Clinton Wants To Muzzle Talk-Radio - Are We Going To Let Him.

13 views
Skip to first unread message

starbuck

unread,
Aug 20, 1993, 9:26:12 PM8/20/93
to
Clinton and the Democratic Party are close to utterly distroying the
freedom of speech that has made talk-radio a vital medium.

In August 1987, the Federal Communications Commission, (FCC), abolished
the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", a political tool much used to restrict
free speech of political enemies. Not the Clintonians have slipped it
back as part of campaign-finance. Now without much notice this provision
has passed the Senate and headed for the house. Of course Clinton supports
it and is trying to get it through. Time to get on the phones and call in
to your Represenative and tell them to vote no.

As Virginia I. Postrel reported in the LA Times column Column Right:

[ My comments are in brackets. ]
[She reports how the other Administrations used the so-called fairness doctrine
to muzzle opposition view points and goes on. ]

"Clinton Administration officials aren't likely to be any more scrupulous
about protecting free speech and editorial independence. Indeed, given the
Administrations troubles with talk-show listeners -- the outpourings against
Zoe Baird, gays in the military. -- it is hard to imagine that the Clintonians
wouldn't use the law to muzzle enemies." [ Not hard at all. ]

[ How Clinton Could Muzzle Talk Radio ]

"Some simple interpertations of "fairness" would do the trick. The FCC could
require stations, as it has in the past, to balance the viewpoints on a issue
to issue basis; simply having both liberal and conservative hosts would not
suffice. And it could require that stations balance audience size -- for
example, putting Rush Limbaugh on at 3am until his numbers dropped to a drivve
norm."

"The first option means airing lots of UNPAID responses. The second means
cutting off popular but controversial hosts. In both cases, regulators can
pick and choose where to attack, favoring their friends and punishing their
enemies. And the can utterly the freedom of speech that has made talk-radio
such a vital medium."

It is not hard to see why some people think Clinton should be impeached.
Call your Represenative today and tell them to vote no.

Aaron J. Greenwood

Mike Schwartz

unread,
Aug 20, 1993, 11:14:09 PM8/20/93
to
starbuck (star...@galaxy.ucr.edu) wrote:
: Clinton and the Democratic Party are close to utterly distroying the

Very good. Add another item to the assaults on the 1st amendment by the
current administration.

But for what it's worth, I need to play devil's advocate. Rush's radio
show during the political election campaign of 1992 was certainly a 15
hour per week Bush campaign ad. There's at least some sort of ethical
violation there. And possibly a serious violation of campaign laws
(I plead ignorance of what specific laws).

: Aaron J. Greenwood

Boris.T...@launchpad.unc.edu

unread,
Aug 20, 1993, 7:24:45 PM8/20/93
to
[Much-Purged.exe version 3.31a]

| But for what it's worth, I need to play devil's advocate. Rush's radio
| show during the political election campaign of 1992 was certainly a 15
| hour per week Bush campaign ad. There's at least some sort of ethical
| violation there. And possibly a serious violation of campaign laws
| (I plead ignorance of what specific laws).
|
| : Aaron J. Greenwood

I THINK rush mentioned this during said campaign on the air.... he said
(as I recall) that if clinton wanted to come on the air rush HAD to intreview
him because bush was on, in relation to political candidates I think there
are "equal time" rules already in existance, all within the 1st amendment....
but then I think ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN news/talk shows were clinton commercials
as well so :)
--
/ Boris Tsipenyuk - Boris.T...@launchpad.unc.edu \
| "Emperor Norton - LIVE LIKE HIM" Endorsed by the Illuminati |
| "Movies, Music, Microcode and High-Speed Pizza Delivery!" |
\ "Would you kill your mother to pave I-95?" Jack Kemp for President 1996/

Frank Pittel

unread,
Aug 20, 1993, 11:49:36 PM8/20/93
to
starbuck (star...@galaxy.ucr.edu) wrote:
: Clinton and the Democratic Party are close to utterly distroying the

: freedom of speech that has made talk-radio a vital medium.

: In August 1987, the Federal Communications Commission, (FCC), abolished
: the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", a political tool much used to restrict
: free speech of political enemies. Not the Clintonians have slipped it
: back as part of campaign-finance. Now without much notice this provision
: has passed the Senate and headed for the house. Of course Clinton supports
: it and is trying to get it through. Time to get on the phones and call in
: to your Represenative and tell them to vote no.

I would but my senetors have already made it clear that they're not at
all interested in what I have to say. For me at least it's a waste of
time and money. My rep is a freshman and even more liberal then my
senators. When Foley speaks he hopes.

: As Virginia I. Postrel reported in the LA Times column Column Right:

: [ My comments are in brackets. ]
: [She reports how the other Administrations used the so-called fairness doctrine
: to muzzle opposition view points and goes on. ]

: "Clinton Administration officials aren't likely to be any more scrupulous
: about protecting free speech and editorial independence. Indeed, given the
: Administrations troubles with talk-show listeners -- the outpourings against
: Zoe Baird, gays in the military. -- it is hard to imagine that the Clintonians
: wouldn't use the law to muzzle enemies." [ Not hard at all. ]

Now Now these people are good liberals. They live for the freedom of
speach. Well at least speach they agree with. :-)

: [ How Clinton Could Muzzle Talk Radio ]

: "Some simple interpertations of "fairness" would do the trick. The FCC could
: require stations, as it has in the past, to balance the viewpoints on a issue
: to issue basis; simply having both liberal and conservative hosts would not
: suffice. And it could require that stations balance audience size -- for
: example, putting Rush Limbaugh on at 3am until his numbers dropped to a drivve
: norm."

Does that mean that conservatives get to balance network prime time?
Does thet mean that conservatives get to balance CNN?
Does that mean that conservatives get to balance both network and
local news?
If the answers to the above are yes this could work out to be a good
thing. :-)

: "The first option means airing lots of UNPAID responses. The second means


: cutting off popular but controversial hosts. In both cases, regulators can
: pick and choose where to attack, favoring their friends and punishing their
: enemies. And the can utterly the freedom of speech that has made talk-radio
: such a vital medium."


: It is not hard to see why some people think Clinton should be impeached.
: Call your Represenative today and tell them to vote no.

: Aaron J. Greenwood


--


-----------------------------------
Frank Pittel f...@fwpbbs.mcs.com

starbuck

unread,
Aug 21, 1993, 11:36:03 AM8/21/93
to
The First Ammendment Of The Bill Of Rights:

Religious establishment prohibited. Freedom of speech, of the press,
and the right to petition.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech
or the press; or the right of the people to peacefully to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievences.
-------

How much clearer could it be, state control via the so-called fairness
doctrine is in violation of the Bill of Rights. Passage would violate:

01. Free speech of Talk-Radio hosts, callers, and listeners would be abridged.
02. The right to freedom of assembly via radio would be abridged.

And maybe violate:

03. If Talk-Radio can be called the press then such a doctrine will violate
Freedom of the Press.

Do we want the government, no matter what side we are on politially to have
a tool to violate our Rights as free people? Let us not forget that the
the government derives it's power from the people not the other way around.
If it is not the current reality anymore then we have a duty to see that
it becomes so.

In article <254530$e...@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> Boris.T...@launchpad.unc.edu writes:
>[Much-Purged.exe version 3.31a]

>| But for what it's worth, I need to play devil's advocate. Rush's radio
>| show during the political election campaign of 1992 was certainly a 15
>| hour per week Bush campaign ad. There's at least some sort of ethical
>| violation there. And possibly a serious violation of campaign laws
>| (I plead ignorance of what specific laws).

>| Aaron J. Greenwood.

[ Just a minor point, I did not write the above. Aaron Greenwood ]

What is unethical is abridgement of freedom of speech, the violation is
that abridgement. So any argument to the contrary is not valid.
The specific law is Ammendment I to the Constitution of the United States
of America, we need look no further. The so-called fairness doctrine
need to be stoped. It is a political manipulation law not a fairness one.

I do not believe believe the government can invoke a fairness doctrine nor
does any media outlet have to conform to state control of what they say.
That is the point.

Rush Limbaugh and other talk-radio hosts and listeners have the right
that is protected by the First Amendment of the Bill Of Rights to speak
freely without congress passing any law to prohibit that speech. The
fairness doctrine is such a law. Agian it is a political law for state
control.

The motivation for such a law is clear. Talk-Radio is a threat to people
who think they "Rule" and forget they were elected as "represent". There
is I believe on the far left and far right, for lack of a better word, a
movement towards state control of our lives. Control of speech is essential
to state control. That includes what you can hear. This must be defeated
before it becomes law.

I think that democrats who support this should put aside their personal
dislike of Rush and Talk-Radio for principle. It just may be that Clinton
may not be the "man of the hour" many thought he was. Why give him a
tool to play games with our rights and freedom. For to give him that
tool you also give it to the next republican president. Both sides
abused it for the 42 years it was in place. Do we want free speech that
is approved of or communicated in such a manner as to be state controled?

>I THINK rush mentioned this during said campaign on the air.... he said
>(as I recall) that if clinton wanted to come on the air rush HAD to intreview
>him because bush was on, in relation to political candidates I think there
>are "equal time" rules already in existance, all within the 1st amendment....
>but then I think ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN news/talk shows were clinton commercials
>as well so :)

I agree with you, people want to listen and call in to Rush and other
Talk-Radio hosts. Let people decide not the government to who they
listen to, talk with, and what they say.

Aaron Greenwood

starbuck

unread,
Aug 21, 1993, 11:48:20 AM8/21/93
to
In article <9308...@fwpbbs.mcs.com> f...@fwpbbs.mcs.com (Frank Pittel) writes:
-starbuck (star...@galaxy.ucr.edu) wrote:
-: Clinton and the Democratic Party are close to utterly distroying the
-: freedom of speech that has made talk-radio a vital medium.

-: In August 1987, the Federal Communications Commission, (FCC), abolished
-: the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", a political tool much used to restrict
-: free speech of political enemies. Not the Clintonians have slipped it
-: back as part of campaign-finance. Now without much notice this provision
-: has passed the Senate and headed for the house. Of course Clinton supports
-: it and is trying to get it through. Time to get on the phones and call in
-: to your Represenative and tell them to vote no.

-Now Now these people are good liberals. They live for the freedom of
-speach. Well at least speach they agree with. :-)

Well, there are some good liberals in a daze over how they were conned
by the democratic party as to it's intensions and ability to goveren.
It is the "marist" fringe that seems to be in control of that party.
The one's who seek state control of our lives. One might with some
justification think of them as anti-freedom and anti-liberty. They show
no agreement with the political principles this country was founded on.

