Summary: Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh continue to suggest that President-elect Barack Obama is to blame for the decline in the stock market, referring to the state of the stock market as an "Obama recession." In fact, analysts have refuted the proposition that the market decline has anything to do with anticipation of Obama's presidency.
On the November 11 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Sean Hannity again suggested that President-elect Barack Obama is to blame for the decline in the stock market and said of Wall Street's performance: "Wall Street keeps sinking. Could it be the Obama recession: The fear that taxes are gonna go up, forcing people to pull out of the market?" Hannity is not alone among conservatives in the media in referring to an "Obama recession" in purported explanation for the state of the stock market. As MSNBC's Chris Matthews noted on November 12, radio host Rush Limbaugh "says the recession isn't President Bush's fault. It's the fault, catch this, of the president who hasn't yet taken office. It's an 'Obama recession'; that's what he's calling it." Matthews characterized Limbaugh's reference to an "Obama recession" as "some of the bitter sore loser's rhetoric we are hearing from the right these days."
Limbaugh referred to an "Obama recession" on the November 6 and November 11 broadcasts of his nationally syndicated radio show. But as Media Matters for America has noted, analysts have refuted the proposition that the market decline is attributable to Obama's election, citing other factors such as weak economic data.
For instance, a post on The Wall Street Journal's MarketBeat blog stated that "[f]ollowing the brief pre-election euphoria that brought stocks up 17% in a six-day period, stocks have been sluggish since as investors focused, once again, on the lame economic data and the drumbeat of bailouts, potential bailouts, and worries about other bailouts." From a November 12 item on MarketBeat:
The market has contracted an ongoing case of the "blahs." Following the brief pre-election euphoria that brought stocks up 17% in a six-day period, stocks have been sluggish since as investors focused, once again, on the lame economic data and the drumbeat of bailouts, potential bailouts, and worries about other bailouts.
"The market is kind of wallowing and just kind of staying in a downtrend right now," says Stephen Carl, head trader, Williams Capital. "The market is not keen on anything at the moment."
Again, stocks were lower. The Dow industrials lost nearly 2%, and other major averages were performing about as well after another spate of sour news from America's corporations.
"The weakness being witnessed at the start of today's session can be accounted for by the negative investor sentiment surrounding the still unfolding economic crisis," writes Conley Turner and Brian Sozzi, research analysts at Wall Street Strategies. "The market is in uncharted territory, and is navigating a path that requires the skill set of the early world explorers...the news flow so far, albeit slow, is not providing any solace to market participants."
[...]
One problem may be that U.S. stocks, in a sense, are no more attractive now than they were at the beginning of the year. According to Bespoke Investment Group, the U.S. price-to-earnings ratio sits at 20.54, compared with 20.11 at the beginning of 2008. Usually, P/E ratios decline in bear markets, but as earnings have fallen faster than prices, the U.S. P/E has expanded.
Additionally, as Media Matters documented, in the days immediately following the November 4 election, several analysts on Fox News and Fox Business Network cited reasons independent of the election to explain the fall of the market, explicitly stating that they did not believe the market was reacting to Obama.
From the November 12 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Also, baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet: Is there anything that says America to the world, or used to, more than the American auto industry? Democrats are now urging emergency help for an industry in desperate trouble, while President Bush is cool to the idea. Should the blame for this destruction of our industry go to the politicians for refusing to modernize Motown all these years? Should the auto industry be forced to make it on its own now, or is it just too big and important in jobs to be allowed to die? We'll ask author and New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, he's coming on Hardball tonight. Plus, Rush Limbaugh says -- and sometimes I agree with him; not this time -- he says the recession isn't President Bush's fault, it's the fault, catch this, of the president who hasn't yet taken office, Barack Obama. It's an "Obama recession"; that's what he's calling it. That's just some of the bitter sore loser's rhetoric we're hearing from the right these days. Later on -- later on that -- we'll have more on that. Also, what are President Bush's greatest regrets as his presidency comes to a close? We'll have that, the 11th-hour confessions, and he's making a true confession right now on tonight's "Politics Fix."
From the November 6 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Now, Carl Cameron did a report on Fox last night. He was on The O'Reilly Factor, and he's now been everywhere on Fox because people have been leaking to him. But it's not just -- it's not just Fox and Carl Cameron. Newsweek -- Newsweek has a special project they call -- on Sarah Palin, the purpose of which is to destroy Sarah Palin and, of course, establish the anointed one.
Speaking of Obama, by the way, the Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen. Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come. This is an Obama recession. Might turn into a depression. It's -- he hadn't done anything yet, but his ideas are killing the economy. His ideas are killing Wall Street. They need some certainty. And now everybody in the drive-bys -- we don't know who Obama is. We've got a story from Jennifer Loven at the Associated Press today -- we don't know who Obama is. All of a sudden now on Charlie Rose, they're starting to talk about his ties to Saul Alinsky.
