tactic than has the left, at least until now.

  45. The Christian Right have never boycotted anything for any reason and I am out of my mind.

    Nice try, Pinocchio, but no dice. You claimed that the Religious Right “basically invented the political values-based boycott” (your own words), which is historically false. Either you know very little history, or you lied in the hope that no one would catch it. I can’t wait to see which one you pick.

  46. Controversy always helped Madonna. I personally don’t like to see this kind of talk from the Right. It only justifies an incorrect belief that we on the Right are violent and want to hurt people we don’t like or agree with. Shooting someone cuz they have 200+ convictions does seem extreme to me, even if it is just BS speech. Life in prison also seems extreme for a non-violent offender, but then again it was over 200 convictions. Seems to me this criminal wants to be convicted and stay in prison. Someone should just give him his wish.

    As far as the Chicks go, Yeah whatever. Notice how it was only AFTER they went overseas, that such stupidity flows from Natalie Manes’ mouth. Once she thought she could safely get away with saying something against her President, she blah blah blah’d it to foriegners. I don’t believe there was an organized effort to do the Chicks harm financially, but I do see a concerted effort from people who were upset cuz Nat said something stupid. If you don’t want to do the time, don’t do the crime, so to speak. The Chicks have paid a great price, and are still paying a great price for what I would consider a stupid comment.

    Angryflower, Your original comment was that the “Christian Right invented the political values boycott”. The Christian Right basically invented the political values-based boycott. Disney, Ford, Pepsi, etc. You should be taking it up with the advertisers, not the left. It seems your memory is abit off. Then you were corrected, which I do find it Ironic that you would bring up such a true lack of knowledge on this day, and you get apparently defensive and offer some lame excuse for your lack. You see Martin Luther King really did have a hand in “Morals” based boycotts that changed this country in great ways. The Christian Right really is just following his example. But go keep being ignorant about recent history, it makes for some good chuckles. – Lorica

  47. Complaining to advertisers is a tactic that has been extensively used by the right wing to control the media. Hearing the cries of rage when the shoe is on the other foot, even in a very minor way, is also amusing.

    Complete tripe.

    It is not a right, left, christian or atheist only tactic and to try and make it one-sided is disingenuous of you, and makes your arguements transparent.

    Now granted, there is quite a bit that the christians will boycott or try and change because they don’t think it is appropriate…based on their value system that they hold.

    Same goes for the right, as they sometimes tend to side with a portion of the christians because it is a big part of their party.

    but to claim that this side only is “extensively used by” then you are wrong.

    On a side note, there is nothing wrong with rules and regulations. Free speech does not mean you can threaten someone, incite hysteria or others to cause harm, or cause panic like calling fire in a crowded theatre. If media goes beyond the acceptable then you have every right to complain, but if you are dishonest in you complaints then also expect to be called on it.

    Lastly, while you have that right to inform the sponsors you do not have the right to harrass them. If you have made your point and they refuse to acknowledge your concerns or plain ignore you, then again, you have that ability to change the channel.

  48. trrll,

    One thing that the right wing has never seemed to realize–whether it is about blocking the judicial nominations of the other party’s President, or abandoning our national principles when it comes to treatment of prisoners–is that what goes around inevitably comes around.

    In 1943, one of the Dem’s favorite Presidents had Nazi’s shot in military tribunals cuz they were caught in this country. Seems to me that the tropical paradise of Cuba is a pretty good alternative to being dead. I don’t see it as an abandonment. Also there was a Prisoner of War camp not 15 miles from where I am writing. Alot of those men arrived here in 1942 and didn’t go back home until 1946, with no hearings or tribunals. That is what you do in war, you take prisoners until the war is over. Seems only logical. – Lorica

  49. Lorica-
    The ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, recently said Iraq is currently in a civil war – something the current administration has officially denied. Was it because he was on the BBC in England and felt he could “safely get away” with it?
    And of course there was no organized effort against the Dixie Chicks – just radio station sponsored events to burn and crush their CDs and an effort to boycott Lipton … oops, I guess that does sound organized.

  50. carsick please link Bolton’s comments.

    As far as the chicks go, I was thinking about higher level that a radio station. After all the Chicks have accused the President of organizing against them. Duh!!! – Lorica

  51. sanity-
    You said:
    “Lastly, while you have that right to inform the sponsors you do not have the right to harrass them.”

    Harrassment is legally defined and I expect charges to be filled against people who’s actions fall under that definition. I have not heard of any charges being filled or contemplated concerning this issue. Have you?
    Perhaps it is just thin skinned ranting and not a legal matter you are utilizing.

  52. Lorica-
    As far as I’ve heard the actions concerning the radio station are not from the president, Clear Channel or even a radio show that has the potential to reach millions of listeners but are being led by someone lone letter writer/small time blogger.
    And Bolton’s comment. I read it originally:
    “Bolton: Well look, the fundamental point is whether the civil war that exists now is going to continue or whether the Iraqis are going to decide to live together in one country.”
    And after a quick Google search I found a video clip:
    http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Bolton-civil-war.mov

  53. carsick lives up to his name and loses it all over himself. Twice.