-: [ How Clinton Could Muzzle Talk Radio ]
-: "Some simple interpertations of "fairness" would do the trick. The FCC could
-: require stations, as it has in the past, to balance the viewpoints on a issue
-: to issue basis; simply having both liberal and conservative hosts would not
-: suffice. And it could require that stations balance audience size -- for
-: example, putting Rush Limbaugh on at 3am until his numbers dropped to a drivve
-: norm."
-
-Does that mean that conservatives get to balance network prime time?
-Does thet mean that conservatives get to balance CNN?
-Does that mean that conservatives get to balance both network and
-local news?
-If the answers to the above are yes this could work out to be a good
-thing. :-)

I thought the same thing. If the dark day comes and this hidious political
tool becomes law then we should all work hard to see it applied to NPR,
PBS, CNN ect. Why stop there? Why isn't the media raising hell about this?

Aaron J. Greenwood

Joe Hollinger

unread,
Aug 21, 1993, 8:18:52 AM8/21/93
to
>>>>> On 21 Aug 93 15:36:03 GMT, star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) said:
starbuck> Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal
starbuck> Nntp-Posting-Host: galaxy

starbuck> The First Ammendment Of The Bill Of Rights:

starbuck> Congress shall make no law respecting an
starbuck> establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
starbuck> exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech
starbuck> or the press; or the right of the people to
starbuck> peacefully to assemble, and to petition the
starbuck> government for a redress of grievences. -------

starbuck> How much clearer could it be, state control via the
starbuck> so-called fairness doctrine is in violation of the
starbuck> Bill of Rights.

Actually, it would be a lot clearer if it said "Neither Congress nor
the Executive nor the States" or something like that.

Chris Woodard

unread,
Aug 21, 1993, 3:19:02 PM8/21/93
to
In article <35...@galaxy.ucr.edu> star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>Clinton and the Democratic Party are close to utterly distroying the
>freedom of speech that has made talk-radio a vital medium.
>
>In August 1987, the Federal Communications Commission, (FCC), abolished
>the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", a political tool much used to restrict
>free speech of political enemies. Not the Clintonians have slipped it
>back as part of campaign-finance. Now without much notice this provision
>has passed the Senate and headed for the house. Of course Clinton supports
>it and is trying to get it through. Time to get on the phones and call in
>to your Represenative and tell them to vote no.
>

Hmmm. It's hard to see how "talk radio" can be called a vital medium when the
hosts get to screen their callers so that they only get people who agree with
their political viewpoints. The same thing applies to those stupid "phone-in"
and "mail-in" polls that were all over the place in 1992, all of which showed
Perot with 95% of the vote or Bush with 80%, or both Bush and Perot with 67%
of the vote each.

Talk radio *is* an entertainment medium, but it allows a few right-wing big-
mouths give the illusion that their political viewpoints are much more
widespread than they are. Calling it the "last bastion of free speech", or a
"vital medium" is giving it too much credit.

>As Virginia I. Postrel reported in the LA Times column Column Right:
>
>[ My comments are in brackets. ]
>[She reports how the other Administrations used the so-called fairness doctrine
> to muzzle opposition view points and goes on. ]
>
>"Clinton Administration officials aren't likely to be any more scrupulous
>about protecting free speech and editorial independence. Indeed, given the
>Administrations troubles with talk-show listeners -- the outpourings against
>Zoe Baird, gays in the military. -- it is hard to imagine that the Clintonians
>wouldn't use the law to muzzle enemies." [ Not hard at all. ]
>
>[ How Clinton Could Muzzle Talk Radio ]
>
>"Some simple interpertations of "fairness" would do the trick. The FCC could
>require stations, as it has in the past, to balance the viewpoints on a issue
>to issue basis; simply having both liberal and conservative hosts would not
>suffice. And it could require that stations balance audience size -- for
>example, putting Rush Limbaugh on at 3am until his numbers dropped to a drivve
>norm."

Gee, putting Rush on at 3AM would seem to match his material (a torrent of
unsubstantiated bullshit factoids called in by ax-grinding couch-potatoes
mixed in with paper-rustling and tabletop-drumming and pitches for the
"Limbaugh Letter") with an appropriate audience (paranoid insomniacs mixed in
with uniformed door-shakers). A smart marketing move by anyone's definition.

>
>"The first option means airing lots of UNPAID responses. The second means
>cutting off popular but controversial hosts. In both cases, regulators can
>pick and choose where to attack, favoring their friends and punishing their
>enemies. And the can utterly the freedom of speech that has made talk-radio
>such a vital medium."
>

Again, how is talk radio a "vital medium"? It's trivial entertainmemt
designed for light relief from the mechanics of making a living. Ms.
Postrel's sqeaking and belching about how "important" it is gives some clue as
to the very small boundaries of her mind, and the limitations of her
perspective.

Terence M. Rokop

unread,
Aug 21, 1993, 3:47:49 PM8/21/93
to
In message <35...@galaxy.ucr.edu>, star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:

>The First Ammendment Of The Bill Of Rights:

>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or


>prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech
>or the press; or the right of the people to peacefully to assemble, and to
>petition the government for a redress of grievences.

>How much clearer could it be, state control via the so-called fairness


>doctrine is in violation of the Bill of Rights. Passage would violate:

Does anyone happen to have the text of the proposed law? I would like to see it
if it's not too much trouble for someone.

Terry

Kevin Podsiadlik

unread,
Aug 21, 1993, 5:21:25 PM8/21/93
to
In article <255sf6$e...@suntan.eng.usf.edu>,

Chris Woodard <woo...@figment.tmc.edu> wrote:
>>"Some simple interpertations of "fairness" would do the trick. The FCC could
>>require stations, as it has in the past, to balance the viewpoints on a issue
>>to issue basis; simply having both liberal and conservative hosts would not
>>suffice. And it could require that stations balance audience size -- for
>>example, putting Rush Limbaugh on at 3am until his numbers dropped to a drivve
>>norm."
>
>Gee, putting Rush on at 3AM would seem to match his material (a torrent of
>unsubstantiated bullshit factoids called in by ax-grinding couch-potatoes
>mixed in with paper-rustling and tabletop-drumming and pitches for the
>"Limbaugh Letter") with an appropriate audience (paranoid insomniacs mixed in
>with uniformed door-shakers). A smart marketing move by anyone's definition.

You are a funny man, Chris!

>>"The first option means airing lots of UNPAID responses. The second means
>>cutting off popular but controversial hosts. In both cases, regulators can
>>pick and choose where to attack, favoring their friends and punishing their
>>enemies. And the can utterly the freedom of speech that has made talk-radio
>>such a vital medium."
>
>Again, how is talk radio a "vital medium"? It's trivial entertainmemt
>designed for light relief from the mechanics of making a living. Ms.
>Postrel's sqeaking and belching about how "important" it is gives some clue as
>to the very small boundaries of her mind, and the limitations of her
>perspective.

Okay, how about the service of reassurance that the listener is
*not* alone, that there *are* people out there who share the
privately-held viewpoint of the listener?

And what about the parallels between the 1990 and 1993 budget
deals we've been hearing so much about lately? I have yet
to hear anyone come up with any evidence that anyone thought
to point them out any time before Rush Limbaugh did.
And yet they were being used on the floor of Congress within
days after Rush did so. So much for "trivial".

--
Kevin J. Podsiadlik |
Vaporware Engineer On Steroids | "This is the Mac -- it's SUPPOSED to be fun."
Cognito Ergo Ditto |
E-mail: ham...@umcc.umich.edu |

Chris Woodard

unread,
Aug 21, 1993, 10:24:29 PM8/21/93
to
In article <2563kl$c...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu> ham...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Kevin Podsiadlik) writes:
>>>norm."
>>
>>Gee, putting Rush on at 3AM would seem to match his material (a torrent of
>>unsubstantiated bullshit factoids called in by ax-grinding couch-potatoes
>>mixed in with paper-rustling and tabletop-drumming and pitches for the
>>"Limbaugh Letter") with an appropriate audience (paranoid insomniacs mixed in
>>with uniformed door-shakers). A smart marketing move by anyone's definition.
>
>You are a funny man, Chris!

Thank you. I try. Most of the Limbaugh critics are humorless and strident,
and I didn't want to leave the impression that people with triple-digit I.Q.'s
were unfunny.

>
>Okay, how about the service of reassurance that the listener is
>*not* alone, that there *are* people out there who share the
>privately-held viewpoint of the listener?
>

Isn't that what the 1-900-HOT-TALK numbers are for? And I never said that
talk radio doesn't provide a "service", just that they don't constitute a
vital medium. All you've got time for in a two-minute phone call is the
barest whisper of a well-formed opinion ... most people (and most hosts) just
wind up reading T-shirt slogans or bumper stickers, when they're not fawning
and drooling over the host.

>And what about the parallels between the 1990 and 1993 budget
>deals we've been hearing so much about lately? I have yet
>to hear anyone come up with any evidence that anyone thought
>to point them out any time before Rush Limbaugh did.
>And yet they were being used on the floor of Congress within
>days after Rush did so. So much for "trivial".

Who were they being used by? If you said "conservative Republicans", then I
won't be surprised. If you say "Bob Dornan", then I'll be even less
surprised. It's typical that the Drooling Psychopath of Orange County would
use something he heard from a ditto-head to embarrass himself.

starbuck

unread,
Aug 21, 1993, 10:45:39 PM8/21/93
to
In article <JOEH.93Au...@ami.sps.mot.com> jo...@ami.sps.mot.com (Joe Hollinger) writes:
> On 21 Aug 93 15:36:03 GMT, star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) said:

>> The First Ammendment Of The Bill Of Rights:

>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech
>> or the press; or the right of the people to peacefully to assemble, and to
>> petition the government for a redress of grievences.

>> How much clearer could it be, state control via the so-called fairness
>> doctrine is in violation of the Bill of Rights.

>Actually, it would be a lot clearer if it said "Neither Congress nor
>the Executive nor the States" or something like that.

I agree, but I think we need to go back and read the debates that took
place when the Bill Of Rights was created. As Jefferson said:

-"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves
-back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit
-manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed
-out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which
-it was passed."
- --- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

I love where he says, "recollect the spirit". It is something we need
to do, with so many willing to sell out the Bill Of Rights for vain and
selfish reasons. Some of the replies to this issue have not addressed
the Free Speech issue of Talk-Radio nor the Freedom of Assembly issue,
that assembly via Talk-Radio. They have often seen this law as a way
to muzzle Talk-Radio because they do not like it. That is all they
see.