From the November 11 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: I just -- you know, I remember when the focus in this country used to be on the private sector. In the good old days, what was good for GM was good for America. Now we're told what's good according to the Treasury secretary is good for America. The singular focus on Washington is the problem. Everybody -- you know, the market down 267 again. The Obama recession continues.
And why is this happening? Because there's no stability. The markets are frozen waiting for Paulson to say something. The Treasury secretary has all the power here. The markets are frozen because they really don't know how fast Obama is going to embark on his own destruction of the U.S. economy via his tax increases.
There is so much government interference. There is so much government control. There is no incentive to plan for next week if you're one of these businesses, unless you're desperately trying to stay alive by asking the government for a bailout. Then you're trying to get it next week. But there is no incentive to plan for much -- you know, next five years out.
From the November 11 broadcast of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:
HANNITY: By the way, Donald Trump was right. He was saying that he expects oil to tumble. He even said it may go as low as $20 a barrel. He said this when it was 140. Now, it's under $55 a barrel. Well -- and by the way, Wall Street keeps sinking. Could it be the Obama recession: the fear that taxes are gonna go up, forcing people to pull out of the market? All right, let's get to our phones here, as promised. Let's go to Ann in Rahway, New Jersey. Ann, long time no -- no hear. How are you? Welcome to the show.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 21 Nov 2008 14:52 Post subject:
Obama recession, yeah Shawn Hannity was trying to push that mem yesterday...obvious nonsense.
The recession was starting way before Obama.
it is like blaming Reagan for what happened under Carter.
Reality is presidents have little control over the economy directly...they get the praise or the blame, largely due to the ignorance of the American public. I would bet not even 30% of Americans had any clue as to the general structure of government.
I disagree with them. I think the "Obama tax" will affect future labor/employment indicies, not the current economic ones.
People are skittish because of housing/in- de -flation/jobs - this all started with the dot.com bust, housing bubble, corporate greed, and moving our manufacturing base overseas. The President really doesn't have much control over most of these things. And no, it isn't all Bush's fault either. However, it will become 'Obama's fault' if things do not improve in 4 years. He has 4 years to produce CHANGE!
I feel that the gov't policies (post-Reagan) on NAFTA, deregluation, illegal immigration, Bush's Wars, energy policy and housing (Freddie/Fannie) have lead to this....Perfect Storm.
P.S. Much of what I have been reading suggests the US is headed for a Depression that will last up to 10 years.....
Last edited by Melani23 on Fri 21 Nov 2008 16:33; edited 1 time in total
Obama recession, yeah Shawn Hannity was trying to push that mem yesterday...obvious nonsense.
The recession was starting way before Obama.
it is like blaming Reagan for what happened under Carter.
Reality is presidents have little control over the economy directly...they get the praise or the blame, largely due to the ignorance of the American public. I would bet not even 30% of Americans had any clue as to the general structure of government.
He had the nerve to say, "Americans are doing better today than they were 4 years ago" I can't remember who his guest was but he asked him if he was on drugs
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 21 Nov 2008 16:18 Post subject:
Melani23 wrote:
I disagree with them. I think the "Obama tax" will affect future labor/employment indicies, not the current economic ones.
People are skittish because of housing/in- de -flation/jobs - this all started with the dot.com bust, housing bubble, corporate greed, and moving our manufacturing base overseas. The President really doesn't have much control over most of these things. And no, it isn't all Bush's fault either. However, it will become 'Obama's fault' if things do not improve in 4 years. He has 4 years to produce CHANGE!
I feel that the gov't policies (post-Reagan) on NAFTA, deregulation, illegal immigration, Bush's Wars, energy policy and housing (Freddie/Fannie) have lead to this....Perfect Storm.
P.S. Much of what I have been reading suggests the US is headed for a Depression that will last up to 10 years.....
Obama wants to give tax cuts to most people, they will go out and spend that money immediately in hopes of stimulating the economy, we all know Americans don't save anything on average, but that can only be a temporary boost.
As far as tax increase, the increase is basically (at least it is thought) letting the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, so it will go back to Clinton Levels and those levels were not "oppressive" economic growth was quite high in the 1990's.
The issue really is not the level of tax as much as the "feeling".
It's like, in the 1990's taxes were lower than the 1970's so people didn't tend to think the 1990's taxes were high.
We have had about 8 years of lower taxes so if people feel returning to the taxes of the 90's is "high" than they might be react.
