Michelle Malkin » Fairness Doctrine Watch: A “progressive” attack on talk radio

Fairness Doctrine Watch: A “progressive” attack on talk radio

By Michelle Malkin • June 21, 2007 12:08 PM

Bumped

10:20am Eastern update: The Left wants increased regulation to address the lack of ideological diversity in talk radio. What do they have to say about the lack of ideological diversity in America’s newsrooms?

MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties…The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms — at least among the donors, who are a tiny fraction of the roughly 100,000 staffers in newsrooms across the nation.

“Appears” to confirm? Snort.

10:00am Eastern 6/21 update: Mark Levin strikes back.

Update: More on the Center for American Progress below and a look at their vested interest in grabbing radio airwaves…plus: Fox News in the “progressive” crosshairs…and La Shawn Barber mocks the Left’s airwave envy…

Well, we know that Trent Lott ain’t gonna come to the defense of conservative talk radio. Remember: He thinks it’s a “problem” that he has “to deal with” because of many right-leaning talkers’ opposition to the Bush-Kennedy shamnesty bill. Lott will probably cheer this new report from the nutroots-pandering Center for American Progress trashing talk radio. Instead of blaming the lousy, incompetent performance of liberal talk radio and acknowledging the market triumph of conservative talk radio, CAP blames nefarious owners who aren’t “diverse” enough:

Yep, it looks like they’ll be playing the race card on top of their Fairness Doctrine card to try and topple conservative dominance of the medium. And the likes of Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers will be at their disposal to help them, no doubt.

Here’s the far Left’s Big Government regulatory agenda, laid out in handy, bullet-point form:

More details on their Hugo Chavez approach to the radio airwaves:

Who will come to the defense of the Loud Folks on talk radio? Don’t bother asking Sen. Lott or Sen. Graham or any of the fair-weather Republicans whom conservative talk radio hosts have gone to bat for so many times over the years.

Will President Bush stand up for conservative talk radio hosts? Sad to say: Don’t count on it.

***

What is the Center for American Progress and why are they proposing this Government Talk Radio Grab? It’s a left-wing think tank headed by Clintonite John Podesta. It manages a radio studio used daily by left-winger Bill Press’s syndicated radio show. The syndicator is the nutroots Jones Radio Networks. CAP officials appeared frequently on Al Franken’s show and Air America’s airwaves. Seed money for the think tank came from–where else–George Soros, among others, according to the Washington Post.

Unless I missed it, none of that information is disclosed in CAP’s report.

***

On a related note, the same ilk that are gunning for conservative talk radio are gunning for Fox News Channel. CNS reports on the plotting at the Take Back America conference:

Liberal activists who claim Fox News Channel is not a legitimate news source said that cooperation by several groups was key in preventing the network from hosting debates by Democratic presidential candidates.

Robert Greenwald, a producer/director who hosted a panel discussion Tuesday at the liberal Take Back America conference in Washington, D.C., called collaboration “the C word” — the element without which their “victory” would have been “totally, completely impossible.”

Greenwald’s earlier film “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism” accused Fox News Channel of a right-wing bias. He began Tuesday’s discussion by showing a video posted at his FoxAttacks.com website…

…The video shows Adam Green, civic communications director for the liberal group MoveOn.org, saying that his organization learned of the proposed debate from online bloggers. “We immediately issued a call to action” and started a petition drive for Nevadans to tell the state party not to allow FNC to host the debate.

On his website, Greenwald then posted video clips of what he calls “erroneous and slanted stories Fox ran” about Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), a candidate for his party’s 2008 presidential nomination.

“We decided to bring these campaigns together,” Green says on the video. MoveOn.org joined local and national bloggers in distributing Greenwald’s videos – an example of what Green called “mutually reinforcing activism.”

The first candidate to withdraw from the planned debate was former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who cited “a scheduling conflict.” Other candidates, including Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), soon pulled out as well.

When the debate was canceled, Greenwald said his reaction was “joy, screaming out loud.”

Next target:

Green from MoveOn.org told the audience Tuesday his next campaign would be to try convince the owners of the Wall Street Journal not to sell the newspaper to FNC founder Rupert Murdoch. He accused Murdoch of wanting to buy the WSJ “to legitimize Fox” and to get “a seat at the gentlemen’s table.”

***
Flashback: Kucinich To Bring Back The Fairness Doctrine

Maggie’s Notebook has been keeping tabs on the Fairness Doctrine resurrection movement.

Flashback: David Limbaugh on the Un-Fairness Doctrine.

Posted in: Fairness Doctrine, Rush Limbaugh

Printer Friendly

comments (93)

trackbacks (43)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#96048

On June 21st, 2007 at 9:08 pm, wizardfkap said:

If we simply ignor the objectives of the so-called Progressives for a moment, their key tactics are not at all bad or wrong. Large corporate ownership of Radio Stations has been nothing short of a didaster with a near total loss of local news and opportunity for local bands and musicians to receive any airplay or support.