It is quite clear form the history of the fairness doctrine that it is more
of a political tool that fair. What some supporters of the abridgement of
our Rights fail to see, is that in the future it can and will be used
against them. Tit for Tat is a political reality.

aaron greenwood

starbuck

unread,
Aug 21, 1993, 10:55:02 PM8/21/93
to
In article <74596246...@unix4.andrew.cmu.edu> tr...@andrew.cmu.edu (Terence M. Rokop) writes:
-In message <35...@galaxy.ucr.edu>, star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:

->The First Ammendment Of The Bill Of Rights:

->Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
->prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech
->or the press; or the right of the people to peacefully to assemble, and to
->petition the government for a redress of grievences.

->How much clearer could it be, state control via the so-called fairness
->doctrine is in violation of the Bill of Rights. Passage would violate:

-Does anyone happen to have the text of the proposed law? I would like to see it
-if it's not too much trouble for someone.
- Terry

It is HR 1835 S 333. I am not sure how to get a copy but I will try. Form
what I heard from an email message was that the law would give the government
more power to limit speech and define what they want to be fairness. The
history of the fairness doctrine make clear it is a political tool designed
for control. I will call my congresspersons office on Monday and see if
I can get the text.

aaron greenwood

starbuck

unread,
Aug 22, 1993, 12:46:34 AM8/22/93
to
In article <255sf6$e...@suntan.eng.usf.edu> woo...@figment.tmc.edu (Chris Woodard) writes:


>Again, how is talk radio a "vital medium"? It's trivial entertainmemt
>designed for light relief from the mechanics of making a living. Ms.
>Postrel's sqeaking and belching about how "important" it is gives some clue as
>to the very small boundaries of her mind, and the limitations of her
>perspective.


I quoted only a few lines of your post because it was a rant about Talk-
Radio and the people who call into. It did not address the issue of issue
of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly that the New, so called Fairness
Doctrine would limit. I say the Freedom of Assembly because people assemble
via telephone and radio. Just the way we assemble on the net. Would
you friend like to have a "fairness policy" for the net?

The question is, if this law is passed, would it be in violation of Ammendment I
of the Bill Of Rights. We could talk all year about your personal views of
Talk-Radio and the people who call in and why you don't like their views
yet in the end it would be a waste of time. This issue, about the limitations
of our Rights, is far more important than your opinion of Talk-Radio.
Besides you show little understanding of Talk-Radio. It is far more that
you indicate from your uninformed opinion.

It is typical of people who seek state control over our freedoms to change
the topic in their posts. Liberals seem to think that the Bill Of Rights
just doesn't matter when people do not conform to their political point of
view. I find that an outrage. The liberal focus on this issue is, so far,
is that it is more important to silence Talk-Radio than the Ammendment I
of the Bill Of Rights is to our freedom.

Any law liberals pass today to limit speech and assembly can be used
against them in the future. We had 42 years of the "fairness doctrine"
and history shows it is more a political tool to silence speech that it
is fair.

aaron greenwood

Terence M. Rokop

unread,
Aug 22, 1993, 12:47:36 AM8/22/93
to

Thanks, I'd appreciate it.

Terry

Steven M Casburn

unread,
Aug 22, 1993, 1:29:16 AM8/22/93
to
In article <256lct$4...@suntan.eng.usf.edu> woo...@figment.tmc.edu (Chris Wooda

rd) writes:
>In article <2563kl$c...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu> ham...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Kevin
Podsiadlik) writes:
>
>>Okay, how about the service of reassurance that the listener is
>>*not* alone, that there *are* people out there who share the
>>privately-held viewpoint of the listener?
>
>Isn't that what the 1-900-HOT-TALK numbers are for? And I never said that
>talk radio doesn't provide a "service", just that they don't constitute a
>vital medium.

But who is to decide what a "vital medium" is? You? And what is *your*
idea of a vital medium? Is it a PBS show that no one watches? An NPR show that
is slanted so far toward an interventionist liberal point of view that
conservatives and libertarians can't stand it? Please explain further -- this
I want to read.


>All you've got time for in a two-minute phone call is the
>barest whisper of a well-formed opinion ... most people (and most hosts) just
>wind up reading T-shirt slogans or bumper stickers, when they're not fawning
>and drooling over the host.

Why is the time factor important here? I've seen plenty of 30 minute and
even hour-long shows that contain little or nothing else than self-serving
rhetoric and ungrounded platitudes that are unchallenged by the host or
moderator. And then there are those shows which are so intent on fostering
conflict between opposing points of view that they forget to shed light on the
underlying philosophies behind those points that would make the conflict
explicable. Again, I want to know what your standards are here, and if I seem
rude, it's simply because I'm completely at sea about what it is you seem so
confident about.


>>And what about the parallels between the 1990 and 1993 budget
>>deals we've been hearing so much about lately? I have yet
>>to hear anyone come up with any evidence that anyone thought
>>to point them out any time before Rush Limbaugh did.
>>And yet they were being used on the floor of Congress within
>>days after Rush did so. So much for "trivial".
>

>Who were they being used by? If you said "conservative Republicans", then I
>won't be surprised. If you say "Bob Dornan", then I'll be even less
>surprised. It's typical that the Drooling Psychopath of Orange County would
>use something he heard from a ditto-head to embarrass himself.

This is interesting, Chris. Kevin provided you with an example of the
Limbaugh show pointing out and publicizing something that none of the other
media picked up on, and you ignore this because it doesn't fit your ideological
stance. What are you arguing about, Chris? If you're arguing that talk radio is
ineffective at providing information and analysis, then you need to show why
Kevin's example isn't as compelling as he (and I) think it is. Instead of doing
this, you scoff at one of the people who picked up on this information, and
left the challenge to your point go unanswered.
Are you, then, actually arguing that talk radio simply doesn't fit in with
your view of the world? That's fine if you are -- feel free -- but don't
confuse the issue with a bunch of pseudo-intellectual blather about it not
being a "vital medium" or that it doesn't provide a different or informed
perspective on events.
Awaiting your reply...

Steve
|
--
Steve Casburn (scas...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
"No individual or nation can live alone. We must all learn to live
together, or we will be forced to die together."
-- Martin Luther King, 1957

starbuck

unread,
Aug 22, 1993, 1:31:08 AM8/22/93
to
In article <CC4y9...@freenet.carleton.ca> ah...@Freenet.carleton.ca (Bill Stuart) writes:

> People are happy that rush is going to be silenced because he is a
>hypocrite as well as, in my opinion, a homophobe.

> Example of his hypocracy: He was making fun of a transsexual who
>lost her breast implats after a prison refused to allow her to keep taking
>estrogen (rush was making fun of another person's body).
> Rush was upset because Jay Leno was maiking fun of his weight.

It is not a done deal, Bill. First of all, if HR 1935 S 333 is passed
you can expect outrage by millions of people and not all ditto heads either.
For their is much more to Talk-Radio than just the Rush Limbaugh Show.
I am sure it will end in the courts, this is not 1950, people fight back.

The history of the other "fairness doctrine" was anything but fair. It was
used by the party in power to silence opposition views. It is a political
tool and noting more. A Tool that violates the Rights of us all. To be
truthfull, democratics and republicans alike, have used it as a political
tool.

Keep that in mind. There is no reason that when the republican party
regains the White House, that it would not be used against liberals. Why
give the government a tool they can't be trusted with and is a clear
violation of Ammmendment I of the Bill Of Rights. The last time we went
down this road it lasted 42 years.

There is more to Talk-Radio than Rush, also the so-called "fairness
doctrine" can and will be used againist other media outlets. So it is not
an Anti-Rush bill but an abridgement of Freedom of Speech and Assembly.
Assembly, because people assemble via phone and radio. We assemble on
the net, do you wish to see state control of our freedom to communicate in
this forum?

You may think that people will be happy that Rush might be silenced but
should it happen, it will be far more than Rush who is silenced, it will
be the millions and millions of people who call and listen to Talk-Radio
not just the Rush-Limbaugh Show. It will have a chilling effect on other
media outlets as well.

Why are you willing to put up with an abridgement of your Rights just
to get Rush off the air? Do you believe in your country's principles
as expressed in the Bill Of Rights?

aaron greenwood

Chris Woodard

unread,
Aug 22, 1993, 8:54:44 PM8/22/93
to

With all of the screaming hysteria over the "fairness doctrine", and how it'll
be the end of civilization as we know it (which is imminent if you listen to
Aaron Greenwood and Virginia Postrel), we need to start talking about talk
radio itself -- what it is and what it isn't -- and then see if the fairness
doctrine is all that harmful.

Talk radio is just that -- radio in which hosts talk with people who call in.
Hosts (and shows) come in all political stripes, with varying degrees of
credibility, and different standards of decorum. The bread-and-butter of the
talk radio host is (1) the caller who says the host is the greatest thing
since canned beer, (2) the irate caller who lambasts some person that the host
and audience dislike, and (3) the dumb caller with the opposing viewpoint that
invites ridicule. Rational, fact-filled, and scholarly discussion of issues
that are really intended to find the truth are of very low priority to talk
radio hosts.

Talk radio is often the '90's version of the infomercial, a lengthy and
slanted screed aimed at selling a product -- NOT informing the public,
although that may occasionally happen in the course of doing businss -- but
selling a product. If you want to see how a true public-affairs talk radio
show would do, look up the Arbitron or Nielsen numbers for public service
announcements.

Talk radio hosts screen their callers so that they either get people who agree
with them or goofballs who couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag who
don't agree with them. This assures them of a win-win situation, perpetuating
the illusion of omniscience that the TR host has to have to sell ad time on
his/her show. A talk radio show, particularly one that pretends to be
concerned with issues, is guaranteed to be slanted and biased ... and this is
where the fairness doctrine, carefully and properly administered, might come
in handy. Even if the hosts weren't forced to give "equal time", they could
at least run periodic announcements stating that what the listeners arehearing
is slanted bullshit and should not be confused with the truth.

David Veal

unread,
Aug 22, 1993, 10:06:32 PM8/22/93
to
In article <2594gk$d...@suntan.eng.usf.edu> woo...@figment.tmc.edu (Chris Woodard) writes:
>
>With all of the screaming hysteria over the "fairness doctrine", and how it'll
>be the end of civilization as we know it (which is imminent if you listen to
>Aaron Greenwood and Virginia Postrel), we need to start talking about talk
>radio itself -- what it is and what it isn't -- and then see if the fairness
>doctrine is all that harmful.

Stereo-typical Bad Idea. :-)

>Talk radio is just that -- radio in which hosts talk with people who call in.
>Hosts (and shows) come in all political stripes, with varying degrees of
>credibility, and different standards of decorum. The bread-and-butter of the
>talk radio host is (1) the caller who says the host is the greatest thing
>since canned beer, (2) the irate caller who lambasts some person that the host
>and audience dislike, and (3) the dumb caller with the opposing viewpoint that
>invites ridicule. Rational, fact-filled, and scholarly discussion of issues
>that are really intended to find the truth are of very low priority to talk
>radio hosts.

