Debate!
Published by Mike Stark January 29th, 2007 in UncategorizedAbout a week ago, after my appearance on Reliable Sources, I received an email from Newsbusters’ Noel Sheppard. Noel was the right wing blogger that wrote what soon came to be the definitive right-wing response to the Spocko controversy. In his email, Noel asked me if I’d be willing to debate him.Knowing I was on the side of the angels, I agreed provisonally. After some further exchanges in which we both assured each other that we’d follow the ultimate rule of the blogoverse (Don’t be a dick), we got down to business.
As Newsbusters (amongst others) has been reporting for the past couple of weeks, a battle is being waged between liberal bloggers and a conservative radio station in San Francisco. Those that are unfamiliar with this issue should read articles covering both sides of the matter here and here.
Two of the most outspoken writers on the Internet regarding this subject have been Mike Stark, who writes at Daily Kos and at his own blog, Calling All Wingnuts, and Noel Sheppard, a contributing editor to NewsBusters as well as a frequent contributor to the American Thinker.
In order to further an understanding of this complex issue, Sheppard and Stark have decided to debate one another at their various Internet venues. The ground rules are as follows:
- Sheppard and Stark exchanged five questions on this subject Friday, January 26
- Both sets of questions are listed below for your review
- Sheppard and Stark’s answers will be posted at their respective websites for your review
- Only one of the “guest’s” answers will be posted at each website. NewsBusters readers that want to read all of Stark’s answers to Sheppard’s questions have to click the link saying “Stark’s Answers.” Similarly, Daily Kos readers will have to click the link stating “Sheppard’s Answers” if they are so interested. The reason for doing this was to not force contrary views on our readers, but, instead, make this a voluntary decision
- Depending on how this is received by readers, Sheppard and Stark will agree to post follow-up rebuttals in the very near future
One last thought before we begin: although political rivals, Sheppard and Stark have had very cordial and profitable e-mail exchanges leading to this point. Their mutual goal beyond clarifying both sides’ views on this issue is to demonstrate that political debate can be done in a civil fashion without the caustic tone so many complain about with little intent to change it.
With that in mind, Sheppard and Stark have pledged to keep their responses focused on the issue at hand without plunging into the abyss that is the all-to-common pointless display of crotch-grabbing and genital-waving that serves no meaningful purpose.
We both sincerely hope this exercise proves informative and beneficial to all involved, and look forward to spirited comments from our readers. Enjoy.
Noel’s Questions and my answers
1. In your first article concerning this matter posted at Daily Kos on January 3, 2007, you copied Spocko’s complaint letter to AT&T. In that letter, Spocko advised AT&T’s Wendy Clark (emphasis mine): “If you wish to hear the complete context on any clip or the audio during a date your ad ran contact me I have an educational archive of audio clips, I’ve listed a few below.”
With that in mind, before you wrote this piece, did you get these complete audio clips from Spocko, as well as ask KSFO for full transcripts so as to determine the actual context of the snippets Spocko found offensive? If so, why didn’t you include these transcripts in your article – a practice quite common for media analysts as you are likely aware – so that your readers could indeed see what the context of these statements was? If not, why not? After all, wouldn’t this have been good investigative reporting on your part? Up to this point, Spocko was a virtually unknown blogger. Why would you not do any research to investigate the veracity of the claims that he was making before you reprinted them at the number one liberal blog in the country under your own name? In retrospect, do you think that was a mistake?
Answer: To provide a complete answer to this question requires some context of its own.
When I started CallingAllWingnuts, Spocko emailed me. I think it’s safe to assume that since our battlefields were similar, there was an immediate feeling of kinship. We exchanged several emails over the course of the year in which I became more familiar with Spocko’s work.
This isn’t to say that I kept tabs on his blog or was fully informed as to his every action, but I did know in general terms what he was up to.
I did not ask for complete transcripts from KSFO, but I did listen to most of the clips Spocko provided. Honestly, I think the point you are trying to make here is that Spocko’s work was somehow dishonest or provided false representation to advertisers. All I can say is that some comments speak for themselves. Suggesting that you’d like to dig up a corpse to kill her again is pretty clearly offensive. Suggesting that a caller call Allah a wh*re… well, there aren’t that many ways to interpret that…
So… since I had a previous relationship with Spocko, and since I didn’t use any examples of clips that I feel were taken out of context or misleading, I do not regret anything I’ve done.