There are other things Obama can do in this situation. He can give tax cuts and penalties to American based companies that move production abroad...he can increase the reimport duty on products assembled abroad from American based companies.
There are other tricks...There are many nations (Denmark comes to mind and the Netherlands) that have far higher taxes and have (maybe until recently) faster growing economies than ours in the last 10 years.
Conservatives ignore those and just focus on France or Germany as if they are the only countries in Europe.
For health care they focus on Canada and the UK (worst examples) and ignore France, Switzerland, and the Netherlands (far better examples)...for obvious reasons.
They look for the most bias strengthen their arguments and scare people they know are not educated enough to refute their claims.
I used to call into the local right wing radio show in Houston all the time, driving to work in the morning and point things like this out.
They would usually try to shout me down with nonsense and if that didn't work put me on hold and just making all types of insults, straw men, etc...then hangup on me.
Wow, wonder why?
Those folks know their average listener is an angry middle aged white guy who has likely never left his state, let alone the country, who is often quite religious and likely never strongly intereacted with a foreigner from another developed nation so their world view is narrow and shallow to say the least...I'm going to guess (based on voting trends) the vast majority of these people are only high school grads...
This is why I do support a "fairness docterine" it is easy to brainwash and manipualte morons...
I do not support the fairness doctine - let the market decide. Remember that old adage about getting what you wish for...
We are in the information age and part of the global economy. Those who want to stay ignorant - let them. And I can make the same arguement about general membership in the Democrat Party - White Liberals, Blacks, Unionists, Gays, Illegals, Environuts, etc.
Furthermore, the federal gov't needs to get out of the business of business and education anyways...
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 21 Nov 2008 18:10 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
This is why I do support a "fairness docterine" it is easy to brainwash and manipualte morons...
Fairness, to whom????
I get it, the morons whom are manipulated are too stupid to think for themselves, so they need the government to come in and regulate what they listen to. Gotcha.
I don't have a right to listen to the sort of talk I want to listen to without it being "balanced", at the order of the government???
Who in the government will be in charge to say what talk shows need "fairness"????
This would be censorship in its utmost, I don't care if it was used before or not, or if a "conservative" court upheld its constitutionality.
It's completely un-Constitutuional, I don't care how many studies you can come up with to show otherwise. The First Amendment was written to protect political speach and as a watch dog on the government.
Like I have said, with each and every post, you reveal your true self!!!!
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 21 Nov 2008 18:21 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
I used to call into the local right wing radio show in Houston all the time, driving to work in the morning and point things like this out.
They would usually try to shout me down with nonsense and if that didn't work put me on hold and just making all types of insults, straw men, etc...then hangup on me.
Wow, wonder why?
Never heard the exchange, but may I take a guess as to why???
Most American public schools are managed at the local level, with state oversight, and $ from the feds. Each school system has its own stardards, policies, curriculum, etc that's set at the local and/or state level. I say, let's trim the federal fat and get rid of the Dept. of Education (and possibly Depts Energy, Interior too). Make these lesser agencies under other agencies and save $$$.
The State should be the final authority since there is equal education opportunity, granted better schools are in areas depending upon your address, class and family involvment. No matter - public schools and books are free. Poor kids who shun the negative and read and study get ahead (see Dr. Ben Carson, Oprah, etc). It usdd to be the PARENTS job of educating children, lol. Let's get the feds out of wasting our money in futile endeavors by making State BOEs the highest authority, with minimal fed oversight. So maybe the Dept. of Education can fall under Dept of Justice or HHS or something. In addition, state level oversight is only needed (depending upon State Consitituion/Charter) if gross manfesanace or some other illegal activity is alleged/proven (i.e discrimination, etc).
Former Pres. Jimmy Carter created the Cabinet level position for the Dept. of Ed. Its just is more government buracracy and control. Now, granted, during the Jim Crow years it should have been formed as it was needed, but now, its just more gov't pork. This also has nothing to do with NCLB which is almost impossible to reform/implement (but Obma will try) in our culture since family and personal responsibility have gone the way of the Dodo bird.....
Last edited by Melani23 on Fri 21 Nov 2008 21:36; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 21 Nov 2008 20:22 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
I used to call into the local right wing radio show in Houston all the time, driving to work in the morning and point things like this out.
They would usually try to shout me down with nonsense and if that didn't work put me on hold and just making all types of insults, straw men, etc...then hangup on me.
Wow, wonder why?
Never heard the exchange, but may I take a guess as to why???
Because their arguments can't stand up to scrutiny and they know it (not the vast majority) and if they lose credibility before their low brow audience they lose listeners, and then they lose a job due to lack of advertisement review. This is a business and it is a primarily telling ignorant people exactly what they want to hear.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 21 Nov 2008 21:02 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
This is why I do support a "fairness docterine" it is easy to brainwash and manipualte morons...