    Just as folks who wanted the Dixie Chicks silenced I’ll presume.
    And of course there was no organized effort against the Dixie Chicks – just radio station sponsored events to burn and crush their CDs

    I know that the “burn and crush” events I’m familiar with were all organized not by stations, but by fans, or should I say ex-fans who had enough of their nonsense.

    You clearly have trouble grasping the whole concept, so let’s try, one final time, to lay it out for you.

    1. The Chicks have the right to say whatever they want. You certainly agree with this.

    2. Other people have the right to disagree, and refuse to buy their products.

    3. If people stop buying their products, or listening to them, then the stations have a good economic reason to stop playing them.

    That is NOT the same as “wanting them silenced.”. It’s that nasty free choice thing again, the one you guys on the left have so much trouble with.

    No one tried to stop them from recording. In fact, the whole controversy got them more press and publicity than they ever had before. Of course, you might have noticed people staying away from their last conert tour in droves. I guess that’s more right-wing censorship…oops, no, it’s that free choice again. Inconvenient for you, isn’t it?

    On the other hand, here’s how you see the KSFO issue:
    1. Melanie Morgan does not have the right to say whatever she wants.
    2. If she says anything you disagree with, she must be taken off the air.

    See the difference? Nowhere in your world does the concept of free choice exists. If you don’t like it, well then, dammit, it must be stopped at once!

    By the way, if you’re really interested in seeing people who want to see others “silenced”, you might check your friends on the extreme left who physically attack and assault any conservative who dares speak on a college campus. That’s become standard operating procedure for you thugs on the left. I invite you to show any case of, for example, the Chicks being physically attacked while performing. Again, a perfect illustration of the difference between our side and yours.

  54. If you need to use words like “allegedly” and “cherry-picked” to recall this story you’re proving their point to a tee.

  55. Lorica,

    Those Nazis were shot because they were tried and convicted of being saboteurs. How many of the people in Gitmo have had that opportunity?

    And Mwalimu Daudi? Nice try, Pinocchio, but no dice. You claimed that the Religious Right “basically invented the political values-based boycott” (your own words), which is historically false. Either you know very little history, or you lied in the hope that no one would catch it. I can’t wait to see which one you pick.

    Let’s try C. It’s called hyperbole, Mwalimu. Look it up. And speaking of recent history (the past 30 years), the Christian Right practically did invent this tactic.

    Aside from the church roots of the Civil Rights movement, the use of boycotts and other tactics in our modern age has been largely the province of the right. The difference is, the Civil Rights movement’s aims could be sold to the nation on a secular basis, citing the Constitution’s equal protection clause and the human decency of treating our fellow citizens as full citizens.

    The Christian Right, on the other hand, bases its positions in Bibical scripture, which is fine if you believe, but it is not a basis for secular law. The best example is gay rights. I can make a case using the equal protection clause, however, the right must rely on scripture in order to justify their discrimination.

    The Right’s use of boycott and advertiser intimidation is meant to impose very narrow Christian values on everyone, including those who do not believe. The church in the Civil Rights movement, in contrast, used its moral high ground to win Constitutional values for all citizens, regardless of their faith.

    That is a big difference, and one the right conveniently ignores in arguments like this.

    They say that when the Devil comes, he’ll be quoting scripture. I say, that when a man starts quoting scripture, hang onto your wallets.

  56. trrll (pronounced ‘troll’) mumbles:

    Complaining to advertisers is a tactic that has been extensively used by the right wing to control the media.

    Oh sure, right. Yup, the right wing really controls the media. Like the NYT. And CNN. And the WaPo. And the LA Times. And See-BS. And the Boston Globe. And NBC. And the Philly Inquirer. And ABC. And the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. And so many others too numerous to mention.

    Please, at least try to make your statements pass the laugh test, otherwise no one here will take you seriously, OK?

  57. David,
    If you actually read what I said, you would see I said they were in tribunals. Those of a military sort, not a court of law. Which If I remember correctly each and every detainee was to get a military tribunal to determine guilt or innocence. Good attempt at a correction. – Lorica

  58. great white rat-
    I don’t follow your points. I haven’t stood up in this thread for any political view. I’m just trying to point out the difference between free speech, censorship and the “rights” of people to have a job on the radio and of advertisers to support shows they choose. People protested the Dixie Chicks…that’s their right. People protest a radio station…that’s their right. It’s the height of hypocrisy to say different and that the two are different.

  59. Aside from the church roots of the Civil Rights movement, the use of boycotts and other tactics in our modern age has been largely the province of the right.

    Nonsense, David. Do you remember Anita Bryant? Do you remember the pressure the left put on Florida orange growers to remove her as spokesperson because they didn’t like her personal views? That predated anything anyone on the right did. That was purely political savaging. You guys wrote the book on it.

    And you’re also wrong in assuming that anytime the right dislikes something, it’s necessarily based on scripture. To use your own example, I can oppose gay marriage based solely on the sociological evidence of the negative effects this brings to a society.