At least the popular ones. The *audience* isn't interested in what
they don't understand or aren't schooled in.

>Talk radio hosts screen their callers so that they either get people who agree
>with them or goofballs who couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag who
>don't agree with them. This assures them of a win-win situation, perpetuating
>the illusion of omniscience that the TR host has to have to sell ad time on
>his/her show. A talk radio show, particularly one that pretends to be
>concerned with issues, is guaranteed to be slanted and biased ... and this is
>where the fairness doctrine, carefully and properly administered, might come
>in handy. Even if the hosts weren't forced to give "equal time", they could
>at least run periodic announcements stating that what the listeners arehearing
>is slanted bullshit and should not be confused with the truth.

How charming.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA14...@utkvm1.utk.edu (Mail to VE...@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce)
Signature Impounded For Failure To Pay Sig Tax
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin Podsiadlik

unread,
Aug 22, 1993, 11:43:37 PM8/22/93
to
In article <2594gk$d...@suntan.eng.usf.edu>,

Chris Woodard <woo...@figment.tmc.edu> wrote:
>
>With all of the screaming hysteria over the "fairness doctrine", and how it'll
>be the end of civilization as we know it (which is imminent if you listen to
>Aaron Greenwood and Virginia Postrel), we need to start talking about talk
>radio itself -- what it is and what it isn't -- and then see if the fairness
>doctrine is all that harmful.

That is a very dangerous way to look at this issue and you should know
this by now. Hang it all, even if you think the National Enquirer has
more value than Rush Limbaugh, that is no reason to go willy-nilly
yanking someone's First Amendment rights!

Furthermore, the very fact that we are discussing this bill in terms
of "it's not all that harmful" instead of "it's going to do a lot of
good" tells me a lot about it's merit (or lack of).

>(much ranting about how worthless talk radio is deleted)

Discussing talk radio in general with you is hopeless, because the
only common frame of reference we have is the Rush Limbaugh show.
(Unless maybe you get Michael Reagan?) All I can say is, what you
say might well apply to Rush, but it certainly does not apply to
the other hosts on WXYT (Detroit) between 9 a.m. and 11 p.m. And
all of them are, to varying degrees, on the conservative side of
the spectrum politically, leaving little question as to whether
the "fairness doctrine" would be applied to WXYT.

I am not prepared to travel to Miami to listen to the station you
seem to have so much of a problem with, nor, I expect, would you
be willing to travel to Detroit to see my point-of-view. So the
best we can do is agree to disagree on the merits of talk radio.

Either way, you still have no justification for trampling on the
First Amendment.

starbuck

unread,
Aug 22, 1993, 11:38:11 PM8/22/93
to
In article <2594gk$d...@suntan.eng.usf.edu> woo...@figment.tmc.edu (Chris Woodard) writes:

>With all of the screaming hysteria over the "fairness doctrine", and how it'll
>be the end of civilization as we know it (which is imminent if you listen to
>Aaron Greenwood and Virginia Postrel), we need to start talking about talk
>radio itself -- what it is and what it isn't -- and then see if the fairness
>doctrine is all that harmful.

Well, for a trial run I used my birthname, but find I prefer my nickname,
starbuck better. So Aaron Greenwood is starbuck. I just didn't want
to confuse anyone when I sign off this post. At first when I saw myself
quoted I thought I was someone else. Anyway so much for ego games.

It is not screaming hysteria to be concerned about the infringment on
our Rights. In fact why aren't you?

I agree we need to talk about Talk-Radio, but not to avoid a real threat
to the Right of Free Speech. Agian you focus on the wrong thing. The issue
is not Talk-Radio, although as a separate thread, it would be a wonderful
topic. It is a question of free speech. Talk-Radio is incidental to the
argument. It is not a question of if the fairness doctrine should be applied
but if it should exist at all.

At this time, we do not have a fairness doctrine. We did until August
1987 and the history of that doctrine is one of political abuse of the
First Ammendment. Consider the quote from Bill Ruder:

"'Our massive startegy," admitted Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of
commerce during Kennedy's Administration, "was to use the fairness doctrine
to challenge and harass right wing broadcasters and hope that the chalenges
would be so costly to them they would be inibitied and decide it was to
expensive to continue."

Ruder is honest about the application of the law and that is to his credit.
Other Admistrations abused and used the law for pure political gain. Nixon
raised it to an art form. The history of this fairness doctrine is 42 years
in length and clearly shows that it has been applied to silence, intimidate,
and harass broadcasters. It was used in that manner by republicans and
democrates alike against their political opposition. It has to be clear
to you that this is a threat to the First Ammendment.

It should be clear to you, that when power of your Rights are in the hands
of the government you have no Rights. We can't let the government play
this game for another 42 years, the fairness doctrine must be stopped.

The Bill of Rights does not grant Rights, we allready have them, what it
does is prohibits the government from abridging or infringing on those
rights. It is subtle but I think you can get it. The govenment cannot
take away Rights since it did not give them to us. Our Rights belong
to us only. That is what a free society is. Another point of our
history, is that the powers of government are derived from the people,


not the other way around.

Posters on the side of the fairness doctrine are quite like Ruder in that
they do not hide the fact that they want a fairness doctrine to suppress
opposing viewpoints. Most of these people from my view are petty and vain.
They lack loyalty to the principles that our country was founded on, in
particular they have no real belief in the Bill Of Rights. They are willing
to give those Rights away, simply to silence those who oppose their narrow
views. In fact some think Rush Limbaugh is more important than their Rights.
Go figure, as they said in the eighties.

If this law is passed it will be applied no differently than in the past.
What those, so eager to subort the Bill Of Rights fail to realize, is
what law passed today to be used against the political opposition can and
will be use against them when the political tide turns. With regard to
fairness doctrine, it's history proves that my analysis is correct.

This is not 1950 and people have seen the results of the last fairness
doctrine, I believe sufficent opposition may be raise to defeat it before
it becomes law.

Tens of millions listen and/or call into Talk-Radio shows. This issue is
being discussed all over the country. The closer we get to the debate on
this issue the more talk their will be. If it passes, there will be anger
and outrage. There is already. It will be felt at the ballot box since
your Talk-Radio fan will more than likely vote. There will be backlash
you can count on it. How many different groups of people can the democrats
afford to piss off. This law is not about fairness or diversity it is about
repression. It will not be applied in the manner you think unless you are
one of those who are like Ruder and know that it is political tool.

I will reply to you analysis of talk radio in another post.

starbuck

wil...@space.tn.cornell.edu

unread,
Aug 23, 1993, 1:09:00 AM8/23/93
to


Its really ashame that the sponsors of this bill are so afraid
of what some one says that they will revert to censorship.
Have we all lost our ability to reason and think for ourselves ?
Or are we so stupid and child like that we need protection
from Big Brother. What has ever happened to individual
responsibility. You can always retune your radio or change
the channel on your TV is that to much to ask ? If the congress
and the president spent as much time fixing the economy as they do
trying to subvert the Bill of Rights and congering up new excuses
to spend more money on bigger government people like Rush wouldn't
have so much to say.

Bill

keba...@msuvx1.memst.edu

unread,
Aug 23, 1993, 11:12:26 AM8/23/93
to
woo...@figment.tmc.edu (Chris Woodard) writes:

> [Re: the "fairness" doctrine (Don't lefties_love_that word!)...]
>
> ...Even if the hosts weren't forced to give "equal time", they could

> at least run periodic announcements stating that what the listeners
> are hearing is slanted bullshit and should not be confused with the truth.

Much as I'd like to hear such a disclaimer during the Dan Rather Show
and during NPR's daily heap of Pravda, I won't argue for such a
remedy. I give the general public more credit than that, and have
confidence that people who care enough to watch a Presidential address
will be able to understand what was said without network spin-doctors
holding their hands.

<Peter Jennings>: What strikes me about the President's speech tonight
is that Mr. Clinton didn't seem to lie quite as much as he's done in
the past. What do you think Sam?

<Sam Donaldson>: He may not have lied, but he didn't hit the mark.
He's trying to get his popularity up by playing the same old campaign
song. Where's the Bill Clinton I voted for? *Oops.*

<David Brinkley>: We'll be back in a moment...

--Standard disclaimer-- Deficit Spending Awareness //U\\
*.x,*dna*****If Guns Cause Crime, Matches Cause Arson!******** \\S//
*(==) Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg. * Conservative libertarians * >A<
* \' KEBA...@msuvx1.memst.edu * for Pro-Balance! * // \\
*(-)**Memphis,TN********7532...@CompuServe.com*******I care!$100 $100
"Taxes are necessary instruments to achieve social balance in a market
economy; yet they also make the achievement of social balance
impossible. The economy may be closer to social balance with taxes
than without taxes, but it can never achieve social balance as
long as some investment decisions are made privately."
--Lester C. Thurow,_The Impact of Taxes on the American Economy,_1971

Joshua R. Poulson

unread,
Aug 23, 1993, 10:20:30 AM8/23/93
to
In article <2594gk$d...@suntan.eng.usf.edu>, woo...@figment.tmc.edu (Chris Woodard) writes:
|> With all of the screaming hysteria over the "fairness doctrine", and how it'll
|> be the end of civilization as we know it (which is imminent if you listen to
|> Aaron Greenwood and Virginia Postrel), we need to start talking about talk
|> radio itself -- what it is and what it isn't -- and then see if the fairness
|> doctrine is all that harmful.

As usual with tthese arguments, I must respond, "If you don't want to hear
it, please don't listen to it. Don't infringe on my rights to hear it if I
want to."

|> Talk radio is just that -- radio in which hosts talk with people who call in.
|> Hosts (and shows) come in all political stripes, with varying degrees of
|> credibility, and different standards of decorum. The bread-and-butter of the
|> talk radio host is (1) the caller who says the host is the greatest thing
|> since canned beer, (2) the irate caller who lambasts some person that the host
|> and audience dislike, and (3) the dumb caller with the opposing viewpoint that
|> invites ridicule. Rational, fact-filled, and scholarly discussion of issues
|> that are really intended to find the truth are of very low priority to talk
|> radio hosts.

A pretty broad generalization. However, as long as there are people that
want to listen to it, who are we to not let them? I watch Rush Limbaugh's
show on TV, and I also watch Donahue when there's an interesting topic.
Heck, I even watched Donahue and his audience lambast Rush when he had
him on the show.

