The conservative talk radio and free speech

[Marty McFly]

The 2008 election has yet to be decided, but one thing is clear: If the Democrats win the White House, expect an all-out attack on talk radio. Political talk, as we know it, could end.

If they win, Rush, Imus, Savage, Beck, and dozens of other major hosts will be muzzled by using federal regulations to control political talk.

So, what's their plan of attack?

As Newsmax magazine reveals in its just-released special report, "The Battle for Talk Radio," leading liberals in Congress, the Democratic presidential candidates, and even some Republicans speak openly of their plans to end conservative talk radio using federal regulations.

Their weapon: a revived Fairness Doctrine, which would once again require stations to air divergent points of view — a clever ruse that makes station owners leery of airing controversial talk-radio hosts fearing law suits and federal sanctions.

With a new Fairness Doctrine, you could see many top conservative radio hosts canned.

If this happens, I will buy sattelite radio, (which I anyway want to buy when I would be able to afford it - to hear Howard Stern and all those), and I would make a charity organization for any rich person to donate so poor people can get sattelite if they want to listen to free speech.

What would YOU do?

Edited January 18, 2008 by Marty McFly

[rickthepick]

I oppose censorship, but I will find it some what ironic if the pseudo-con talk show host lose their jobs. Rush,Beck, and all the self proclaimed conservative radio host deserve to loose their jobs. They have cherry picked certain rights to advocate (arms, religion), and promoted the destruction of others(privacy). Personally I have more respect for a Donahue type host- although he is philisophically my polar opposite. He is at least more honest in his approach to his job, and doesn't pretend to be something he is not. Modern conservatives think that if they believe in god-and the founding fathers mentioned god-that this somehow aligns their political views with the founders. I can't say I will be happy when the fairness act is enacted. I won't celebrate it as they did the protect America act, but it will be a fitting demise for those who have rationalized the need to ignore the Constitution.

[softwareNerd]

If this happens, I will buy sattelite radio, ...

What would YOU do?

When I do listen to radio, it's usually NPR, so I'd be fine with my current radio. Regular activism-type things would be called for. Edited March 12, 2008 by softwareNerd

[adrock3215]

It wouldn't be the end of life, but I like listening to Savage. Guy is hilarious at times. Either way the source of the problem is that the government owns the airwaves. Until something is done about this, expect government to meddle around with various and sundry bills.

[Craig24]

rickthepick,

I oppose censorship, but I will find it some what ironic if the pseudo-con talk show host lose their jobs. Rush,Beck, and all the self proclaimed conservative radio host deserve to loose their jobs. They have cherry picked certain rights to advocate (arms, religion), and promoted the destruction of others(privacy). Personally I have more respect for a Donahue type host- although he is philisophically my polar opposite. He is at least more honest in his approach to his job, and doesn't pretend to be something he is not. Modern conservatives think that if they believe in god-and the founding fathers mentioned god-that this somehow aligns their political views with the founders. I can't say I will be happy when the fairness act is enacted. I won't celebrate it as they did the protect America act, but it will be a fitting demise for those who have rationalized the need to ignore the Constitution.

"Conservative" hosts like Rush and Beck would only deserve to lose their jobs if the product they offer is no longer desired by a sufficient number of listeners in the market. The content of their speech and the rationality or irrationality of their views are not relevant to the issue being discussed.

[Thales]

When I do listen to radio, it's usually NPR, so I'd be fine with my current radio. Regular activism-type things would be called for.

Sometimes they have interesting shows, but I can't stand their blindness to reality, their propagandizing on such issues as environmentalism.

Rush Limbaugh has a great deal of positives he brings, which should not be dismissed out of hand, despite the contradictions with his professed beliefs in god. The guy is brilliant and hits the target more often than not. I like his two fill in hosts, Jason Lewis and Walter Williams, all the more.

But, overall, we need the open airwaves not just to beat back leftists, but also to beat back conservatives. This is our only hope. Freedom of thought is what will allow Objectivism to win the day. There is no doubt neither side can defeat us on the ideas, even when it gets down to the nitty gritty philosophical details, such as the thought of Kant and Hume.

Edited March 12, 2008 by Thales

[Fireball]

I oppose censorship, but I will find it some what ironic if the pseudo-con talk show host lose their jobs. Rush,Beck, and all the self proclaimed conservative radio host deserve to loose their jobs...