    Making that assumption might make it easier for you to rationalize your desire to control free speech and choice, but it doesn’t wash.

    And it is kind of ironic to hear the “free speech for me, but not for thee” crowd bringing the Constitution into their arguments. That’s sort of the equivalent of the Devil quoting scripture, to use your phrase.

  60. Lorica-
    My understanding is that each detainee is to get a tribunal but at this point years have gone by for the majority of them and they have not yet had a tribunal.
    If you know different please cite the information.

  61. carsick,
    I thought that the President and the Chiefs have all pretty much said that Iraq’s violence was to the point of civil war. The violence between sunni and shia has intensified greatly in the last few months. But then again, your side has been calling Iraq a civil war since 2004, I guess you get what you hope for.

    Since Bolton was actually in Washington DC, and not on foreign soil your point is in error. I am pretty sure that he would tell anyone that he believes Iraq was in a civil war. The Dixie Chicks NEVER once said that prior, and only after all the hoopla did they apologize and tell the President they were wrong to say what they said. I will bet you all the money you have you won’t have to find an apology for Bolton’s comments. Again nice try at correcting me, but you didn’t. – Lorica

  62. carsick swerves all over the road with:
    Perhaps it is just thin skinned ranting and not a legal matter you are utilizing.

    I did not say they did harrass, I was laying foundation and groundwork if it turned to that point. Did I SAY they were harrassing? That is a decision best made by the sponsors, the same as I did not say they yelled fire in a crowded theatre, or incited a riot…

    Get your facts straight before accusing me of thin-skinned ranting. I leave that to democrats to do.

  63. carsick says:
    People protested the Dixie Chicks…that’s their right. People protest a radio station…that’s their right. It’s the height of hypocrisy to say different and that the two are different.

    Here’s why they’re different:

    When people protested the Dixie Chicks, they said “I do not choose to listen to them or patronize them.”

    The people who are upset about the KSFO morning show are saying “No one should be allowed to hear this.”

    Get the difference?

    In the case of the Chicks, if you wanted to buy their music, that’s fine with me, even if I don’t care to.
    In the case of KSFO, our little commissar friends want to prevent anyone who isn’t in lockstep with them from being heard.

    Like sanity said a few posts up, it’s all about free choice.

  64. No I agree, how can we give these guys tribunals when the left won’t keep the thing out of the court system??? There has been over 400 tribunals, and many of these guys have been set free. Several have returned to Gitmo as they were picked up on a field of battle trying to kill our soldiers. It takes time to give tribunals to what 3000 to 4000 terrorists.

    Doing a quick search on Gitmo Detainees Tribunals I came up with this article from Breitbart.com.

    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/06/D8G6CJV03.html

    – Lorica

  65. Yes Lorica you have surely proven my point wrong since Bolton was actually on US soil and only being seen on British tv. But you’ll have to show me anywhere that the administration has admitted that Iraq is in a civil war. The generals? Well the president doesn’t seem to agree with them and they agree with him perhaps because of the chain of command.
    The Dixie Chicks, if I remember correctly, said their initial comments on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. Just their luck to be in England on that day I guess.
    Oops, I just googled the Dixie Chicks “apology”:
    http://www.thespeciousreport.com/2003_dixiechicks.html
    My my, what a mea culpa.

  66. great white rat-
    My understanding is that someone is contacting the show’s sponsors and providing them with snippets of what is being aired and letting them know they don’t like the show. What’s the difference with what happened with Lipton. Free speech allows us to voice our opinion. It doesn’t guarantee we will be paid for it or that people will listen.

  67. Yes carsick and they took that apology back in their crockumentary. What is your point. Was she ashamed of all the Dems that voted for the war?? Was she ashamed of all the Dems that voted against the war, AFTER they voted for the war?? No carsick that was an excuse for her to pander to the crowd, nothing more.

    Also the whole point of the surge is to try to stem off a civil war. Yes he is replacing Generals. With the General who came up with the surge plan. Seems only logical. – Lorica

  68. carsick, getting back to the topic at hand, I have already said I don’t agree with these folk saying the things they said. It is completely classless and only panders to a small minded community of people. I think they should be checked in this foolishness. And if people boycott them like the Dixie Chicks were boycotted, so be it. Like I said early about the Chicks, Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. If someone organizes a letter writing campaign to the radio station or to the advertisers ok, great. It is a person’s right to express their dislike for something. – Lorica

  69. GWR states:
    By the way, if you’re really interested in seeing people who want to see others “silenced”, you might check your friends on the extreme left who physically attack and assault any conservative who dares speak on a college campus. That’s become standard operating procedure for you thugs on the left.

    Not to mention TV censorship…

    Noting that the fear of fines had already led 66 ABC-TV network affiliates to decide last year against showing the internationally-acclaimed World War II film “Saving Private Ryan,” Sanders said, “Free Expression and the and Americans’ First Amendment rights are the real target of this legislation. Ironically, we already have television stations refusing to air a film about the sacrifice of America’s Greatest Generation to preserve freedom because of the danger of arbitrary fines that the FCC imposes under its overly vague so-called ‘indecency standard.’ Vastly increasing the fines to $500,000 will only escalate this dangerous cycle of self-censorship, particularly (by) small broadcasters who could be bankrupted by a $500,000 fine. This is not what America is about.”

