Who was it, in here, talking about...

[Yonivore]

...equilibrium in the media?

Kucinich on the Fairness Doctrine

Yeah, yeah, I know -- Trent Lott is an idiot too, just like Boxer and Clinton.

[Wild Cobra]

That link is no longer good. However, I think this is the link for Kucinich is one of these:

Kucinich Discusses Fairness Doctrine on Lou Dobbs
Kucinich talks about Fairness Doctrine on Hannity & Colmes

Liberal Alan Colmes and Steve Cohen on the Fairness do ent:
Alan Colmes is a Punk

Now did you mean this Clinton and Boxer?:
Hillary:
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2042.html

A more complete account:
Inhofe on Clinton/Boxer Conversation

Cavuto-Inhofe-Boortz on the Fairness Do ent and the Clinton/Boxer remark.

Some so-called-facts presented by a progressive source:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...talk_radio.pdf

I noticed on one local station where I live they listed all non-liberals as conservatives! Nice way to spin it. They also list KPAM early in the do ent, but don’t break it down.

[Wild Cobra]

The New and Improved "Hush Rush" bill:

HR 501; Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act

Think this isn't what Boxer, Clinton, and Kucinich aren't supporting anyone?

Sponsor:

Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] (introduced 2/1/2005)

Cosponsors:

Rep Case, Ed [HI-2] - 5/5/2005
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 11/17/2005
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 12/16/2005
Rep Doggett, Lloyd [TX-25] - 5/5/2005
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 2/1/2005
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 2/1/2005
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 2/1/2005
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 2/1/2005
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 2/17/2005
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 2/1/2005
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 11/16/2005
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 11/4/2005
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 2/1/2005
Rep Miller, George [CA-7] - 2/1/2005
Rep Owens, Major R. [NY-11] - 2/1/2005
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] - 5/5/2005
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 12/6/2005
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 2/1/2005
Rep Ryan, Tim [OH-17] - 5/5/2005
Rep Sanders, Bernard [VT] - 5/5/2005
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 5/5/2005
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 2/1/2005
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 2/1/2005

[FromWayDowntown]

Oh noes!! I've been disproven because Dennis Kucinich sees things differently than I do. For shame, for shame. I'll never post here again!!

For what it's worth, my original point wasn't to argue that there's some sort of absolute equilibrium in terms of media partisanship. To the contrary, Yonivore hypothesized that one reason that it's easier to find instances of misconduct by Republicans was because the media is largely liberally-oriented and, ostensibly, more inclined to root out stories about wayward Republicans.

My point was to say that his reasoning didn't hold water because the proliferation of conservative-oriented viewpoints in talk radio and the blogosphere make it significantly less likely that the transgressions of one side will go ignored while the transgressions of the other side are, in essence, overreported. Yonivore, of course, changed subjects and didn't ever really respond to my point, except to imply that I am stupid while repeating his cannards about the mainstream media, which I had already accounted for in my reasoning.

I still think it's exceedingly unlikely that Democrats are able to avoid detection in terms of reports of purported misconduct and I don't think its a valid response in a discussion about relative ethics to say that there's just more reporting of Republican wrongdoing.

[Wild Cobra]

My point was to say that his reasoning didn't hold water because the proliferation of conservative-oriented viewpoints in talk radio and the blogosphere make it significantly less likely that the transgressions of one side will go ignored while the transgressions of the other side are, in essence, overreported.

Well then, it's obvious that you don't listen to conservative talk radio because verifiable issues of ethics is a common item brough up about democrats that do go ignored by the mainstream!

Yonivore, of course, changed subjects and didn't ever really respond to my point, except to imply that I am stupid while repeating his cannards about the mainstream media, which I had already accounted for in my reasoning.

At this point, I don't know what thread you are referring to. I see this as a thread about the fairness doctrine.

I still think it's exceedingly unlikely that Democrats are able to avoid detection in terms of reports of purported misconduct and I don't think its a valid response in a discussion about relative ethics to say that there's just more reporting of Republican wrongdoing.