Hollywood loves the new big corporate Clear Channel dominated radio landscape because it gives them total control over artist airplay.

To that end the RIAA and the large Hollywood labels are working hard to completely close down Internet Radio. Readers should go to savenetradio.org for more information on that issue.

The Progressives plan would actually break Hollywood’s control over corporate radio. What it wouldn’t do is stiffle Conservative Talk Radio. With more local control, Conservative Talk Radio would likely move on to even higher listenership.
#96081

On June 21st, 2007 at 10:09 pm, Tom Shakely said:

What bull. As a student at Penn State who works as the program director for a local radio station, I can attest to how much the university hates us for our public affairs show wherein we engage in frank and open criticism of the administration’s shady dealings and lack of openness as far as the budget, etc.

What our station represents on a microcosmic level is much like what leftists are trying to do to sabotage highly successful conservative talk radio.

If you don’t like what someone says, in their view, do whatever necessary to shut them up.

Disgusting.
#96174

On June 22nd, 2007 at 2:16 am, BobUSMC said:

Entelechy, it’s not that the lefty media is oblivious to this, it’s that they are COMPLICIT in this. They love folks like Soros, who I’m still waiting to deposit a couple million in my bank roll since he’s such a socialist. BTW, he’s not an American is he?
#96189

On June 22nd, 2007 at 4:16 am, 29Victor said:

The Left, whether in the U.S.S.R., China, Cuba or anywhere else, cannot stand when the failures of their utopian fantasies are held to the light of facts and reasoned argument.
#96202

On June 22nd, 2007 at 6:54 am, southdakotaboy said:

Many people here have been asking what will we do if this passes. We need to start taking some pages out of the lib’s playbook. We need to find our own Soros or several of them. Next we need to organize a group of several hundered to a thousand professional protestors. People who can go anywhere at any time ti bolster the numbers at conservative protests.
These professionals need to have the ability to network with locals have access to enough money to bus people in to the event, go door to door in the days and maybe even weeks before the event to get commitments from people to show up, make signs, provide daycare the whole nine yards.
Then we need to start crashing these guys parties. The libs have no problem interrupting and attempting to shout down conservative speachers and events.
We need to have this core group of people that can organize a response to libs without them being aware of it. We need to pick a college where they are trying to have some sort of far left speaker (Ward Churchill, Noam Chompskie (sp ?) etc) and just overwhelm the venue. Same at the Dems open political rallies.
We need to push back before it is to late.
#96219

On June 22nd, 2007 at 8:14 am, englishqueen01 said:

Hillary Clinton, who wants to be president of this nation, and Barbara Boxer were apparently overheard discussing bringing conservative talk radio under control:

Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer have big plans to rein in conservative radio talk shows, according to Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.

He said Thursday on John Ziegler’s evening radio show on KFI in L.A. that he overheard Clinton, D-N.Y., and Boxer, D-Calif., saying they want legislation to control conservative radio talk shows.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.
#96277

On June 22nd, 2007 at 9:43 am, ammonrae said:

I think it is time to end the FCC. We don’t need it. I don’t believe in censorship or this law. I am against silencing conservative or libertarian talk radio which it is. I think the problem with progressive radio is the fact that radio NEVER was a proper medium for progressives.
#96312

On June 22nd, 2007 at 10:17 am, johnv40 said:

Hillary and Boxer and all of the left clearly CAN’T handle the fact that they are being called out on all of their BS by the right, that’s why they hate Sean, Rush, Michelle, Laura, and FNC.
#96960

On June 23rd, 2007 at 3:25 am, USpace said:

The people advocating this are fascist garbage. Kucinich, Boxer and the PIAPS? DhimmicRATS don’t surprise me, but Trent Lott? He is a shameful disgrace.

The truth is that the phony and failing so-called liberal and progressive agenda is a sham and more people are waking up to it. The Left has a very weak argument that comes across even worse on the radio, and people just end up changing the channel.

No one is stopping George Soros from pumping millions into a money-losing Air America and keeping it going forever. But it is just such a bad business model that apparently even Leftie Moonbat Soros can’t stand donating endless drops of his bucket to it.

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
CONTROL the media

socialists as dangerous
should never be exposed
.
#98966

On June 27th, 2007 at 5:22 pm, Eclectic Infidel said:

“The Left wants increased regulation to address the lack of ideological diversity in talk radio. ”

What they really want is to censor conservatives under the guise of affirmative action. Liberal talk radio is almost nonexistent because it’s dreadfully boring. The Fairness Doctrine is anything but.
#99245

On June 28th, 2007 at 8:43 am, Chief RZ said:

Diversity?! The liberal’s trump card. If people don’t want something, force it upon them! But PBS is off limits, as well as CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, newspapers and left wing blogs? Let the people decide what they want to listen to.
Say No to censorship.