    Unfortunately, most Democrats appear to believe that censorship is what America is all about. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, voted for censorship, as did 161 other members of the opposition party that is supposed to take civil liberties more seriously than does the Republican majority.

    If fairness, some prominent Democrats did choose the Constitution over political expediency. U.S. Rep. John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who is the ranking minority party member of the House Judiciary Committee, and U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California, another House veteran with a long record of defending free speech rights, were among the proud if somewhat lonely foes of censorship.

  70. lorica-
    I don’t know the Dixie Chicks music nor have I seen their movie but I googled their “apology” and found it not to be what you were claiming. Did you read the link? That may not be the apology you were thinking of. As I said, I’m not really familiar with their story though I know who they are.
    I took her comments reported as being those of someone who opposed an expected coming declaration of war and wanted to say so on the eve before it.

  71. Sorry, tabbed out and it posted for some reason, but here is the last I was going to put in…..

    Sanders asked an equally appropriate question when he explained that,

    While the import of Sanders’s question should be obvious, most Democrats answered that they simply did not care.

    Link

    Surprise…..

  72. carsick,
    No I didn’t read it completely. After the second paragraph, I read too much of a child that wanted to excuse their actions, and not an adult who was truly sorry for the behavior. Which since the apology only came after they had lost thousands in revenue, I have to wonder about it. If she wanted to make a declaration, then again I ask, why didn’t she say something about all the Texas congressional people who voted for the war?? – Lorica

  73. Hmm must be that right wing christian group who extensively censor….

    Needless to say, the Democrats are fuming over the production which shows Kerry at his worst. No less than 18 Democratic U.S. Senators have spoken out against the film. Of course, they are scrambling their teams of lawyers to silence these veterans. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Il.) announced that he is joining with his fellow Democrats in a suit to prevent the broadcast.

    That’s right the Democrats are fighting with the FCC to make sure that the American people will not see this production. The party who has always claimed to oppose censorship is now trying to censor free speech. They apparently do not believe that men who have spent years in POW camps–should not be allowed to have their say.

    Link

    You do remember the movie Stolen Honor?

    Now compare that with Michael Moore’s fictional movie.

    Did these same ight wing christian, err, I mean democrats try and prevent its broadcast also?

  74. lorica-
    At that moment she may have been confusing, as most of the world does, the president of the United States as the sole authority to declare war with the congress who votes to potentially fund it.

  75. Wow, Great White,

    I see I’m going to have to break it down into smaller bites for you. OK? Here goes:

    Anita Bryant? How far back are we going here? I’m talking about the modern use of boycotts (and in the context of the thread, church-centered movements, but we’ll get to that in a minute) and that began in the early 80’s with the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition. And we may have written the book on nasty politics, but it took Lee Atwater to make it personal.

    And you’re also wrong in assuming that anytime the right dislikes something, it’s necessarily based on scripture.

    I never assumed any such thing. I said that church-based boycotts from the right were based on scripture. Church-based. See, this is called context.

    And if you oppose gay marriage on sociological evidence, then be prepared to defend a lot of anti-social heterosexual behavior. I don’t mind playing on that field, and even concede that your side has merit, but as soon as anyone invokes St. Paul and Leviticus, which they do, then there’s no more discussion because one of you believes this is the Word (see, there’s that context again). That makes compromise impossible and democracy functions on compromise, which is why scriptural politics are ultimately anti-democratic.

    And I have no wish to tell you what you can say or buy or who you can kiss or where you can shop or what you should do on Sunday or if you have a gun or how you should dress or if you should or shouldn’t have children and as long as you do it where it doesn’t scare the horses I honestly don’t care what you do. Just don’t put it on YouTube.

    I don’t make casual assumptions, Great White. And I have no interest in making it easier to rationalize anything. Where’s the fun in that?

    So I’m all in favor of free speech for everyone. One of my first heroes was Lenny Bruce. Now, you want to talk context?

    And if you want to play who loves The Constitution more, bring it on. We’ll begin with the 4th and the 5th amendments.

    Conservatives aren’t the only ones who believe in America’s rule of law, so you maybe you should rein in a few assumptions of your own.

  76. No one has a legal or constitutional right to use the public’s airwaves to make death threats or advocate the murder of one’s political enemies. That’s completely contrary to the requirement of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 that broadcasters serve the public interest as public trustees. Any broadcaster who does or allows the kinds of things described here, or anything close, should lose his license, end of story, end of argument, no partisan inflection sought or needed.

    You wanna go say vile & threatening things about the President or the Speaker of the House? Then buy a newspaper or get a blog and knock yourself out. But there’s no law, no right and no reason for that to be on the nation’s over-the-air radio and TV.