Do you realize that Michael Savage has guests on his radio program such as Dr. Leonard Peikoff, allowing him to articulate Objectivism's view on how to deal with Islamic terrorism and other issues to an estimated one million listeners? Also, Rush Limbaugh reads portions of Atlas Shrugged to millions of his listeners.

Wanting to silence conservative talk radio via government force (Fairness Doctrine, Hate Speech crimes, etc.) might appeal to some emotions, but they would limit Objectivism's exposure to the general public (and violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution).

[rickthepick]

I do not want to silence so called conservative talk radio via government control. It was wrong of me to say that they would deserve to lose their jobs in such a way(as craig24 stated). My statement was clouded by my emotions, and I do not want a chance to hear Dr. Peikoff to be ripped away from me by government force. I want to be clear that it is not some petty envy at the source my remark, but anger at modern conservatisms attempt to promote freedom while denying or evading its source. It is an insult for Rush to read portions of Atlas Shrugged one day, and quote the bible the next.

[stephenmallory]

I do not want to silence so called conservative talk radio via government control. It was wrong of me to say that they would deserve to lose their jobs in such a way(as craig24 stated). My statement was clouded by my emotions, and I do not want a chance to hear Dr. Peikoff to be ripped away from me by government force. I want to be clear that it is not some petty envy at the source my remark, but anger at modern conservatisms attempt to promote freedom while denying or evading its source. It is an insult for Rush to read portions of Atlas Shrugged one day, and quote the bible the next.

Your statement was not clouded by your emotions. If anything, it was reinforced by them. Craig24 was just seizing upon an opportunity to demonstrate his rationality - or more precisely, his understanding of a particular concept (freedom of speech) - and in the process mixed apples (what you were talking about) with oranges (what he wanted to believe you were talking about). It was clear, to any intellectually secure person, that you were not using the word "deserve" in a political context, but in a moral one. The precondition in your original post, "I oppose censorship, but..." is more than adequate evidence of this.

If life is the standard of moral value, the conservative talk show hosts are immoral. Their immorality lies in the fact that their control of the airwaves prevents the ideals of America from being rationally defended down to their essence - despite the fact that something Leonard Peikoff said about a particular makes Michael Savage's anger burn a little brighter once in awhile.

Anything which is immoral does not deserve to exist. Someone who will not feed himself does not deserve to be spared starvation. A security guard who cannot provide security does not deserve his job. A "defender of liberty" who cannot adequately defend liberty does not deserve to be thought of as one. He certainly does not deserve a platform on which to demonstrate it.

Your statement was motivated by a love for values, and by a disgust at how they are being wasted and perverted. Reason, freedom, and mass communication are all valuable things which, in part because of the weak, irresponsible, and religiously-derived conservative talk show ideology, are still exposed to the possibility of destruction.

If Craig24 believes that your statement - because it concerned the quality and not the legality of the talk show hosts - was innappropriate to this thread, he should have said so. If he wishes to have a discussion about the (incredibly basic) issue of the proper use of government force in the field of ideas, he should have created a stand-alone post or thread about the subject. It saddens me that comments like his are allowed to continue to be made on this forum.

It's clear, by the rest of the statement I quoted above, that you understand this distinction. I only seize on the contradiction between it's two parts because, unlike Craig24, I wish to defend actual values (A rational person with rational feelings) instead of pretending to do so by attacking you for the sake of a principle (freedom of speech) which, arguably - considering the conservative's long history of promoting statists of their own - they may not even deserve.

[Thales]

I do not want to silence so called conservative talk radio via government control. It was wrong of me to say that they would deserve to lose their jobs in such a way(as craig24 stated). My statement was clouded by my emotions, and I do not want a chance to hear Dr. Peikoff to be ripped away from me by government force. I want to be clear that it is not some petty envy at the source my remark, but anger at modern conservatisms attempt to promote freedom while denying or evading its source. It is an insult for Rush to read portions of Atlas Shrugged one day, and quote the bible the next.

Whoa, Rush has quoted and recommended Atlas Shrugged, I think because he admires the ideas without fully realizing their foundation, but he never quotes the Bible. Frankly, he doesn't come across as all that religious, except that he believes in God and is Christian, but he's not some holly roller.

Anyway, I view it as a positive that the ideas are getting out there. They are wedging their way into the culture and that's what we need as an antidote to religion and to leftist dogma. I really don't see the down side.