I make up my own mind, though. Most people term me a "moderate".

|> Talk radio is often the '90's version of the infomercial, a lengthy and
|> slanted screed aimed at selling a product -- NOT informing the public,
|> although that may occasionally happen in the course of doing businss -- but
|> selling a product. If you want to see how a true public-affairs talk radio
|> show would do, look up the Arbitron or Nielsen numbers for public service
|> announcements.

They inform the public about the host's opinions. Some shows present it that
way too. Some shows aren't as honest about it.

|> Talk radio hosts screen their callers so that they either get people who agree
|> with them or goofballs who couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag who
|> don't agree with them. This assures them of a win-win situation, perpetuating
|> the illusion of omniscience that the TR host has to have to sell ad time on
|> his/her show. A talk radio show, particularly one that pretends to be
|> concerned with issues, is guaranteed to be slanted and biased ... and this is
|> where the fairness doctrine, carefully and properly administered, might come
|> in handy. Even if the hosts weren't forced to give "equal time", they could
|> at least run periodic announcements stating that what the listeners arehearing
|> is slanted bullshit and should not be confused with the truth.

Who cares if its slanted bullshit? It's no your right or my right to tell
them to shut up. It's our right to change the channel.

The fairness doctrine, as I've seen it presented here, is not fair. :)

--JRP

Greg Otts

unread,
Aug 23, 1993, 10:59:54 AM8/23/93
to
In article <2594gk$d...@suntan.eng.usf.edu>, woo...@figment.tmc.edu (Chris Woodard) writes:
> Talk radio is often the '90's version of the infomercial, a lengthy and
> slanted screed aimed at selling a product -- NOT informing the public,
> although that may occasionally happen in the course of doing businss -- but
> selling a product. If you want to see how a true public-affairs talk radio
> show would do, look up the Arbitron or Nielsen numbers for public service
> announcements.

This doesn't sound much different that what our beloved politicians offer us
when making their pronouncements.

> Talk radio hosts screen their callers so that they either get people who agree
> with them or goofballs who couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag who
> don't agree with them. This assures them of a win-win situation, perpetuating
> the illusion of omniscience that the TR host has to have to sell ad time on
> his/her show. A talk radio show, particularly one that pretends to be
> concerned with issues, is guaranteed to be slanted and biased ... and this is

This is exactly what Clinton does when he has his little town meetings.

> where the fairness doctrine, carefully and properly administered, might come
> in handy. Even if the hosts weren't forced to give "equal time", they could
> at least run periodic announcements stating that what the listeners arehearing
> is slanted bullshit and should not be confused with the truth.
>

How, though, is our political system going to operate without talk show
hosts and politicians being able to present their slanted bullshit which
should not be confused with the truth? :-)

- Greg Otts

wil...@fractl.tn.cornell.edu

unread,
Aug 23, 1993, 11:36:09 AM8/23/93
to

Anyone who argues for this "Fairness Doctrine" has about the
same mentality as heterosexual men who feel that homosexual men
really have nothing better to do than jump them at the first
chance they get. Can't you people simply change the channel ?
Are you so scared that you will be seduced by someone elses
ideas or opinions that you wish to sensor the rather than
have your little worlds clouded by the controversy of opinions
that don't match yours. Grow up ! Politicians have been
slanting the truth for ever. Clinton does it every time he
has one of these staged town meetings. I don't take these
seriously. They don't corrupt me into thinking that Clinton
is saying or doing anything other that furthering his own
agenda. Others have as much a right to further theirs. If
people are so stupid and helpless that they can't figure
out on their own then to bad for them.

--Bill


Willia...@vos.stratus.com

unread,
Aug 23, 1993, 12:55:38 PM8/23/93
to
# wil...@fractl.tn.cornell.edu wrote:

# They don't corrupt me into thinking that Clinton
# is saying or doing anything other that furthering his own
# agenda. Others have as much a right to further theirs. If
# people are so stupid and helpless that they can't figure
# out on their own then to bad for them.

Uhmm..., the problem is that Clinton should be "defending and upholding
the US Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic".
Considering that he has arguably done no such thing (you agree that he
is indeed furthering "his" agenda), one could assume that he is indeed
a traitor.
-Bill M.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased |
| at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty |
| God! I know not what course others may take; but, as for |
| me, give me liberty, or give me death! |
| ---Patrick Henry |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

tom schmeling

unread,
Aug 23, 1993, 8:58:05 PM8/23/93
to
In article <CC8KF...@cs.uiuc.edu>, Carl M Kadie <ka...@cs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>p.s. This isn't a liberal/conservative issue. I'm sure I'm more
>liberal that Justic White.

Yup. Note that Justice Douglas, who for reasons unknown to me was the
missing justice on the day the USSC upheld the Fairness Doctrine,
was arguably one ofthe most liberal justices in history.
Wnen he later commented on the FD in CBS v. DNC (where he voted
against the liberals Marshall and Brennan) he disapproved of the
_Red Lion_ decision, saying: "the Fairness Doctrine has no place in
our first amendment regime." So much for monolithic liberalism.

In alt.politics.clinton.bashing and alt.plush-limo this looks like a
war between the conservatives and liberals. No mainstream group
really has much to gain or lose here. I would imagine that the
people who had the most to gain from the FD (if it worked right) would
be the libertarians, the fascists, the socialists and the anarchists.
Just imagine White Aryan Resistance getting equal time with the Dems
on t.v.

norman nithman

unread,
Aug 23, 1993, 10:26:52 PM8/23/93
to
In article <35...@galaxy.ucr.edu>, starbuck <star...@galaxy.ucr.edu> wrote:
>
>I do not believe believe the government can invoke a fairness doctrine nor
>does any media outlet have to conform to state control of what they say.
>That is the point.
>
Good. Guess I'll fire up the generator and start up that pirate radio station.
Remember, Freedom Of The Press belongs to those who have one!
--
Norman Nithman n...@chinet.chi.il.us
Box 4654 VMB +1-312-509-6412
Chicago, IL 60680-4654 FAX +1-312-789-6564

starbuck

unread,
Aug 24, 1993, 10:49:02 AM8/24/93
to
In article <LARRY.93A...@peak.nmsu.edu> la...@peak.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>My, my. Paranoia strikes again, eh?

This type of sarcastic quip is quite predictable. Since when is a denfense
of the First Ammendment Rights paranoia. Your openning remark is nothing
more than a rhetorical device to disarm an argument. When liberals are
called on their bullshit I don't expect any better.

>Sounds like another item blown all to hell out of porportion to me. Anyone
>care to post the text of this bill, or would that spoil the paranoia?

How can you make light of such a serious topic. Your use of the word
paranoia is simply a retorical device. You seem to think that such
an association with discussion of an abridgement of free speech will
somehow trivialize it in the minds of people. If you want to trivialize
this discussion for yourself feel free. But I assure you this discussion
will be going on for quite sometime both on the net and off the net.

There is a good chance it can be defeated. With public outlets like
the net and Talk-Radio we the people can find out what tricks our elected
officials are up to in discuss the issue with eachother and stop them
if needed. It's not over till it's over as a famous baseball player
once said.

>(Geez, I figured the old fairness doctrine was still in effect, otherwise
>why did we have to hear the Demo response to every Reagan and Bush
>statement and Dole responding to every one for Clinton? They interrupted a
>perfectly good "lost issue" of Bonanza!)

You have a serious lack of knowledge. If you had been reading the posts
on this bill you would be aware of a 42 year history of abuse of this
law by both sides of the political fence. Complete with quotes from
past government officials admitting that the old "fairness doctrine"
was nothing more than a political tool to harass and intimidate opposing
views. Do you think it could be any different. When the people give
up their rights to the government they no longer have rights.

>Seriously though, I seem to remember something about the old fairness
>doctrine, which essentially required stations to provide time for
>"qualified spokepersons" to respond to station editorials and political
>opinions. There was nothing ever about equal time for syndicated network
>and news programs.

A quote from a Kennedy Administration Official"

"Our massive strategy was to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and
harass rightwing broadcasters. and hope that the challengers would be
so costly to them that they would be INHIBITED and decide it was too
expensive to continue."
-- Bill Ruder, aassistant secretary of commerce.

Does it sould like paranoia to you to believe that it couldn't happen
again? It is reality friend that any new fairness doctine would be
applied in the same way. Do you think that this type of application
is fairness? Bill Clinton thinks so. So is Bill Clinton a fair and
honorable man? We got hosed when he got elected. It is our duty to
do everything we can to see this guy does as little damage as he can
to our democracy before we can him out of office.

>As an evil liberal, I believe in freedom of speech in all forms, short of
>yelling fire in a crowded theater and such. The last thing in the world I
>would want is to muzzle Limbaugh. (Hell, I even allowed as how a crucifix
>in a jar of piss might be a legitimate expression of *something*.)

>I'm also wondering how that "political tool much used to restrict free
>speech of political enemies" was so mightly wielded under the Reagan
>administration? iMaybe it was just because Reagan was such a fabulous
>president and all, but I don't remember any repression and restriction of
>free speech.. (The only blatent attempt to restrict free speech in recent
>memory is the Bush gag rule for advising women in abortion clinics? Nah.
>Unrelated. Besides that was AFTER the fairness doctrine was abolished.)

Regan and Bush were the first president to oppose the fairness doctrine.
Regan vetoed an attempt to put the fairness doctrine into statute, and
Bush threatened to do the same. Bill Clinton is not such a man. Bill
Clinton does not believe in freedom, he believes in state control.

>["Stop, hey, what's that sound? Everyone look what's goin' down.."]

Typical liberal response to a serious subject when they know they are
wrong. What is going down is our country. We could be approching a
day when our Constitution will hang by a thread if we allow the
goverment to strip away or Rights little by little with each new regualtion
and law they come up with.

starbuck
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they
have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price

of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!

I know not what course others may take but as for me; give me liberty
or give me death.

Patrick Henry
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl M Kadie

unread,
Aug 24, 1993, 5:06:41 PM8/24/93
to
tsch...@scott.skidmore.edu (tom schmeling) writes:

>[...]Justice White's opinion in the Red Lion case. Another excerpt:
>
> "Rather than confer frequency monopolies on a relatively
> small number of licensees, in a Nation of 200,000,000,
> the Government could surely have decreed that each frequency
> should be shared among all or some of those who wish to use
> it, each being assigned a portion of the broadcast day or the
> broadcast week. The ...regulations at issue here
> do not go quite so far. They assert that under specified
> cirumstances, a licensee must offer to make available a
> reasonable amount of broadcast time to those who have a view
> different from that which has already been expressed on his
> station. The expression of a political endorsement, or of a
> personal attack while dealing with a controversial public
> issue, simply triggers this time sharing.
[...]

Justice White says the so called fairness doctrine does "not go quite
as far" as an alternative. I think it goes farther.