  77. David again:

    I’m talking about the modern use of boycotts (and in the context of the thread, church-centered movements, but we’ll get to that in a minute) and that began in the early 80’s with the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition

    Translation: History begins in 1980 for me, so don’t confuse me by pointing out earlier cases.

    And we may have written the book on nasty politics, but it took Lee Atwater to make it personal.

    I could point out the ‘politics of personal destruction’ in the 1964 campaign, but why bother? You’ve already decided that’s before your arbitrary and convenient timeline for the dawn of history.

    I said that church-based boycotts from the right were based on scripture. Church-based. See, this is called context.
    No, it’s called a straw man, unless you have some new evidence that the KSFO pressure is church-based. Fact is, YOU brought the Dixie Chicks into this as your star example of how evil the right is, and having lost that round, now you move the goal posts to church-based boycotts, which have absolutely nothing to do with the topic. But it’s a nice try at getting us off track.

    democracy functions on compromise

    Completely off topic, but you might want to send that out to Pelosi, Kennedy, et al.

    scriptural politics are ultimately anti-democratic.

    There you have a point. But there’s a difference between ‘scriptural politics’ and respecting common morality. And strangely, based on your Gitmo references, you seem to have a warm spot for those who would love to impose some sort of sharia law on us all. Are their ‘scriptural politics’ more to your liking?

    So I’m all in favor of free speech for everyone.
    Glad to hear it. Except, apparently, for those darned Christians, who had better just shut up.

    And if you want to play who loves The Constitution more, bring it on. We’ll begin with the 4th and the 5th amendments.
    Again with moving the goal posts. If you can tie that discussion into the topic at hand, bring it on. Otherwise, it’s just another obfuscation attempt.

    Conservatives aren’t the only ones who believe in America’s rule of law

    Maybe not, but based on the comments from the left on this thread, a lot of the folks on your side could use a refresher course.
    But thanks for playing. Next contestant.

  78. I haven’t read the 85 posts here.

    But as I lived in range of 560 AM since 1994, I have heard Lee and Melanie as morning hosts ever since then. They are not new. They’ve been there providing good service and good commentary for over a decade and they haven’t been hateful. Their commentary is spot on.

    Every morning at 8:45 AM they have a new dog that they help find a good home for.

    Every Friday they have Richard Letterer who provides great insight on the English language and the origination of phrases that people express.

    Melanie has bee to Iraq and has organized continued help for the troops.

    I hope these hosts can withstand the liberals’ hate and I think the fascist liberal trying to stifle free speech should be ashamed of themselves. oops. should I be banned for making a Lee Rogers type statement there…..

  79. Edward. It’s the totalitarian, fascist, silence speech mentality of the left. It’s not market forces.

    Market forces would be like people choosing NOT to listen to Err America.

    Market forces would be people choosing not to watch the 9/11 movie that the Democrats in the house threatened ABC’s licenses for. Going after licenses and advertises is NOT market forces Edward. Thanks for your one liner though…. It persuaded lots of people I’m sure.

  80. Market forces? Do you have no understanding of economics at all?

    We are talking about a very successful and widely heard program. Baklava listens to them in CA. Via their internet stream, I listen to them on the East Coast. They sometimes read Emails they get in real time from listeners as far away as London. They have high ratings. Therefore, market forces would dictate that they remain on the air. Maybe even have their hours extended, or have their show re-run later in the day.

    So what the libs are doing here has nothing at all to do with the free market. It’s suppressing the right of those of us who want to listen.

    It’s like when you send in your mobs to prevent someone from speaking on a campus. That’s not the free market. It’s thuggery.

    By the way, if you guys are suddenly so much in love with free market forces, shouldn’t you be spending your energy contacting the Democrat congressional leadership and asking them to reduce taxes, rescind the just-passed minimum wage bill, and repeal some of the anti-market federal regulations?

  81. “So what the libs are doing here has nothing at all to do with the free market. It’s suppressing the right of those of us who want to listen.”

    You don’t have any right to listen to a radio broadcast paid for by somebody else. Advertisers choose whether to support a program. If they feel that a program might offend a sufficient proportion of their customers or sufficient negative publicity to impact sales, they have a fiduciary duty to their investors to withdraw advertising on that program. And any citizen has a free speech right to point out to an advertiser programs that the advertiser might approve of.

    Nobody’s right to hear the program has been compromised. Even if all of the advertisers withdraw, the program could be streamed over the internet and supported by private contributions by listeners. Assuming, of course, that the listeners really do care enough about the program to pay for it. If it is really all that popular, it might even be picked up by a satellite broadcaster that relies upon subscriptions rather than advertising.

  82. Tactics being employed here are increasingly used by both sides. Targeting advertisers is reprehensible how? When it silences the right?

    From the story –

    The troubles for KSFO began in 2006 when a fifth-tier liberal blogger from San Francisco, hiding behind the pseudonym “Spocko’s Brain” started sending the station’s advertisers complaint letters. Such correspondence included cherry-picked audio clips and mini-transcripts from previous broadcasts.

    AND that is strictly a tactic of \”THE LEFT\”?!?!