Fairness, to whom????
I get it, the morons whom are manipulated are too stupid to think for themselves, so they need the government to come in and regulate what they listen to. Gotcha.
I don't have a right to listen to the sort of talk I want to listen to without it being "balanced", at the order of the government???
Who in the government will be in charge to say what talk shows need "fairness"????
This would be censorship in its utmost, I don't care if it was used before or not, or if a "conservative" court upheld its constitutionality.
It's completely un-Constitutuional, I don't care how many studies you can come up with to show otherwise. The First Amendment was written to protect political speach and as a watch dog on the government.
Like I have said, with each and every post, you reveal your true self!!!!
As I said many times I don't try to hid myself.
I believe seriously (as I have seen this type of society) that people isolated into echo chambers grow more extreme in their positions and this is not good for an overall civil society.
Manipulating ignorant people and radicalizing them, is basically taking advantage of them. Demagogory is a problem.
I'm not saying one should ban any speech.
First and foremost the public airwaves are public property. That is the law and that is why people are licensed and you can be fined for cursing on the radio, showing pornography on TV, etc.
All of those things can be argued to be freedom of speech and all of those things can be argued as "choice".
I don't view Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity as anything but audio pornography but I still will not cause them to be banned.
What I do think is that 24/7 radio stations with right wing stuff posing as "news" that is all bias and often flat wrong...is not just bad for society but dangerous.
I don't think calling for Balance is unreasonable.
I see nothing wrong with radio stations having counterpoints or more diversity in political or even religious programming.
You don't have to listen if you don't want to, but it should be available. Part of the origin of radio (if you read about it) just as with TV was the government saw it as an educational tool. Yes, that is what I said "EDUCATIONAL TOOL". Why do you think we have NPR and PBS? What was the mandate behind these things?
Every time I hear the Rush Limbaugh formula I think of Hitler.
How do you think Hitler and Mussolini came to power? It was all quite legal and they could preach their hate and totalitarianism everywhere.
Why is it the first people Hitler sent to the camps besidides Jews were German intellectuals, artistis, etc? Stalin did the same thing? Why? Why didn't they send farmers, machinists, garbage men? What's the diffference? It is simple. One group was educated, learned to use their capacity to think abstractly, and were not easily manipulated. They questioned things and saw through Hitler. He realized that was dangerous...appealing to them on nationalistic/ethnocentric base terms didn't convince most of these people. That was dangerous. The "simple" folks didn't question much. Hitler appeal to their ego, their chauvanism, their insecurities and swayed the majority... Rush Limbaugh is only different in degree, not kind. This game is old, it goes back to Caesar and his beloved "mob" and long before.
Seriously.
What he does is a simple formula.
1) Take a news story about politics
2) Find a way to blame liberals, if conservatives are involved it is okay to demonized a conservative individual if he is moderate but lable him a traitor...other than that...don't even mention it, just say the "Congress" but only mention "liberal" leaders names.
For example say..."the government spends to much money..." Nancy Pelosi, blah blah blah...and during the Clinton Admin the government...(don't mention during that time Republicans controlled congress for most of Clinton's term or approve a lot of these things)>
Make it all sound like a crisis, imply these people are anti-American, not patriotic, demonize them without overtly saying it...make it very dramatic as if they are about the to open the gates and let the barbarians run amok..
3)Anyone who calls him who disagrees put them on mute and just shout over what they say, and then let them talk a minute, and put them on mute again...then just say "oh that is liberal double talk, typical liberal, blah blah" use Straw Man's as much as possible, attack the caller directly, etc.
Then hang up on them.
4) Let people who agree with you call and voice their opinion, no matter how ignorant as long as they aren't calling names or cursing and then egg them on and talk about how "smart they are for seeing through the lies, etc...
If it was up to me anyone talking on public airwaves about things like this would not only have to be licensed journalist but also I would set up an agency to randomly fact check what they say for validity. If they lie on the air about stuff they will be fined and all of this will be made public and the public can access all of it on a website to show that it is not retribution or made up...it is legit, the person lies. You can have whatever opinion you want but to be purposefully misleading or lying will get you fined...I'm talking about $10,000+ bucks a pop. People like Rush would be out of business in a year because he can't lie and tell half truths. If he can't do that most of what he says will sound like nonsense
Most folks aren't that bring. Half the population is below average IQ.
That is not my opinion that is fact. Half of people on the street are below average intelligence by default.
This is why politicians speak to the lowest common denominator and stay away from nuance.
They know most folks can't understand nuance.