The alternative he mentioned is content neutral. The fairness doctrine
is triggered by content. This is what makes it so abusable by the
government. (The government gets to define what content is
"controversial" and what opposing view is "responsible".) The
government can't be trusted with this authority. In every other forum
(even other government-owned forums), the courts agree with me.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= ka...@cs.uiuc.edu =

starbuck

unread,
Aug 24, 1993, 5:16:34 PM8/24/93
to
In article <1993Aug23.2...@rchland.ibm.com> jd...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:

My hats off to you for your support of the First Admendment and speaking out
against this so-called fairness doctrine.

>Now the matter I wish to resolve is:
> "Will this 'Fairness Doctrine' actually affect Rush
> and other talk radio shows?"

Of course, Rush is a reason so many want this law. The
question is, if it cannot be defeated, will the administation
be able to get away with using it against it's enemies without
great political cost? I don't think so. Last time around people
believe it was passed for fairness, today few are going to believe
that the fairness doctrine is anything other than the political
tool it is.

[ an aside ]
Oh, Someone said Larry King was for it. HUmmmm, did he not
go up against Rush just a while ago and fail, Hummmmmmmm, every
one who supports this measure seems to have a motive other than
a pure heart.

>We have yet to have any proof, sources or articles posted
>here that would prove that the aforementioned bills would
>actually do this.

No one can predict the future, but if the past is any indication on how
this law will be applied, it will be as a tool to harass and intimidate
broadcasters who do not agree with the Administration. The administation
will get to decide what is fair. Nice rules, sounds like loaded dice to
me.

I don't know if you have been following this debate for long but I posted
examples of the abuse by past administrations and quotes from people in
those administrations admitting that it was a political tool. It is not
too hard, given the smallest measure of political knowledge, that it would
be the same game again. Why should the citizens of this country have to
put up with political games like this for another 42 years?

How this tool is applied will not be decided by citizens but by government
officials. No one can give us proof of the future but the 42 year history
of that law has been one of abuse. When you give government control of
your rights you no longer have any rights.

starbuck

keba...@msuvx1.memst.edu

unread,
Aug 25, 1993, 1:34:23 AM8/25/93
to
ka...@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie) writes:

> Mike Sierra <sie...@ora.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>>In this case it represents your and my money down the drain. I just
>>heard that the latest NEA work of art consisted of handing out $10 bills
>>to illegal aliens. Incredible.
> [...]
>
> There was, of course, more to the art/stunt than that. I thought it
> was pretty clever.
>
> Carl Kadie

They also_signed_the bills... clever.
Yeah. ;)

Frank Pittel

unread,
Aug 24, 1993, 11:54:48 AM8/24/93
to
Chris Woodard (woo...@figment.tmc.edu) wrote:
: In article <9308...@fwpbbs.mcs.com> f...@fwpbbs.mcs.com (Frank Pittel) writes:
: >wil...@space.tn.cornell.edu wrote:
: >

: >
: >Well said. I find it interesting that people claiming to oppose
: >censorship. People who claim to be the tolerant ones. People who claim
: >to want all sides and views of things. Are so willing, are so quick to,
: >censor views, so quick to cenosor ideas that they don't agree with.
: >

: Well. said. I. find. it. interesting. that. many. conservatives. in.
: this. forum. write. in. sentence. fragments. and. can't. speeeeelll.

: BTW, what does "cenosor" mean?


Nice shot at public humiliation. I'll have to remember that it's the
liberals that are the tolerant ones. Whatever your intent with that
post however keep it up. It seems obvious that you can't respond to
the substance of what was said. So keeping in the lines of typical
liberal debate techniques it's on to the personal attack. In case you
don't have the intelligence to figure it out cenosor is a typo for
censor.

It's posts like this that will cause me to redouble my efforts to find a spell
checker for coherent. With spell checker in hand I can go through all posts
that I disagree with. All spelling errors found will be pointed out followed
by a personal attack on the person who sent it. At no time will I
respond to what was actually said. Any form of effective communication
will end within a couple of weeks.

--


-----------------------------------
Frank Pittel f...@fwpbbs.mcs.com

Frank Pittel

unread,
Aug 25, 1993, 2:03:26 AM8/25/93
to
Matthew Wright (mwr...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Nikolas S. Jovanovic (nik...@minerva.cis.yale.edu) wrote:

: : Example 2: Historically, the mainstream media has been extremely
: : supportive of U.S. military actions, most of which have
: : not been defensive in nature (to put it mildly). Almost
: : all criticism of the Gulf War was squelched. As evidence
: : that Democrats are actually conservatives of a slightly
: : different flavor, Congress even voted at the last minute
: : to give Bush its authorization for attacking Iraq. Of
: : course, Clinton has continued to bully Iraq for no reason
: : other than supporting the status quo (the main goal of
: : the United Nations Security Council--more conservatives).

: ??? What was squelched? The day after reports by Sam Donaldson that the
: polls would change when the body bags started piling up? The night after
: night of nightline saying how unfair it was that a disproportinate number
: of the military where black. On and on day after day, criticizing every
: little detail of the operation.

: Give it up

Let me add to that if I can.
I remember in the days leading up to the military action and the early
part of the morning after. (no pun intended:-) One of the guys I
worked with in the lab insisted on listening to the news channels on
the radio. There was story after story after story about the twenty
people here and ten people there protesting the impending war. I don't
remember a single story about anyone supporting the war. At one point
about ten to fifeteen anti war protesters held a sign on an overpass
to I290 a major expressway leading into the city. The sign read honk
if you're against the war. The radio blurb lasted at least fifeteen
minutes. All the twenty or so horn honks the sign generated were
"aired" live. This kind of crap was on all the "news" radio stations.
The impression given was that the american people were against the
war. It wasn't until the middle part of the day after the bombing
started with the protestors getting live coverage on some peace march.
When the people along the route of the march came out and shouted down
the protesters. Did any coverage from people supporting the begin.
: --
: ------------------------------------
: Internet: mwr...@netcom.com Matthew Wright
: Fido : 1:130/808 Arlington, TX
: Why? Telecommunications (817) 784-8993

Frank Pittel

unread,
Aug 25, 1993, 2:07:29 AM8/25/93
to
Mike Sierra (sie...@ora.com) wrote:
: In article <LARRY.93A...@peak.nmsu.edu> Evil Engineer doin' it the
: Cowboy Way, la...@peak.nmsu.edu writes:
: >As an evil liberal, I believe in freedom of speech in all forms, short of

: >yelling fire in a crowded theater and such. The last thing in the world I
: >would want is to muzzle Limbaugh. (Hell, I even allowed as how a
: crucifix
: >in a jar of piss might be a legitimate expression of *something*.)

: In this case it represents your and my money down the drain. I just


: heard that the latest NEA work of art consisted of handing out $10 bills
: to illegal aliens. Incredible.

I heard something on CNN about some state or city voted to stop
funding the "arts". Maybe there's some hope ending the waste.
: _____
: Mike Sierra
: sie...@ora.com

Frank Pittel

unread,
Aug 25, 1993, 2:08:57 AM8/25/93
to
Carl M Kadie (ka...@cs.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: Mike Sierra <sie...@ora.com> writes:

: [...]


: >In this case it represents your and my money down the drain. I just
: >heard that the latest NEA work of art consisted of handing out $10 bills
: >to illegal aliens. Incredible.

: [...]

: There was, of course, more to the art/stunt than that. I thought it
: was pretty clever.

What of course was the more more to it? Also what's clever about the
government which by the way is broke handing out money that it doesn't
have.
: - Carl


: --
: Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
: = ka...@cs.uiuc.edu =

Dave Bernard

unread,
Aug 25, 1993, 7:57:22 AM8/25/93
to
In article D...@cs.uiuc.edu, ka...@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie) writes:
>Mike Sierra <sie...@ora.com> writes:
>
>[...]
>>In this case it represents your and my money down the drain. I just
>>heard that the latest NEA work of art consisted of handing out $10 bills
>>to illegal aliens. Incredible.
>[...]
>
>There was, of course, more to the art/stunt than that. I thought it
>was pretty clever.
>
>- Carl
>
Could you please relate what that 'more to it' is?

Randall Rhea

unread,
Aug 23, 1993, 7:52:15 PM8/23/93
to
star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:

>What is unethical is abridgement of freedom of speech, the violation is
>that abridgement. So any argument to the contrary is not valid.
>The specific law is Ammendment I to the Constitution of the United States
>of America, we need look no further. The so-called fairness doctrine
>need to be stoped. It is a political manipulation law not a fairness one.

The Rush Limbaugh Show is a 3-hour-per-day political advertisement
for the Republican party. He admits to consulting with Republican
leaders on a regular basis to get the official party line.
He never takes a stand contrary to the official Republican
party line. (except when he, like other Republicans, distanced
himself from Bush last year) Rush makes no effort to present
the other side of an issue (other than to ridicule it), nor
does he have guests that oppose his stands on issues. What few
guests he has are people like Bob Dornan or Newt Gingrich, who
simply say the same things he does.

Most radio stations have no liberal or even moderate talk show
to balance out Rush. Listeners therefore get only one side of
each issue. What a great way to circumvent the fairness laws:
just call your political ad a "talk show". This is a
fantastic way for wealthy interests to buy an election.

Unless you feel that it is OK never to hear the other side of
an issue, then some sort of fairness law is necessary, and it should
be enforced here. A radio station would not be stopped
from carrying Rush; they would simply be required to present
opposing views. These laws have been held up in court as not
violating the Constitution. A person can only make an educated
decision based on hearing arguments from both sides.

--

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Randall Rhea Informix Software, Inc.
Project Manager, MIS Sales/Marketing Systems ran...@informix.com

Jared Dahl

unread,
Aug 25, 1993, 9:59:16 AM8/25/93
to
In article <9308...@fwpbbs.mcs.com>, f...@fwpbbs.mcs.com (Frank Pittel) writes:
|>
|> I heard something on CNN about some state or city voted to stop
|> funding the "arts". Maybe there's some hope ending the waste.

Oh no, no, no, no.

That is Cobb County, Georgia(I think it contains Marietta
and is a fairly wealthy Atlanta suburban area).

They have enacted an ordinance that would ban public funding
of art that does not meet their definition of 'family values.'

So they still want art, but just the art that the powers that
be feel like funding. Double Standard? Yes.