    Please try harder to make this a partisan issue. ROFL.

    The rest of the article is fluff. Where are all you pseudo-libertarian right-wingers when you need to stand up for your free-market values?

    Interestingly there is an aside re: Stark\’s confrontation with the Sen. Allen camp. And a link to YouTube which clearly shows an Allen \”supporter\” or staffer attempting to block Stark\’s exit from the room so that he could engage Allen. A basketball analogy would be a moving pick. He was impeding a man from exiting a room. And you\’re going to get knocked down if you do that to me as well.

    And so we come down to the fact that someone on one side of the political spectrum is trying to have someone from the other side silenced by employing COMMON tactics. There\’s simply no logical or precedent-based to be made about the truth or lack thereof re: the information being \”cherry picked\” and presented to the advertisers. If it was slander, it would be determined in a court of law. But it\’s up to the advertisers to determine who they want their products/services associated with! Period.

    SO this amounts to more right wing whining.

    As for the Dixie Chicks, the targeting of advertisers was not the primary means employed by the right wing, pro-war camp. Clear Channel (a huge donor to Bush and an occupant of PUBLIC AIRWAVES) removed them from playlists whenever possible. NOT at the request of advertisers.

    Conservative Hypocrisy

    Let me stress again: CLEAR CHANNEL USES PUBLIC AIRWAVES

    Other stations did too. Not sure if this one was a CC affiliate, but…

    \”Nevertheless, the band remained controversial. On May 6 a Colorado radio station suspended two of its disc jockeys for playing music by the Dixie Chicks in violation of a ban on their music…\”

    Whoops – another inconvenient fact.

  83. There is a big difference between a bunch of people complaining so persistently that advertizers pull their money from a program and the government passing laws that say you CAN’T say what you want to say. To compare the two is quite dishonest. What bloggers do when they complain loudly and persistently is use the free market to make their views known. That is NOT the same as passing draconian and fascist laws.

  84. Allow me to make a brief clarification. I won’t use the word “correction” yet.

    Clear Channel denies that pulling the Dixie Chicks from the airwaves was a corporate decision, but there has been some evidence based speculation that this is not true.

    Cumulus Media, based in Atlanta is the company that did admit to halting all Dixie Chick air play.

    A little research on Cumulus will tell you that:

    1. They’re the number two owner of radio stations nation wide

    2. They contribute primarily to Republican candidates, with the only exception being John Kerry prior to the 2004 presidential election (hardly surprising, since he’d have been in charge of appointments for the FCC) and still not as much as Bush was given.

    3. My point remains valid. The right is guilty of some major hypocrisy and worse, is incredibly disingenuous on this topic.

  85. Mike???

    Clear Channel denies that pulling the Dixie Chicks from the airwaves was a corporate decision, but there has been some evidence based speculation that this is not true.

    What the hell does Some Evidence based speculation mean?? Either you got the goods or ya don’t. I can speculate all day long that Clinton was having an affair but until I get the stained blue dress, I am only blowin’ smoke. You are just too funny. =)) – Lorica

  86. David you blah blah blah about Right wing boycotts, but NEVER once talk about left wing boycotts. Let’s talk about all the boycotts against the show “touched by an angel”. How about gays who do letter writing campaigns if a show makes them look bad?? This works both ways. You can piss and moan all you want, but it isn’t going to change anything. – Lorica

  87. Fair is fair —
    Reading the horrifically racist and mean spirited comments by those conservative talk show hosts is deeply disturbing — but no more disturbing than the insulting and mean spirited comments I’ve heard from the left. Ad-hominem does nothing to prove an argument and puts the offender’s intelligence and taste in question — but it is not illegal. Neither are boycotts. As proud as I am about our Constitutional right to free speech and protest, I am ashamed at the depths of crude discourse that has dominated our airways in the past 15 years or so. I long for the days when William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal debated and BOTH amused me with their polite (if biting) wit and BOTH made me think about the issues.
    Frankly, as an educated liberal and simply as an informed citizen, whenever a debate or commentary resorts to “creep” and “traitor” and other meaningless slurs, I simply change the channel — no matter who is speaking. However, crude idiots have the same right to spew venom as intellgent debators in this great nation.

  88. WOW!!!!

    What a mess this has turned into, I’ll add my $.02 though I don’t think it will matter…

    Everyone is looking for a scapegoat, it’s the lefts fault, it’s the rights fault… blah blah blah blah…

    I lived in the Bay Area for 7 years and listened to KSFO most mornings on my commute from Concord to SF, I can tell you that there where MANY mornings when I would just turn Lee off. He’s bombastic where there’s no need to be, as I see it his comments do not represent any type of thoughtful or coherent speech. Lee gets angry and he blathers, sometimes going too far. In this case the decision really is up to the advertisers, if they felt that Lee went too far then they have to do what’s right for him. I don’t think anyone should be trying to remove him from the radio, even with these comments he and team are far from the worst out there.