I used to think that politicians talked down to people, because for me, their arguments were so simple as to be that of a child, they gave little to know detail, they used slogans over complex ideas, etc.
As I got older and interacted with more people outside my immediate family or peer group I realized that there is a reason Time Magazine is written at a 9th grade level (as with most newspapers).
If they wrote things at the level I would like to see them, likely 60-75% of the population could not even understand what they are talking about.
I'm sure Rush Limbaugh would say they are "elitist" for daring to sound like they have a degree from a good school...
This might offend you...but reality is what it is. That being said, there is a reason there is mob violence.
A smart person with charisma can manipulate those who are less intelligent to violence.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 21 Nov 2008 21:44 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
I don't view Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity as anything but audio pornography but I still will not cause them to be banned.
Interesting. How about some of the left wing hate sites on the internet??? There was a left wing radio talk show host, Bernie Ward, in San Francisco, have you ever heard him on the radio??? You cannot now because he is in prison for child pornography, but would people like him be scruntinized, or only the "right wing"??? I realize the liberal point of view is more "progressive", more "educated", more "refined". The liberal view is taken to be "mainstream" by many liberals, hence why they see the MSM as being fair and objective.
Dragon Horse wrote:
What I do think is that 24/7 radio stations with right wing stuff posing as "news" that is all bias and often flat wrong...is not just bad for society but dangerous.
So since you deem it to be dangerous, you think it should be controlled by the government, or rather censored.
Dragon Horse wrote:
I don't think calling for Balance is unreasonable.
I do, particularly when the government has to get involved. Who the hell are they to determine what is "balance", and whose definition of "balance" will they use. I do not have to answer that because we all know fully well what the answer is. It is un-Constitutional.
What the hell is "audio pornography" ?????
You still haven't answered my question as to who or what agency will make this determination, hiw will they do it, and whom will be targeted???
Why not go after all the media??? For me, it's all or nothing if this is to be "fair", not selective.
Dragon Horse wrote:
Most folks aren't that bring. Half the population is below average IQ.
That is not my opinion that is fact. Half of people on the street are below average intelligence by default.
This is why politicians speak to the lowest common denominator and stay away from nuance.
They know most folks can't understand nuance.
While I agree with this, this does not give you, or anyone else, an execuse to control what these people want to hear. That strikes me as feudalism, the lords and the barrons controling the peasants. Which we do in fact have, but that doesn't mean it's right. Let the people decide for themselves. The people do not need some smart alec deciding it for them.
Dragon Horse wrote:
If it was up to me anyone talking on public airwaves about things like this would not only have to be licensed journalist but also I would set up an agency to randomly fact check what they say for validity. If they lie on the air about stuff they will be fined and all of this will be made public and the public can access all of it on a website to show that it is not retribution or made up...it is legit, the person lies. You can have whatever opinion you want but to be purposefully misleading or lying will get you fined...I'm talking about $10,000+ bucks a pop. People like Rush would be out of business in a year because he can't lie and tell half truths. If he can't do that most of what he says will sound like nonsense
A lot of Black talk show hosts would be out of business then as well. This is clearly not only un-Constitutional, but tyrannical. In order to speak on the "public" (read government) airwaves you need permission from the government and need to make sure your information is government approved. Wow, they did this in the Soviet Union and are still doing it in China!!!!!! Wow, you scare me, man!
Knowing how the repubs can spin things so well at times, I wouldn't be surprised if this turns even worse. Got to love what special interest groups can do (sarcasm).
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Sat 22 Nov 2008 20:15 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
I don't view Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity as anything but audio pornography but I still will not cause them to be banned.
Interesting. How about some of the left wing hate sites on the internet??? There was a left wing radio talk show host, Bernie Ward, in San Francisco, have you ever heard him on the radio??? You cannot now because he is in prison for child pornography, but would people like him be scrutinized, or only the "right wing"??? I realize the liberal point of view is more "progressive", more "educated", more "refined". The liberal view is taken to be "mainstream" by many liberals, hence why they see the MSM as being fair and objective.
Dragon Horse wrote:
What I do think is that 24/7 radio stations with right wing stuff posing as "news" that is all bias and often flat wrong...is not just bad for society but dangerous.
So since you deem it to be dangerous, you think it should be controlled by the government, or rather censored.
Dragon Horse wrote:
I don't think calling for Balance is unreasonable.
I do, particularly when the government has to get involved. Who the hell are they to determine what is "balance", and whose definition of "balance" will they use. I do not have to answer that because we all know fully well what the answer is. It is un-Constitutional.
What the hell is "audio pornography" ?????
You still haven't answered my question as to who or what agency will make this determination, hiw will they do it, and whom will be targeted???