But they are. If you really do some fact checking, the difference in how conservatives and/or republicans vs. how liberals and/or democrats are treated is blatantly clear of negative reporting. Republicans get accused of something and right or wrong, it makes the news for days. Democrats however only get mentioned in the news when the facts can no longer be ignored by the mainstream.

[Nbadan]

Well then, it's obvious that you don't listen to conservative talk radio because verifiable issues of ethics is a common item brough up about democrats that do go ignored by the mainstream!

What verifiable issues of ethics are those? The only once I have seen posted have turned out to be complete bunk.

[Nbadan]

...and that's how conservative radio really works. They repeat each others exagerations and distortions until the sheeple buy it....

[FromWayDowntown]

Well then, it's obvious that you don't listen to conservative talk radio because verifiable issues of ethics is a common item brough up about democrats that do go ignored by the mainstream!

It wasn't my argument. I was simply responding to Yonivore's suggestion that underreporting is a reason for difficulty in finding stories about supposed misconduct by Democrats. I think you've probably made my point. If these occurrences are ignored by the mainstream media, but are reported by talk radio and the blogosphere, it should be fairly easy to find references to such bad acts.

At this point, I don't know what thread you are referring to. I see this as a thread about the fairness doctrine.

I'm referring to the thread in which I "was . . . in here, talking about" media equilibrium. That is, after all, the somewhat provocative le of this thread.

But they are. If you really do some fact checking, the difference in how conservatives and/or republicans vs. how liberals and/or democrats are treated is blatantly clear of negative reporting. Republicans get accused of something and right or wrong, it makes the news for days. Democrats however only get mentioned in the news when the facts can no longer be ignored by the mainstream.

But, wait. You just told me that stories of the mainstream media ignoring verifiable issues of Democratic misconduct is a frequent topic on conservative talk radio. If so, those stories are being reported somewhere. I don't see that your argument holds any water if there are reports of such misconduct somewhere -- such reporting should be relatively easy to find, contrary to Yonivore's initial suggestion and the point you're making here. I don't really care if they're supposedly underreported by mainstream outlets. My points are that the media today comprises significantly more than just mainstream outlets and that it's ridiculous to contend that alternative media somehow aren't worth counting in assessing whether a matter is underreported. If it's harder to find proof of Democratic scandal, it just might be that there are fewer Democratic scandals -- and, of course, if you're able to come up with more examples of Democratic scandals than Republican scandals, Yonivore's original point will have been completely debunked.

[Yonivore]

Oh noes!! I've been disproven because Dennis Kucinich sees things differently than I do. For shame, for shame. I'll never post here again!!

How 'bout Dianne Feinstein? Agree with her?

Sen. Feinstein: ‘Looking At’ Revival of Fairness Doctrine

"I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious, correct reporting to people." Senator Feinstein said she is 'looking at' reviving the fairness doctrine on 'Fox News Sunday' this morning. "I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way," Feinstein said.

Of course, there's also the reported Clinton-Boxer discussion overheard by Senator Inhofe.

For what it's worth, my original point wasn't to argue that there's some sort of absolute equilibrium in terms of media partisanship. To the contrary, Yonivore hypothesized that one reason that it's easier to find instances of misconduct by Republicans was because the media is largely liberally-oriented and, ostensibly, more inclined to root out stories about wayward Republicans.

So, you mean to tell me; if there was a video tape, introduced as evidence in a civil suit that showed President Bush, Vice President Cheney or any other leading Republican allegedly committing a felony and copping to another, it wouldn't be on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and NPR at the drop of a hat?

C'mon!

My point was to say that his reasoning didn't hold water because the proliferation of conservative-oriented viewpoints in talk radio and the blogosphere make it significantly less likely that the transgressions of one side will go ignored while the transgressions of the other side are, in essence, overreported. Yonivore, of course, changed subjects and didn't ever really respond to my point, except to imply that I am stupid while repeating his cannards about the mainstream media, which I had already accounted for in my reasoning.