Edited March 16, 2008 by Thales

[gags]

I want to be clear that it is not some petty envy at the source my remark, but anger at modern conservatisms attempt to promote freedom while denying or evading its source. It is an insult for Rush to read portions of Atlas Shrugged one day, and quote the bible the next.

I've found that quite a few people who describe themselves as "Conservatives" embrace some apects of Objectivism while almost uniformly rejecting its position on religion. Of course they fail to see the monumental contradiction in their logic. Nevertheless, I'd prefer to have individuals recognize the good in at least some of Rand's work rather than reject it in its entirety, which is what I see coming from the religious left lately. When hosts like Rush promote reason and individual rights, I think they deserve support. When they start to talk about religion, I turn them off.

[Marty McFly]

I agree. the left is scary. the relligious left is something that should be eradicated!

[gags]

How would one go about doing that Marty?

[Marty McFly]

How would one go about doing that Marty?

by teaching objectivism in schools instead of liberalism or prayer

[Mammon]

by teaching objectivism in schools instead of liberalism or prayer

I thought that would be indoctrination?

[EC]

I thought that would be indoctrination?

One can't be "indoctrinated" into concise and objective thinking, but one can be taught.

[gags]

Under an Obama administration with Democrat control of Congress, we can expect the re-implementation of the Fairness Doctrine.

Pelosi recently said the following:

“Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’” I asked.

“Yes,” the speaker replied, without hesitation

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27185

[Marty McFly]

Whoa, Rush has quoted and recommended Atlas Shrugged, I think because he admires the ideas without fully realizing their foundation, but he never quotes the Bible. Frankly, he doesn't come across as all that religious, except that he believes in God and is Christian, but he's not some holly roller.

Anyway, I view it as a positive that the ideas are getting out there. They are wedging their way into the culture and that's what we need as an antidote to religion and to leftist dogma. I really don't see the down side.

He DOES read from the Koran very often

[KevinDW78]

I don't see how the fairness doctrine would ever happen. Even if it were passed, how could a supreme court worth their robes liberal or conservative not agree that such a concept at it's very foundation violates free speech? It would get struck down immediately.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Except that they passed on McCain Feingold, an equally egregious violation of free speech. And the Fairness Doctrine was around during the 60s and 70s (at least) with nary a peep from the Supremes.

[Toolboxnj]

I have to think twice about any government action with the word "fair" in it

More seriously, it's not only liberals that are for the fairness doctrine, but also party-line Republicans that want to muzzle criticism from con-talk. Anyways, a good intellectually honest and simulating talk host will always present all sides of the topic, advocate a side and let people debate. But the government shouldn't force hosts to do that.

[gags]

On Sunday, one of the President's chief political advisers, David Axelrod, was asked by Chris Wallace whether Obama planned to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine:

"Will you rule out reimposing the Fairness Doctrine?" asked Wallace. "I'm going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC, to, and the president, to discuss," Axelrod said. "So I don't have an answer for you now."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalde...s_doctrine.html

Rather than simply ruling it out, he left the door open for the new head of the FCC to make the call. Just the fact that these guys won't categorically deny that they would ever re-instate the anti-free speech "fairness doctrine" is ridiculous and it shows the depth of their contempt for freedom.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Rather than simply ruling it out, he left the door open for the new head of the FCC to make the call. Just the fact that these guys won't categorically deny that they would ever re-instate the anti-free speech "fairness doctrine" is ridiculous and it shows the depth of their contempt for freedom.

They are currently floating the idea to see if the American people will go for it or not. Trouble is, if you write to them and tell them not to re-introduce the "fairness doctrine" then they will call it something else but having the same effect. The big problem is with the so call "public airwaves" that stations are stewards of instead of owning a frequency outright. So long as it can be held as uncontroversial that the US Government owns the airwaves, then they can get away with it legally. However, they are also floating the idea of regulating the Internet, which I don't think the American people will go for, and I don't think there is any precedent for regulating free speech in the sense of the Internet, since the government does not "own" the "medium" of the Internet.

Basically, since many liberals are for regulating the "public airwaves" and since they mostly won in the House and Senate, they want to see if there will be a public outcry against regulating the airwaves, and will then move on to regulate other types of free speech -- if they can get away with it. Fortunately, most conservative radio talk show hosts consider it to be an issue of free speech, and their audience will be up in arms if that free speech is attempted to be regulated as to content.

But keep your eye on this issue if you value free speech at all.

[pam]

Beck often tells people to read Atlas Shrugged

[Maximus]

Phil Valentine brings up AS on a regular basis.