Why not go after all the media??? For me, it's all or nothing if this is to be "fair", not selective.
Dragon Horse wrote:
Most folks aren't that bring. Half the population is below average IQ.
That is not my opinion that is fact. Half of people on the street are below average intelligence by default.
This is why politicians speak to the lowest common denominator and stay away from nuance.
They know most folks can't understand nuance.
While I agree with this, this does not give you, or anyone else, an execuse to control what these people want to hear. That strikes me as feudalism, the lords and the barrons controling the peasants. Which we do in fact have, but that doesn't mean it's right. Let the people decide for themselves. The people do not need some smart alec deciding it for them.
Dragon Horse wrote:
If it was up to me anyone talking on public airwaves about things like this would not only have to be licensed journalist but also I would set up an agency to randomly fact check what they say for validity. If they lie on the air about stuff they will be fined and all of this will be made public and the public can access all of it on a website to show that it is not retribution or made up...it is legit, the person lies. You can have whatever opinion you want but to be purposefully misleading or lying will get you fined...I'm talking about $10,000+ bucks a pop. People like Rush would be out of business in a year because he can't lie and tell half truths. If he can't do that most of what he says will sound like nonsense
A lot of Black talk show hosts would be out of business then as well. This is clearly not only un-Constitutional, but tyrannical. In order to speak on the "public" (read government) airwaves you need permission from the government and need to make sure your information is government approved. Wow, they did this in the Soviet Union and are still doing it in China!!!!!! Wow, you scare me, man!
I have to split these posts.
1) I have no idea who Bernie Ward is and to use him is kind of a ridiculous example as he is not typical of the average radio host (of any political persuasion). The Fairness Doctrine or the 'Localization' effort does not call for individual programming to be "fair and balanced" it calls for radio stations to broadcast more balanced views. To my understanding (which is limited I admit) this could be as simple as have Rush Limbaugh on and after him a liberal host.
What I would like to see is my rules applied to all radio host, regardless if they are liberal or not. I'm not pro-demagogue, pro-fear monger, etc. I do not care if they are liberal or conservative. It seems at least you assume I would support some type of double standard based on political ideology. No. I just find conservative shows the worst. I don't tend to agree with some of the radicals I have heard on Air America...I'm definately not some left wing extremist and never have been.
You know there is such a thing as gray. Everything is not black and white, left or right, etc. I believe the world is far too complicated to try to make it conform to a theory. Life is about nuance.
2) Not controlled, balanced. Like I said, you assume that the airwaves are somehow free and historically free of any government input or censor. That is very false.
3) The people have "smart alecs" defining everything for them. 90%+ of the population doesn't make decisions that amount to anything other than where to spend money. If you get down to who really runs society economically, politically, sets social trends, etc. Is that "Joe 6 Pack"? Has it ever been? I would say not sense Hunter/Gathers.
4) No one is talking about government approved news or talk...as in the government decides what topic you can speak about and how much. You are getting close to a straw man here. What I'm saying is simple. Tell the truth, when speaking about serious social matters. If you do not, if you intend to use your media platform to spread lies than you will not be allowed a license to broadcast. I'm talking about "factual statements" or statements you claim to be "factual".
If it is your opinion, then just state "this is my opinion or interpretation of the facts"...
I believe we have the same rules on this blog. Is this place tyrannical?
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Sun 23 Nov 2008 01:21 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
1) I have no idea who Bernie Ward is and to use him is kind of a ridiculous example as he is not typical of the average radio host (of any political persuasion). The Fairness Doctrine or the 'Localization' effort does not call for individual programming to be "fair and balanced" it calls for radio stations to broadcast more balanced views. To my understanding (which is limited I admit) this could be as simple as have Rush Limbaugh on and after him a liberal host.
Since you like to bring up Limbaugh and Hannity, I thought I would throw out a left wing example to see if you would agree that the same standards would apply. Ward was a popular host in San Francisco and also worked for Barbara Boxer at one time.
Why should be government require privately owned stations to "localize", when it might not be profitable to them??? That is government control, no ifs, and, or buts about it. Period, end of story. Quite un-Constitutional, I might add. I think you're missing the point as to why the staions are in business in the first place, and it's not to provide a service (that may be the second reason), but it is to make a profit. No profit, no station.
Dragon Horse wrote:
2) Not controlled, balanced. Like I said, you assume that the airwaves are somehow free and historically free of any government input or censor. That is very false.
So does that mean the government has the right to regulate the topics of political talk on the airwaves, particularly when the talk is about the people in power???
Dragon Horse wrote:
3) The people have "smart alecs" defining everything for them. 90%+ of the population doesn't make decisions that amount to anything other than where to spend money. If you get down to who really runs society economically, politically, sets social trends, etc. Is that "Joe 6 Pack"? Has it ever been? I would say not sense Hunter/Gathers.