Jared Dahl
Opinions are mine, not my employers
Send mail to gypsy!ma...@csn.org

David Coburn

unread,
Aug 24, 1993, 12:50:45 PM8/24/93
to
In article <randall.746149935@infmx> ran...@neptune.informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
>star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>
>>What is unethical is abridgement of freedom of speech, the violation is
>>that abridgement. So any argument to the contrary is not valid.
>>The specific law is Ammendment I to the Constitution of the United States
>>of America, we need look no further. The so-called fairness doctrine
>>need to be stoped. It is a political manipulation law not a fairness one.
>
> <...deleted...>

>
>Most radio stations have no liberal or even moderate talk show
>to balance out Rush. Listeners therefore get only one side of
>each issue. What a great way to circumvent the fairness laws:
>just call your political ad a "talk show". This is a
>fantastic way for wealthy interests to buy an election.
>

Randall, you can't tell me that you never hear the other side. Up here in
Washington, we get the other side, all right: virtually every other piece
of media is pretty liberal in their stance. I have traveled rather
extensively around the country, and find pretty much the same situation in
most places. (Oddly enough, the one exception was in Arkansas: the
editorials from around the state were pretty much conservative. I was
there during the campaign and election, and was interested in what they had
to say about Clinton, so I spent some time reading.)

>Unless you feel that it is OK never to hear the other side of
>an issue, then some sort of fairness law is necessary, and it should
>be enforced here.

Once again, we hear the other side all the time. Don't like it? Change
the dial. IMO, it is, or should be, the responsibility of adults in this
country to make up their own minds. There are plenty of opposing
viewpoints out there for the reading, listening and viewing pleasure of
anybody who cares to partake.

> A radio station would not be stopped
>from carrying Rush; they would simply be required to present
>opposing views. These laws have been held up in court as not
>violating the Constitution. A person can only make an educated
>decision based on hearing arguments from both sides.

I agree, one must hear all sides in order to make up their minds. However,
I object to the notion that it is the responsibility of the government to
ensure that any particular media present all sides of an issue.

Why? In simple terms, there are always many differing viewpoints on any
given issue. How many do you present? Two is never a representative
sample of all views. Three? Six? In Arkansas, I counted many more than
that concerning the fitness of Clinton to lead the country, I can assure
you.

Where you CAN get all sides, though, is from a wide sampling of the media.
We have three local papers here in Seattle, ranging from liberal to
conservitive. The local PBS station is almost always liberal, as are the
majority of the commercial stations. There is only one station, though,
that presents the conservitive viewpoint (with the exception of another
station that presents G. Gordon Liddy opposite Rush in the 9-12 slot). Now
you tell me that, in the interests of fairness, this one station must
present opposing viewpoints. Great. Does this mean that PBS is going to
start presenting the consertive view, too? When pigs fly, friend.

David Coburn cob...@informix.com
Informix Software, Inc. ...uunet!infmx!coburn
=========================================================================
Any opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Informix
(or for that matter, anybody else).
=========================================================================

Dave Bernard

unread,
Aug 25, 1993, 11:00:41 AM8/25/93
to
>The Rush Limbaugh Show is a 3-hour-per-day political advertisement
>for the Republican party. He admits to consulting with Republican
>leaders on a regular basis to get the official party line.
>He never takes a stand contrary to the official Republican
>party line. (except when he, like other Republicans, distanced
>himself from Bush last year) Rush makes no effort to present
>the other side of an issue (other than to ridicule it), nor
>does he have guests that oppose his stands on issues. What few
>guests he has are people like Bob Dornan or Newt Gingrich, who
>simply say the same things he does.

>Unless you feel that it is OK never to hear the other side of

>an issue, then some sort of fairness law is necessary, and it should
>be enforced here. A radio station would not be stopped
>from carrying Rush; they would simply be required to present
>opposing views. These laws have been held up in court as not
>violating the Constitution. A person can only make an educated
>decision based on hearing arguments from both sides.

Whether or not your argument is valid, I repeat my previous question:
Who determines what is fair? Who judges when a balance is reached?

Most importantly, why should the only views presented by Democratic or
Republican? Nothing in the Constitution mandates this. Therefore, anybody's
political party, including Bob's Apolitical Party, deserves equal time
in the interest of fairness, right?

B W Moll

unread,
Aug 25, 1993, 10:45:48 AM8/25/93
to
In article 746149935@infmx, ran...@neptune.informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
>
[edited . . .

>Most radio stations have no liberal or even moderate talk show
>to balance out Rush. Listeners therefore get only one side of
>each issue. What a great way to circumvent the fairness laws:
>just call your political ad a "talk show". This is a
>fantastic way for wealthy interests to buy an election.
>

Here in Knoxville the station that carries 3 hours of Rush then carries
2 more hours of G. Gordon Liddy. Talk about right-wing bias!

>Unless you feel that it is OK never to hear the other side of
>an issue, then some sort of fairness law is necessary, and it should
>be enforced here. A radio station would not be stopped
>from carrying Rush; they would simply be required to present
>opposing views. These laws have been held up in court as not
>violating the Constitution. A person can only make an educated
>decision based on hearing arguments from both sides.
>

Changing the station from time to time helps as well.

Regards-

Brent-


---

disclaimer: The views represented here are my own. Any similarity
between my views and the views of my employer is purely coincidence.

"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind
is being very wasteful. How true that is."
-- Dan Quayle

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent W. Moll Internet o...@mahler.ctd.ornl.gov
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge TN Phone: 615-574-6335 (USA)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Carl Thomas

unread,
Aug 25, 1993, 10:48:47 AM8/25/93
to
In article <randall.746149935@infmx> ran...@neptune.informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
>star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>
>The Rush Limbaugh Show is a 3-hour-per-day political advertisement
>for the Republican party. He admits to consulting with Republican
>leaders on a regular basis to get the official party line.
>He never takes a stand contrary to the official Republican
>party line. (except when he, like other Republicans, distanced
>himself from Bush last year) Rush makes no effort to present
>the other side of an issue (other than to ridicule it), nor
>does he have guests that oppose his stands on issues. What few
>guests he has are people like Bob Dornan or Newt Gingrich, who
>simply say the same things he does.
>
>Most radio stations have no liberal or even moderate talk show
>to balance out Rush. Listeners therefore get only one side of
>each issue. What a great way to circumvent the fairness laws:
>just call your political ad a "talk show". This is a
>fantastic way for wealthy interests to buy an election.

Bullshit, Larry King provides this "service" and he's carried on more
radio stations and has better TV programming than Rush. Go to your TV
guide and check the programming.

>
>Unless you feel that it is OK never to hear the other side of
>an issue, then some sort of fairness law is necessary, and it should
>be enforced here. A radio station would not be stopped
>from carrying Rush; they would simply be required to present
>opposing views. These laws have been held up in court as not
>violating the Constitution. A person can only make an educated
>decision based on hearing arguments from both sides.
>

By the way, if this is true than the local and national news should be
forced to present a conservative slant to oppose the liberal bias so
evident in TV reporting. Do you also support that?

Carl


--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

Dave Bernard

unread,
Aug 25, 1993, 11:04:33 AM8/25/93
to
In article 43...@rchland.ibm.com, jd...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>In article <9308...@fwpbbs.mcs.com>, f...@fwpbbs.mcs.com (Frank Pittel) writes:
>|>
>|> I heard something on CNN about some state or city voted to stop
>|> funding the "arts". Maybe there's some hope ending the waste.
>
>Oh no, no, no, no.
>
>That is Cobb County, Georgia(I think it contains Marietta
>and is a fairly wealthy Atlanta suburban area).
>
>They have enacted an ordinance that would ban public funding
>of art that does not meet their definition of 'family values.'
>
>So they still want art, but just the art that the powers that
>be feel like funding. Double Standard? Yes.
>

Sounds exactly like democracy in action to me. The people--
the source of the money-- get to determine how their money
is spent. I like it- the people- the powers that be--
get to figure out what they get to spend their money on.

This doesn't say that no one can produce controversial
art- it just means they can't expect welfare from the public
tit to produce it.


Bruce Hayden

unread,
Aug 25, 1993, 11:19:02 AM8/25/93
to
cob...@informix.com (David Coburn) writes:

In the case of Rush in particular, and conservative hosts in general,
everyone seems to be forgetting that the "other side" is getting most
of the play already. Everytime the administration (or all of its men)
speaks on any subject, you are getting the opposite side. In particular
every time that Willie or Al talk, you get the other side. And how often
does Dole (or another spokesman) get to rebut? Not that often. Guaranteed,
the opposition doesn't get to rebut every time the pres, etc. has a
press conference, or meets the pope, or whatever. We hear from one
of them at least once a day (on the nightly news no less, on all the
channels).

Bruce E. Hayden 1720 South Bellaire Street
bha...@csn.org 1100 Colorado Tower Bldg.
(303) 758-8400 Denver, Colorado 80222

keba...@msuvx1.memst.edu

unread,
Aug 25, 1993, 1:05:47 PM8/25/93
to
cob...@informix.com (David Coburn) writes:

> (Randall Rhea) wrote::


>
>>Most radio stations have no liberal or even moderate talk show
>>to balance out Rush. Listeners therefore get only one side of
>>each issue. What a great way to circumvent the fairness laws:
>>just call your political ad a "talk show". This is a
>>fantastic way for wealthy interests to buy an election.
>
> Randall, you can't tell me that you never hear the other side. Up here in
> Washington, we get the other side, all right: virtually every other piece
> of media is pretty liberal in their stance. I have traveled rather
> extensively around the country, and find pretty much the same situation in
> most places. (Oddly enough, the one exception was in Arkansas: the
> editorials from around the state were pretty much conservative. I was
> there during the campaign and election, and was interested in what they had
> to say about Clinton, so I spent some time reading.)

That's largely due to the efforts of Paul Greenberg at the Little
Rock paper, who, as I recall, was the person who popularized the
epithet "Slick Willie" during Clinton's govenorship. (BTW, I wouldn't
say Greenberg is conservative, either. He's kind of Little Rock's
answer to Mike Royko.)

> [...]


> I agree, one must hear all sides in order to make up their minds. However,
> I object to the notion that it is the responsibility of the government to
> ensure that any particular media present all sides of an issue.
>
> Why? In simple terms, there are always many differing viewpoints on any
> given issue. How many do you present? Two is never a representative
> sample of all views. Three? Six? In Arkansas, I counted many more than
> that concerning the fitness of Clinton to lead the country, I can assure
> you.
>
> Where you CAN get all sides, though, is from a wide sampling of the media.
> We have three local papers here in Seattle, ranging from liberal to

> conservative. The local PBS station is almost always liberal, as are the


> majority of the commercial stations. There is only one station, though,
> that presents the conservitive viewpoint (with the exception of another
> station that presents G. Gordon Liddy opposite Rush in the 9-12 slot). Now
> you tell me that, in the interests of fairness, this one station must
> present opposing viewpoints. Great. Does this mean that PBS is going to
> start presenting the consertive view, too? When pigs fly, friend.
>
> David Coburn

That's not exactly a "fair" :) characterization of the People's
Broadcasting Service. They let us conservatives have a few
shows once a week (McLaughlin Group, Firing Line, Tony Brown)
to correct the misperceptions promulgated_daily_on shows like
McNeil-Lehrer, All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Frontline, etc.
That's what they call "fairness"... :)

--Standard disclaimer-- Deficit Spending Awareness //U\\

*.x,*dna*********Empower America:**Dial 1-800-332-2000******** \\S//


*(==) Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg. * Conservative libertarians * >A<
* \' KEBA...@msuvx1.memst.edu * for Pro-Balance! * // \\
*(-)**Memphis,TN********7532...@CompuServe.com*******I care!$100 $100

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or
retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of
Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument
of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power,
such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall
be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or
either of them."--The anti-lawyer Amendment XIII, ratified ca. 1819??