    But if people want to try then let em, it’s a free country, I’m not going to engage in that type of behaviour. I can’t stomach the filth that was Air America either, I dealt with it by just not listening or patronizing any station that aired it. As a consumer that’s my right and I’m going to exercise it as I see fit, it’s not censorship or some vast right wing conspiracy. It’s seemed to have worked so far as AA is on the rocks and having all kinds of problems…

    The Dixie Chicks are fascinating because they *CHOSE* to bad mouth the President and their country overseas, they exercised their right to free speech and they made people mad (free speech DOES have consequences after all). The public reacted by flooding radio stations with calls telling them to pull all of their material, you can call it what you want. But when you’re a star in the public eye and you say something stupid, your going to pay for it, and so they have. They are breaking at last report because sales are down, concert attendance is way off and they are tired of everything being about natalie’s mouth and not their music.

    But they ran to the press once the landslide started and claimed they where being ‘censored’, it was everyone else’s fault but theirs. Had Natalie kept her big mouth shut instead of showing just how stupid and ignorant she really is none of this would have happened.

    As for Clear Channel, they are a business and they have to respond to their customers demands, they don’t HAVE to play anyones records if they don’t want too. You may or may not agree with that, but even a ‘Public’ radio station is after all a business and they make money from listener’s who buy from their advertisers. We can sit around all day and speculate but if I was running the place I would have pulled them too, they made themselves damaged goods and paid the price for it..

    Cheers

    -Paul-

  89. Great White’s ability to follow several threads at once seem to be as deficient as his reading comprehension, so I’ll make this really, really simple, so even the most obtuse (Great White, I’m talking to you) can follow it.

    You have two cases here. Both involve people whose work depends on radio. Both say things that anger listeners. Those listeners then try to silence those people through pressure on advertisers, management, etc.

    If you think that’s OK, then it’s OK in both cases. If you think it’s not OK, then it’s not OK in both cases.

    I’m on record here as saying I don’t believe in silencing anyone, right or left.

    It’s up to you to decide where you stand. But don’t try to pretend that the principle in these two cases is different, because it’s not. As much as you try to parse these two cases, the more you sound like a politician asking for the definition of is.

    You’re either for unfettered speech or you’re not.

    Now, as for Great White’s previous post, to point out all the fallacies and bone-headed assumptions would be a waste of time. Just GW’s use of the term strawman shows me that he honestly don’t understand the concept of what a strawman argument really is.

    And GW, if you don’t understand why my choice of 1980 was anything but arbitrary, then your understanding of political history, especially in the context of our argument, is as sketchy as your reading comprehension. But I’ll give you a hint: Modern conservatism and the power of the religous right were both in ascendency. Therefore, I see it as the beginning of a new chapter in American politics and particularly germane to out discussion. Pretty simple stuff, I thought, but it might be a bit too simple for someone with your mad rhetorical skills.

    Do I expect you to smack your forehead and say, “Oh, now I get it”? No. Because it would require honesty and open-mindedness on your part, and so far you’ve demonstrated neither.

    But all of this reminds me of the old adage about arguing politics with a true believer – it’s like wrestling a pig. All you get is muddy and the pig enjoys it.

    So, take your best shot here Great White, but know that I won’t be reading your response.

    Tonight I’m going to go play music, have drinks with friends, and tomorrow I’ll go back to work on my new book. In other words, life is way too short to be wrestling with pigs.

  90. My perspective looking into the USA is that the Liberals echo Hitler in 1941.
    “In war it is not right that matters, but victory, for who questions the victors?”

    Why is it you vote for people again and again who clearly have shown they aren’t people of integrity?

    Is it your system or you?

    MikeNZ

  91. Ah, well, you know you’ve got them on the run when they resort to the personal attacks, so I’ll just ignore most of DT’s final blurt of sophistry here. He still doesn’t understand the distinction between turning the dial and organizing to have a program discontinued. Well, fine.

    But one point fairly screams for rebuttal:

    Therefore, I see it as the beginning of a new chapter in American politics and particularly germane to out discussion.

    In other words, DT wants to ignore anything predating his chosen timeline. Useful when you want no inconvenient history to intrude into your cocoon, I suppose.

    At least you managed to get through an entire post without an anti-Christian diatribe. That’s progress of a sort.

    tomorrow I’ll go back to work on my new book.

    I think we were all supposed to be impressed or intimidated by that.
    I do hope someone picked out a nice, short “new book” for you. With plenty of pictures. Start at page 1, and get help from an adult if the words are too big. Let’s hope it wasn’t written by a Christian – I’m sure that would ruin your day – or written before 1980 since that’s outside of your frame of reference. Have fun, and maybe you can write a short book report for us when you’ve finished reading it.

  92. trrll says:

    And any citizen has a free speech right to point out to an advertiser programs that the advertiser might approve of.

    Correct. The citizen also has a responsibility, in doing so, to make the substance of the complaints accurate. In the KSFO case, that wasn’t so. For example, in one case the complainant cited racism – but when you listen to the entire audio clip in question, race was never mentioned, even peripherally. That was a fabrication, made for the purposes of suppressing dissent and destroying someone’s livelihood.