There are some things "Joe Six Pack", whom I get the feeling you look down upon, get to decide for themselves. One is the type of programs they want to watch or listen to. In the political arena, the Congress is not allowed to make laws abridging freedom of the press, or freedom of speech. If you read Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, et al, this meant as a watchdog on what the governernment was doing. Like it or not, this is what "conservative" talk radio is doing. I don't care if talk radio was all liberal, I don't have to listen to it, and I do not (liberal radio). Also I relaize there might be a time where the powers would come after me, and who would be left to defend me??? This is why this is dangerous. I understand fully what the elitists would like to accomplish here. You do this, and we will go underground, I promise. You will not silence us, never.
Dragon Horse wrote:
4) No one is talking about government approved news or talk...as in the government decides what topic you can speak about and how much. You are getting close to a straw man here. What I'm saying is simple. Tell the truth, when speaking about serious social matters. If you do not, if you intend to use your media platform to spread lies than you will not be allowed a license to broadcast. I'm talking about "factual statements" or statements you claim to be "factual".
Again, who will make this determination???? There is no strawman here. What you are talking about is government controlled. If one has a station that is spreading lies as you say, should not the people decide whether to keep listening or not, or should the nanny decide for them???
Dragon Horse wrote:
I believe we have the same rules on this blog. Is this place tyrannical?
This is a privately run website forum. You cannot compare this site to the government controlling political speech. Frank W. Sweet makes the rules and if he wants, can change them at anytime. If one does not like it here, one can leave and go to another forum, it's that simple. Same with talk radio, if you do not like what they are talking about, you do not have to listen. Go to a format that you agree with. What you are proposing is the same as saying that the government should police sites like this and the internet, IMO. This will be next, if we do not put down the current threat.
From the basis of my dialog with you, I get the feeling you do not trust the people to make descisions for themselves, particularly regarding information. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Sun 23 Nov 2008 03:43 Post subject:
1) I don't think you (or I) are in a position to say what is constitutional or not. The Fairness Doctrine as I pointed out, was never considered unconstitutional in any court. It was ended by administrative order from the executive branch.
I bring up Limbaugh and Hannity because they are some of the premier conservative talk radio host in America. Bernie Ward, I have never heard of.
The fact Ward was popular and worked for Boxer and secretly molested children...uhm...I'm not even sure what that has to do with this conversation other than to imply some type of smear against people of certain political beliefs. I am sure you are not suggesting that liberals are the only pedophiles or the only people committing felonies who are in public life are you? One again, that is neither here nor there.
I never mentioned anyone committing crimes.
2) Stations could definately make more profit if they allowed sex, cursing, etc. The government regulates all of that.
Did not the FCC "hurt" Howard Stern's ability to make money many times over the last 2.5 decades??
That is not all either.
As I said...these companies make money off of public airwaves which have always been regulated.
It is like saying...well Trucks should be able to do what they want if it is profitable...so what they are using the highway that is publicly funded...??? No court, to my knowledge has ever took such a libertarian position to broadcasting.
The FCC does:
Quote:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government, created, directed, and empowered by Congressional statute (see 47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154), and with the majority of its commissioners appointed by the current President. The FCC works towards six stratgic goals in the areas of broadband, competition, the spectrum, the media, public safety and homeland security, and modernizing the FCC.[1]
The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 as the successor to the Federal Radio Commission and is charged with regulating all non-federal government use of the radio spectrum (including radio and television broadcasting), and all interstate telecommunications (wire, satellite and cable) as well as all international communications that originate or terminate in the United States. It is an important factor in U.S. telecommunication policy. The FCC took over wire communication regulation from the Interstate Commerce Commission. The FCC's mandated jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions. Due however to close geographic proximity to the United States, the FCC also provides varied degrees of cooperation, oversight, and leadership for similar communications bodies in other countries of North America.
The rules are so deep and thick we would both need a team of lawyers to figure it all out and it appears that you are suggesting there is currently no regulation??? Is that correct?
3) The government has no right to tell Rush Limbaugh what he can talk about. Nor has anyone suggested that they have the right to do that.
The suggestion is far more nuanced. The suggestion is 2 fold. That the station plays Limbaugh (if they wish) and another counter view (not even saying it has to be on the same show, as in a Hannity and Colmes).
That the government insure that Rush Limbaugh is not using public airwaves to spread lies in order to demagogue and purposefully misinform people in an attempt at political persuasion (something he does often and I have personally caught him in more than once, after all he is a shrill for the Republicans, I won't even say he is a conservative, he is a lap dog for a party, I have heard him say things in regard to Bush that are counter to any conservative message for the sake of party loyalty).