Talk Radio and the blogosphere don't run teasers about the news, 24/7, during prime time and some of the most popular television shows. Do they?

ing 60 minutes beat the "fake but accurate" TANG story to death on the television.

I still think it's exceedingly unlikely that Democrats are able to avoid detection in terms of reports of purported misconduct and I don't think its a valid response in a discussion about relative ethics to say that there's just more reporting of Republican wrongdoing.

There's been noise in Talk Radio and the blogosphere for 5 years on the illegal fund raiser for Hillary Clinton's Senate Campaign and nothing from the Mainstream Press. It was the same with Gore illegal fund raiser with the Buddist Monks.

The Mainstream media won't touch a Democrat until there is irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing. They will drag a Republican through the mud on the slimmest of innuendo.

[xrayzebra]

What verifiable issues of ethics are those? The only once I have seen posted have turned out to be complete bunk.

Well dan, do you ever get tired of being
wrong?

Listen sometime, when Rush uses the
words of the dimms to refute what they
claim. He doesn't have to make it up
or keep saying the same thing over
and over. Just lets them do the talking
for him.

Did you ever seen the little film clip of
Clinton at Brown's funeral. If there
was ever a piece of film that truly
showed Clinton for what he was, that
was it.

[FromWayDowntown]

There's been noise in Talk Radio and the blogosphere for 5 years on the illegal fund raiser for Hillary Clinton's Senate Campaign and nothing from the Mainstream Press. It was the same with Gore illegal fund raiser with the Buddist Monks.

The Mainstream media won't touch a Democrat until there is irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing. They will drag a Republican through the mud on the slimmest of innuendo.

Yet, you are aware of it. I don't care who it is that's revealing these stories. Your argument was that Democratic wrongdoing goes underreported or unreported and that such underreporting is the reason why there are fewer specific instances found in an internet search. My point has always been that reports of such wrongdoing, if any, are available, even if not from the mainstream media. Are you arguing that talk radio and the blogosphere are not credible media? or are you just complaining that allegations of Democratic wrongdoing is frequently relegated to those sources? are you equally concerned that allegations of Republican wrongdoing are frequently either dismissed or disregarded by pro-conservative portions of the media as well?

[xrayzebra]

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well dan, do you ever get tired of being
wrong?

Listen sometime, when Rush uses the
words of the dimms to refute what they
claim. He doesn't have to make it up
or keep saying the same thing over
and over. Just lets them do the talking
for him.

Did you ever seen the little film clip of
Clinton at Brown's funeral. If there
was ever a piece of film that truly
showed Clinton for what he was, that
was it.

Hey ray have you ever wondered why hush doesn't have democratic guests on? I would think a fan like yourself would love to hear him catch a dem in a lie. maybe because what he says is indefensible? not verifiable? I read somewhere that he was called a shadow boxer of soundbites... After i thought about it I realized that Lush destroys defenesless soundbites as part of his schtick..he then goes into a monologue of explaining how i feel because he knows libs like the back his hand. what's funny is that dude is wrong about almost everything but hey he's an entertainer and he has sucker like you drooling over every word..

[xrayzebra]

Hey ray have you ever wondered why hush doesn't have democratic guests on? I would think a fan like yourself would love to hear him catch a dem in a lie. maybe because what he says is indefensible? not verifiable? I read somewhere that he was called a shadow boxer of soundbites... After i thought about it I realized that Lush destroys defenesless soundbites as part of his schtick..he then goes into a monologue of explaining how i feel because he knows libs like the back his hand. what's funny is that dude is wrong about almost everything but hey he's an entertainer and he has sucker like you drooling over every word..

My-o-my. Obviously you do listen to him. Doesn't he
also say that he is a conservative, makes no bones
about it. He doesn't claim to want to tell the dimm side
of anything. Like he says he is the other side of the
dimm argument. He has very few guest on his show
they are almost non-existent.

What makes him a thorn in the side of people like you
is that he tells the truth. Like I said, he uses the
dimms own words to show them for what they are.
He tells you in a heart beat that he is an "entertainer".
Also tells you he loves to make the money and enjoys
the status.