    Even if all of the advertisers withdraw, the program could be streamed over the internet and supported by private contributions by listeners. Assuming, of course, that the listeners really do care enough about the program to pay for it.

    I’m assuming you’re also keen on pulling the plug on NPR then, right? Based on their ratings, there aren’t enough listeners who care about them to pay for it.

    Here’s the distinction: if a program running for over a decade has the ratings and the sponsorship to keep it on the air, then yes I do have the right to listen to it, no matter how much you may want that point of view suppressed.

    You want to threaten the sponsors? Fine – that’s your right. Go for it, but be accurate about it, as we said above. And do keep in mind that once you make an issue of it – as you have – it’s entirely possible for the show’s audience to patronize those sponsors just to keep you from succeeding. If that doesn’t work, then all you can do is try to convince people not to listen.

    By the way, the sponsor pressures do not appear to be working. As of Friday afternoon, when KSFO ran a special program on the controversy, it seems that exactly ONE sponsor bailed.

  93. “Leftists” aren’t the only ones who point out speech they don’t like to the companies that give the speakers money. Ever heard of onemilliondads.com? Every time Ford puts an ad in a gay magazine, those bigots go ballistic! Today they’re ranting because FOX showed a t-shirt they didn’t like during a football game. They have a right to complain to advertisers, just like liberal people have a right to tell advertisers they’re supporting people who call Barack Obama a “halfrican”, ask people to call Allah a whore, or claim they’ve got a “bulls-eye” painted on Nancy Pelosi’s face.

    If advertisers choose to continue to support this crap, fine. I don’t listen to it and never will. Melanie Morgan, in particular, is psycho. She suggested putting a NY Times reporter in the gas chamber! Is this something you support?

    There’s nothing wrong with monitoring and reporting on the media and there’s nothing wrong with telling advertisers what you think about the programs they support. Even right-wing lunatics like the American Family Association do it.

  94. TeeGee,

    Do you guys ever bother to engage the brain before putting your mouth in gear? Can you come up with nothing better than some DKos cut-and-paste inaccuracies?

    Lets’ start with this one: “halfrican”

    The KSFO hosts didn’t invent this term, or use it to be derogatory. Fact is, there’s a web site that markets Halfrican T-shirts, among them one saying “Halfrican – the best of both”. That’s what the KSFO hosts were alluding to. And you’d know that if you did even the slightest bit of research.

    The web site in question is here, by the way.

    Next up: ask people to call Allah a whore

    Again, you don’t listen to the tapes, so you have no idea what you’re talking about. In this case, a liberal called the show repeatedly, each time lying about his identity to get around the rules most stations have about limiting the number of times any one person can call in (what a shock – liberals caught in lies…). The last time, the lib pretended to be a from Germany and the host caught him in the lie and challenged him to make that statement to prove he was not a Muslim. Kind of low-class, yes. But if there’s anyone who has no status to complain about religious insensitivity, it’s you libs – you’re the guys who get your jollies putting crucifixes in urine, remember?

    Next: a “bulls-eye” painted on Nancy Pelosi’s face.
    Again, no context. I listened to the entire clip. Did you? No, I thought not. The clip, in context, referred to the bulls-eye strictly in a political sense. That might have even been obvious to you, had you bothered to check it.

    Finally, this one: She suggested putting a NY Times reporter in the gas chamber! Is this something you support?

    Once again, you have no clue what you’re talking about. First of all, it wasn’t a reporter, it was the editor. The exact context was that if (important word there, so try real hard to focus) the NYT editor were to be tried and convicted for treason, then the death penalty would be appropriate. Because, you see, treason happens to be a capital crime.

    Then you say I don’t listen to it and never will.
    WONDERFUL!!! THERE’S the solution. Just change the dial instead of trying to force anyone who disagrees with you off the air. Then this whole thing would blow away.

  95. GWR,

    Liberals act with negligence. They convict in the public arena with false accusations and without due diligence.

    Will TeeGee offer an apology for the mischaracterizations and laziness? No. For he/she is free in this country to be irresponsible. Thanks for your great service in setting the record straight and doing the due diligence. People like you are the epitome of excellence.

  96. Liberals didn’t threaten to kill Melanie Morgan as conservatives did to the Dixie Chicks and Melanie Morgan suggested be done (that’s called a purge I belive – think stalin, hitler, pol pot) to “liberals”

  97. Yeah, right, Beonda. Whose word do we have that death threats were made? Oh, right, the same lying lefies that couldn’t agree on the correct time of day.

    Lefties lie about everything. If one says the sun will rise tomorrow morning I’m throwing away my sunblock and laying in a supply of light bulbs.

    In fact, I’m willing to bet your real name isn’t “Beonda Pale.” In fact, I strongly doubt you actually posted what you claim to have posted. I even disbelieve your existence. Begone, lying nonexistent spectre of falsity!

  98. Beonda, 2 posts ago I said what you’d do. We are shown every day. I said, “Liberals act with negligence. They convict in the public arena with false accusations and without due diligence.”

    Why do you guys continue your pattern?

Comments are closed.