4) So Joe Six Pack should be able to watch porn any time of the day on any station he wishes without government interference? After all it is the parents job to monitor their kids right? Why should Joe Six Pack be denied his hardcore porn? What right is it of the government to decide ABC, CBS, NBC can't show "Nailin' Palin" at 8PM on a Wednesday as a Special Feature?
Quote:
In the political arena, the Congress is not allowed to make laws abridging freedom of the press, or freedom of speech.
I can go on with this, but I think you see freedom of speech has limits in the U.S. Limits on what you can say when, and on what platform, and how you say it.
In the end no one wants to silence you. If you buy into this "elitist" nonsense that is your right, but Hannity and Limbaugh are not your buddies hanging out at the local bar. They are "elites" using people who go to the same cocktail parties and country clubs (I know Rush does, can't speak specifically for Hannity) as many of the people you resent.
No one wants to come after you with your short wave radio in your storm cellar. Well I don't, can't speak for others.
Quote:
Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton
yes, all lived in a time with no mass media, where books and newspaper were the only "media" and the average American of the day could barely read them if read them at all. There was no electronic information sharing or communications technology nor could they have imagined it. Believe it or not, American law has kept living and was not frozen in the 1780's.
There has been a hell of a lot law put in volumes of legal books since then and the constitution has been amended 27 times
These men were smart, but they are not Gods. We don't live exactly as they lived back then for the same reason 99% of Christians don't follow the bible word by word as law.
The world continues to evolve, in ways men can't predict. The world did not stop in 1787, thank God, because I would not be a citizen, likely a slave or have been deported to West Africa, women could not vote, you could not vote unless you were a white male property owner, my wife and I could not have legally married, my wife would not have likely been allowed to come here anyway...etc.
Just like if we follow Paul by his word, a woman should not speak in the church, ever and a man having long hair is sinful (whatever long meant to Paul)...a slave should obey their master, etc.
5) If a station is spreading obvious lies on government (the people's) airwaves than those lies are obvious.
If someone says "X did this and caused this" and that is obviously false than it does not matter who "determines" it, fact is fact and a lie is a lie.
As I said, any such punishments or determinations should be all made public to anyone and even be able to be appealed.
Quote:
I get the feeling you do not trust the people to make descisions for themselves, particularly regarding information. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Fair point.
You are right. I know for a fact that the average person has a limited ability to reason, limited time and inclination to research things, and an inbred ability due to millions of years of evolution to be influenced strongly by group dynamics (especially demagoguery).
I also know that people often do not make rational decisions, especially in regard to politics.
Please buy this book...get it used and give it a read, a little dry, but it has not been refuted to my knowledge...
So in light of this, I'm not advocating anything but the government do more to help balance things so that people who are otherwise incapable, lazy, etc can at least hear two sides to something.
I have seen, and gave an example, of time in history where the majority of people, the "wisdom" of the common man was ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
-Nazi Germany
-Serbia in the 1990's
-Cambodia under Pol Pot
-Revolutionary Russia (Lenin's Russia)
-French Revolution (the later years of chaos)
-Mongol Hordes
-Imperial Japan
-Franco's Spain
-Mussolini's Italy
-America's treatment of blacks, Native Americans (I would also add Irish, women, etc)...
China during the time of Mao
I can go on and on and on and on...
In all these cases, a diversity of opinion was not tolerated...for a reason.
Hitler was the best example of what happens when Demagogues get into the head of "Joe Six Pack" claiming the "elites" did so and so...
We make children go to school until 9th grade for a reason because educated citizens make for better citizens and a better overall society.
We see this as the governments duty, I don't see this as any different. Many nations have such laws...not just the U.S. I've been to a few...I did not see men in jackboots and machine guns running about at night in trench coats throwing people in black vans. LOL
We are not going to agree on this, that's fine. You seem to think do not have the proper fear of government and I seem to think you are uber-paranoid...we will see which way the American people go.
If the Dems do put in some new version of the Fairness Doctrine, that would be a reflection of the will of the people who voted for them, would it not?
If it is then why would you not accepted the wisdom of "the people"? Isn't that "all"?
Knowing how the repubs can spin things so well at times, I wouldn't be surprised if this turns even worse. Got to love what special interest groups can do (sarcasm).
There are all sorts of special interests of various political persuasions....The NAACP, La Raza, GLAAD are also special interest groups.
Republicans (I assume you're using this interchangeable with conservative) aren't the only ones who employ spin. Much of the reportage we receive via the news about crime, "immigration", race relations, etc., is spun, but not usually by Republicans.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