[George Gervin's Afro]

My-o-my. Obviously you do listen to him. Doesn't he
also say that he is a conservative, makes no bones
about it. He doesn't claim to want to tell the dimm side
of anything. Like he says he is the other side of the
dimm argument. He has very few guest on his show
they are almost non-existent.

What makes him a thorn in the side of people like you
is that he tells the truth. Like I said, he uses the
dimms own words to show them for what they are.
He tells you in a heart beat that he is an "entertainer".
Also tells you he loves to make the money and enjoys
the status.

Tells the truth? How can you pretend to tell the truth when it's 99% is his opinion? He never relies on facts it's merely his own thoughts that make him right.. and of course the dead enders like yourself eat it up..he tells you what you want to here.. "dems are bad..etc.) and you love it.. no facts needed just an occasional soundbite and a quote he can take out of context.

[Yonivore]

Yet, you are aware of it. I don't care who it is that's revealing these stories. Your argument was that Democratic wrongdoing goes underreported or unreported and that such underreporting is the reason why there are fewer specific instances found in an internet search.

Whether you like to admit it or not, the Mainstream Media is where the vast majority of the population get their news. Period.

If it's not reported by CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and their various "News" programs on television -- many people remain unaware.

And, I never mentioned "internet searches"

My point has always been that reports of such wrongdoing, if any, are available, even if not from the mainstream media.

I highlighted that word because the mainstream media doesn't just make information "available" -- they push it 24/7 from their own biased perspective.

Are you arguing that talk radio and the blogosphere are not credible media?

No. I'm not arguing that.

or are you just complaining that allegations of Democratic wrongdoing is frequently relegated to those sources?

I'm asking where is 60 minutes on what could be the largest campaign finance scandal ever. Is it proven? No. But, that's never stopped them on allegations of Conservative wrongdoing.

, we just went through a 24/7 MSM cycle of allegations about Tom Delay that were never proven. And, in the process, the Mainstream Media managed to leave out all the Democrats that were tied to that lobbyists money. In fact, the amounts directed to Democrats was more than was directed to DeLay or other Republicans.

How come Pelosi's alleged quid pro quo to the Tuna industry wasn't hashed out in the news? Or, Reids dealings with the Indian Tribes... Both of those scandals have feet. More feet than TANG or DeLay.

are you equally concerned that allegations of Republican wrongdoing are frequently either dismissed or disregarded by pro-conservative portions of the media as well?

Which "pro-conservative portions of the media" are you talking about?

[Yonivore]

Hey ray have you ever wondered why hush doesn't have democratic guests on? I would think a fan like yourself would love to hear him catch a dem in a lie. maybe because what he says is indefensible? not verifiable? I read somewhere that he was called a shadow boxer of soundbites... After i thought about it I realized that Lush destroys defenesless soundbites as part of his schtick..he then goes into a monologue of explaining how i feel because he knows libs like the back his hand. what's funny is that dude is wrong about almost everything but hey he's an entertainer and he has sucker like you drooling over every word..

He doesn't have many guests to begin with. But, he's invited liberals on the show to rebut, however, like the Fox Debates, they boycott his show.

He does move liberal callers to the front of the line...that's like many conservatives that have call-in shows. Neal Boortz makes the same offer, as does Michael Medved.

I've never heard a host on Air Ameriscam make that offer.

[Yonivore]

Tells the truth? How can you pretend to tell the truth when it's 99% is his opinion? He never relies on facts it's merely his own thoughts that make him right.. and of course the dead enders like yourself eat it up..he tells you what you want to here.. "dems are bad..etc.) and you love it.. no facts needed just an occasional soundbite and a quote he can take out of context.

We all have opinions. That doesn't make them lies.

I can think your opinions are wrong without thinking you're a liar. Where a line is crossed is when, in the process of stating an opinion, you misrepresent the facts supporting that opinion.

Can you name a time that's been done on the Limbaugh show? Honestly, I don't listen to him much anymore. Comes on at the wrong time for me.