Dennis G Rears (FSS)

unread,
Aug 25, 1993, 11:18:46 AM8/25/93
to
In article <randall.746149935@infmx> ran...@neptune.informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
>star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>
>The Rush Limbaugh Show is a 3-hour-per-day political advertisement
>for the Republican party. He admits to consulting with Republican

It is not an advertisement. Neither Rush nor the Republican party pay
to have the show on the air. It is program that makes money due to
advertising. It makes money because of it's ratings. It is no more of
an advertisement than LA Law is.
Do you know waht an advertisment is?

>leaders on a regular basis to get the official party line.
>He never takes a stand contrary to the official Republican
>party line. (except when he, like other Republicans, distanced
>himself from Bush last year) Rush makes no effort to present
>the other side of an issue (other than to ridicule it), nor
>does he have guests that oppose his stands on issues. What few
>guests he has are people like Bob Dornan or Newt Gingrich, who
>simply say the same things he does.

So?

>
>Most radio stations have no liberal or even moderate talk show
>to balance out Rush. Listeners therefore get only one side of
>each issue. What a great way to circumvent the fairness laws:
>just call your political ad a "talk show". This is a
>fantastic way for wealthy interests to buy an election.

Are you accusing Snapple or Compuserve of trying to buy an election?
Which election? What candidate are they trying to support?

>
>Unless you feel that it is OK never to hear the other side of
>an issue, then some sort of fairness law is necessary, and it should
>be enforced here.

Are you saying people should be *FORCED* to hear the other side of
every issue?

>A radio station would not be stopped
>from carrying Rush; they would simply be required to present
>opposing views.

It's not 'simply'; Who is going to pay for the air time. Rush's show
is for profit. If someone disagree's with Rush and they can get the same
ratings, fine.

>These laws have been held up in court as not
>violating the Constitution. A person can only make an educated
>decision based on hearing arguments from both sides.

Who's trying to make a decision? Some people listen to Rush for
entertainment. An analogy would be for me to demand equal time for AA
because 'Cheers' is presenting a good side of alcohol.


dennis

wil...@fractl.tn.cornell.edu

unread,
Aug 25, 1993, 12:25:31 PM8/25/93
to


None of this would be an issue if Rush was a devout liberal.
Like it or not Radio and Television are in the business to
make money. Radio stations don't give Rush the time he has
on radio they sell it to him. His job is to sell advertisements
and pay for the time plus some profit. If a liberal host could
do the same thing they could have their own show. Problem is
people who listen to Rush are not interested in what liberals
have to say anymore. They feel that liberal policies and rhetoric
get driven down their throats enough. Maybe Rush is a little
extreme but that's just the way the pendulum swings. If liberal
causes had not swung it so far to the left in the first place
maybe Rush and other conservatives would not be pushing so
hard to the right.

---Bill

wil...@fractl.tn.cornell.edu

unread,
Aug 25, 1993, 12:32:29 PM8/25/93
to
In article <1993Aug25.1...@rchland.ibm.com>, jd...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>In article <9308...@fwpbbs.mcs.com>, f...@fwpbbs.mcs.com (Frank Pittel) writes:
>|>
>|> I heard something on CNN about some state or city voted to stop
>|> funding the "arts". Maybe there's some hope ending the waste.
>
>Oh no, no, no, no.
>
>That is Cobb County, Georgia(I think it contains Marietta
>and is a fairly wealthy Atlanta suburban area).
>
>They have enacted an ordinance that would ban public funding
>of art that does not meet their definition of 'family values.'
>
>So they still want art, but just the art that the powers that
>be feel like funding. Double Standard? Yes.
>

Double standard no. They have eliminated all arts funding in
order circumvent the double standard. It was on Night Line
last night. They will no longer accept any public funding
(ie: The National Endowment of Arts.) The only funding that
is therefore left is private. They can pay for what ever they
want and there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it.
So go beat your head on the sidewalk and cry about it all you
want.

---Bill

Mr. Nice Guy

unread,
Aug 25, 1993, 12:57:59 PM8/25/93
to
In article <randall.746149935@infmx> ran...@neptune.informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
>star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>
>>What is unethical is abridgement of freedom of speech, the violation is
>>that abridgement. So any argument to the contrary is not valid.
>>The specific law is Ammendment I to the Constitution of the United States
>>of America, we need look no further. The so-called fairness doctrine
>>need to be stoped. It is a political manipulation law not a fairness one.
>
>The Rush Limbaugh Show is a 3-hour-per-day political advertisement
>for the Republican party. He admits to consulting with Republican
>leaders on a regular basis to get the official party line.
>He never takes a stand contrary to the official Republican
>party line. (except when he, like other Republicans, distanced
>himself from Bush last year) Rush makes no effort to present
>the other side of an issue (other than to ridicule it), nor
>does he have guests that oppose his stands on issues. What few
>guests he has are people like Bob Dornan or Newt Gingrich, who
>simply say the same things he does.

Fine. maybe they have something to say, and they tell the truth, unlike
Slick Willie.

>
>Most radio stations have no liberal or even moderate talk show
>to balance out Rush. Listeners therefore get only one side of
>each issue. What a great way to circumvent the fairness laws:
>just call your political ad a "talk show". This is a
>fantastic way for wealthy interests to buy an election.

You can always listen to National Public Radio.

>Unless you feel that it is OK never to hear the other side of
>an issue, then some sort of fairness law is necessary, and it should
>be enforced here. A radio station would not be stopped
>from carrying Rush; they would simply be required to present
>opposing views. These laws have been held up in court as not

This is a _GREAT_ way to put Rush off the air. Any station who wanted to
carry him would also have to carry 3 hours of liberal programming with
_NO_ audience. This sounds like King Willie trying to silence his critics.


>violating the Constitution. A person can only make an educated
>decision based on hearing arguments from both sides.


Just listen to National Public Radio, Watch CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC
and you will get your fill of liberal trash.


--
Rod Anderson N0NZO | "I do not think the United States government
Boulder, CO | is responsible for the fact that a bunch of
rcan...@nyx.cs.du.edu | fanatics decided to kill themselves"
satellite N0NZO on ao-16 | Slick Willie the Compassionate

Jon Zeeff

unread,
Aug 25, 1993, 1:04:07 PM8/25/93
to
>The Rush Limbaugh Show is a 3-hour-per-day political advertisement
>for the Republican party. He admits to consulting with Republican
>leaders on a regular basis to get the official party line.

He probably consults with people to get the official democratic line too.

>He never takes a stand contrary to the official Republican
>party line. (except when he, like other Republicans, distanced

>himself from Bush last year).

That's a huge "except". So huge, I can't take your statements seriously.

I feel really sorry for these poor people who aren't able to turn the radio
dial or pick up a paper to find more than enough opposing viewpoints. We
definitely need more laws to help these people out. Don't worry about the
rights of 99.9% of the population that aren't so physically handicapped.
Maybe we should mandate "political education" classes to make sure that
people really get the right mix of indoctrination.

>Most radio stations have no liberal or even moderate talk show
>to balance out Rush. Listeners therefore get only one side of
>each issue. What a great way to circumvent the fairness laws:
>

>Unless you feel that it is OK never to hear the other side of
>an issue, then some sort of fairness law is necessary, and it should
>be enforced here. A radio station would not be stopped
>from carrying Rush; they would simply be required to present
>opposing views. These laws have been held up in court as not

I feel that it is OK for people (and the media) to say and hear and
not say and not hear whatever they damn well please without government
abridging their freedom.

If you feel that you aren't getting a good mix of viewpoints, either find a
new radio station or contribute to a cause so they can buy air time.

AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Jon Zeeff

unread,
Aug 25, 1993, 1:15:18 PM8/25/93
to
The plan is to define what most people call liberal as neutral. So
anything truly neutral or to the right of that gets opposing time by
the left but only rare far left viewpoints get opposing time from the
right. Government controlled media is a great idea - get with the plan...

Mark O. Wilson

unread,
Aug 25, 1993, 8:31:47 AM8/25/93
to
In <25dcrl$6...@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> kru...@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (theodore r krueger) writes:

|How many of the other seventy-odd candidates got more than 1000 votes?
|If I ran for president should I get media coverage?

The Libertarians got close to a million votes.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

HALLAM-BAKER Phillip

unread,
Aug 25, 1993, 2:21:01 PM8/25/93
to

In article <35...@galaxy.ucr.edu>, star...@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:

|>Clinton and the Democratic Party are close to utterly distroying the
|>freedom of speech that has made talk-radio a vital medium.
|>
|>In August 1987, the Federal Communications Commission, (FCC), abolished
|>the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", a political tool much used to restrict
|>free speech of political enemies. Not the Clintonians have slipped it
|>back as part of campaign-finance. Now without much notice this provision
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>has passed the Senate and headed for the house. Of course Clinton supports
|>it and is trying to get it through. Time to get on the phones and call in
|>to your Represenative and tell them to vote no.

In other words a candidate is not allowed to set up a talk show that is
to political debate what sell-a-vision is to science documentaries.

If there are going to be constraints on how much money a candidate can
spend it stands to reason that they must not be easily circumvented. If
Rush Limbaugh wanted to become a pooh-bar and stood for election it
would hardly be equitable for him to be allowed to continue to rubbish
his opponents during the election. Similarly it would hardly be equitable
for a candidate to buy the local radio station and give himself free
advertising through bogus debates.

Given the tone of the original post I am none too convinced of a
determination to portray the facts of the issue in an unbiased light.
When a person uses phrases like "Clintonians" it becomes somewhat
obvious that they are grinding an axe of their own. So before people
start accusing Clinton of infringing free speach, censorship, eating babies
and folk dancing lets hear what the actual proposal is.


Phill Hallam-Baker

starbuck

unread,
Aug 25, 1993, 2:37:12 PM8/25/93