[clambake]

Rush recognizes where he receives support. When it was made clear that he is drug abusing racist, most people stop listening. Only the far right seem to turn the other cheek. I find that very interesting.

[Yonivore]

Rush recognizes where he receives support. When it was made clear that he is drug abusing racist, most people stop listening. Only the far right seem to turn the other cheek. I find that very interesting.

Racist? Where do you draw that conclusion?

[clambake]

He made his feelings about race very clear. That's why he's no longer on that show. Fired after the airing of day one.

[Yonivore]

He made his feelings about race very clear. That's why he's no longer on that show. Fired after the airing of day one.

His comments were about the media and their race-pimping. He disagreed with the media hyping, who was it?, Donovan McNabb (I think) as being some messianic quarterback and said that he doubts the media would have been so keen on McNabb had he not been black.

That doesn't make him a racists. That makes him alleging the media is racist. Which, in that case, may or may not be true -- it would depend on whether or not you believed they were hyping McNabb because he was black or because he was the greatest thing since sliced bread -- which, if you recall, was exactly how the media treated him leading up to Limbaugh's comments.

Frankly, McNabb proved to be as mediocre as Limbaugh thought him to be. Not because he's black but because he's mediocre.

Limbaugh-haters took the opportunity to mischaracterize his words and turn it into a racial issue. I'll give 'em this, they were successful.

It goes back to what I said in that other thread. If you say anything negative about a black person, you're a racist.

Now, if Rush Limbaugh had said McNabb was an inferior quarterback because he was black, you'd have a point.

[xrayzebra]

He made his feelings about race very clear. That's why he's no longer on that show. Fired after the airing of day one.

Did you ever listen to his "racist" remarks, I assume you
mean ESPN? Because it wasn't racist, he told it like it
was that the media was giving what's his face all the
benefits of the doubt because he was a black QB. And
that he wasn't that good. Which I agree and now
everyone else does. Including some of his teammates.

[xrayzebra]

By the way two of my favorite columnist are Thomas Sowell and
Walter Willaims. Both black. Does that make me a black lover.
Or maybe someone who enjoys good writing that makes sense.

Oh, and I cant stand Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, both black,
so guess I am racist. Also I don't like my Congressman,
Charlie Gonzalez. So guess I hate all Mexicans too.

By the way there are a bunch of whites I don't like either.

[George Gervin's Afro]

His comments were about the media and their race-pimping. He disagreed with the media hyping, who was it?, Donovan McNabb (I think) as being some messianic quarterback and said that he doubts the media would have been so keen on McNabb had he not been black.

That doesn't make him a racists. That makes him alleging the media is racist. Which, in that case, may or may not be true -- it would depend on whether or not you believed they were hyping McNabb because he was black or because he was the greatest thing since sliced bread -- which, if you recall, was exactly how the media treated him leading up to Limbaugh's comments.

Frankly, McNabb proved to be as mediocre as Limbaugh thought him to be. Not because he's black but because he's mediocre.

Limbaugh-haters took the opportunity to mischaracterize his words and turn it into a racial issue. I'll give 'em this, they were successful.

It goes back to what I said in that other thread. If you say anything negative about a black person, you're a racist.

Now, if Rush Limbaugh had said McNabb was an inferior quarterback because he was black, you'd have a point.

The reason why hush was kicked off the show was because he made these baseless claims (sorry his 'opinion') about the media and sportswriters wanting mcnabb to succeed because of his race. Hush picked out the wrong people to lie about. These 'media' folks were fortunate enough to have an avenue in which to defend themselves when they all called limp a dumbass for making the statements he made. not only did he piss sportswriters, and other media types off, he enraged his co anchors who happened to be black. They along with any other football fan realized that it doesn't matter whether your QB is white or black what they want is to go to the superbowl. I mean McNabb has only led his to team to the NFC championship games at least 4 times and the SB once. So limp was trying to convince people that the media was still trying to socially engineer society by calling MCNabb a great QB.In fact McNabb has been a top tier qb for the better part of the decade.. Hush bit off more than he could chew on that one..