2. In many of your posts concerning this matter, you have suggested that this issue is tied to the need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Could you explain this connection inasmuch as requiring a media outlet to allocate 50 percent of its time to opposing viewpoints would in no way prevent it from committing “hate speech” or “fear mongering?” Also, do you believe that the reenactment of this archaic concept should be applied to all media outlets including those that present the news on television, radio, and print? For instance, should MSNBC’s “Countdown” be required to present 30 minutes worth of conservative views? Should the New York Times be required to devote 50 percent of its print-space to conservative writers? How about magazines like The Nation, or blogs like Daily Kos? Should this apply to John Stewart and Stephen Colbert? If not, please explain in detail why any media outlets should be exempt from such legislation that you appear to support.
Answer: I do not have expert knowledge of the Fairness Doctrine as proposed or as previously applied. That said, I do recognize that there will be line-drawing issues inherent in any application of it. As such, the people in charge of “drawing the line” will play an outsized role in the enforcement of any implementation. There will be issues that will have to be addressed dealing with oversight and in establishing some insulation from politicization.
Since I no specific proposal exists so far as I know, I am happy to discuss the issue from a liberal’s perspective and answer best I can your specific questions.
First, I agree that requiring a media outlet to provide equal time for opposing viewpoints would do nothing to prevent violent or hateful rhetoric. In fact, it is conceivable that the outlet could fill its program schedule with 100% hate speech – all it would have to do is give 50% of its programming to David Duke and 50% to some of the more radical black nationalists groups (sorry, I cannot name one).
Second, I do not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be applied to all media outlets. I think it should be applied to all outlets that use the public’s broadcast spectrum – mainly, broadcast television and AM/FM radio (not satellite radio or TV). These broadcast spectrums are public property, leased to private entities. Just like we can place restrictions on land we own when we rent it, the people should be able to place restrictions on the broadcast spectrum property we collectively own when we rent that. This is especially important for this reason: media consolidation. ABC is owned by Disney. NBC by General Electric. CBS by Viacom. I am not going to do all of your reader’s research for them, but consolidation has put ownership of thousands of local radio stations and television stations into the hands of just a few corporate owners. When programming decisions are made by executives in far away high-rise offices, and when these decisions are made by underlings of executives that have a fiduciary interest in maximizing profits for the parent company… well, the proof is in the pudding. Brian Ross, of ABC, had a story ready to go that would have blown the lid off Disney’s hiring practices – specifically, their refusal to screen amusement park workers for a history of sexual predation of children. The story was spiked by ABC at the last minute.
Back to the Fairness Doctrine… The right in this country is known to be more corporate friendly than the left is. When corporations buy the media – the means of mass communication – you can count on receiving an undiluted corporate friendly message and program schedule. Corporations are notoriously anti-union, for example. Well, surprise, surprise… so is Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
Next – should Countdown be forced to present 30 minutes of conservative messaging? The answer is no – Countdown – aside from being on cable which would remove it from the Fairness Doctrine’s purview – is more than balanced by Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough. Even if it weren’t, however, I would have no problem with one station being all-conservative, as long as the provider offered a all-liberal station that viewers could choose.
Next, since the barriers of entry are so low, and again, since no publicly owned asset is being used in furtherance of the “message”, I don’t believe the Fairness Doctrine should apply to websites, blogs or print media should be regulated.
3. Do you believe that you and I could easily take snippets of broadcasts or articles from all kinds of media outlets including The New York Times, The Nation, CNN, MSNBC, Air America Radio, Daily Kos, and the Howard Stern Show that out of context could be easily perceived as “hate speech,” “racist,” or “fear mongering”? Assuming the answer is yes, have you organized blog swarms to incite sponsors of The New York Times, The Nation, CNN, MSNBC, Air America Radio, Daily Kos, or the Howard Stern Show to cease advertising at these outlets due to the existence of such content? If not, why? Please explain your answer.
Answer: No, I don’t believe you can take snippets from any of the aforementioned (with the possible exception of obscure diarists and commenters at Daily Kos) that would in any way compare to the rhetoric we hear from the right side every single day. Further, if you were to mine Democratic Underground or DailyKos for outrageous comments, you would have missed the point. Ann Coulter is worshipped by many people on the right – she’s a leader amongst you. You cheer her. She calls for rat poison in Supreme Court justice’s food… She speaks of executing liberals… of “ragheads”. Our marginal commenters are marginal for a reason. We marginalize them. Even Cindy Sheehan is left out in the wilderness by our political leadership. Hilary Clinton wouldn’t meet with her. I haven’t even seen Ted Kennedy anywhere near her.
To further anticipate another response from you, let me take the case of Al Sharpton. The man is not perfect, and, in fact, has some pretty damning skeletons in his closet. The difference between the left’s acceptance of Sharpton and the right’s acceptance of Coulter/Limbaugh/Malkin is that Sharpton has been right 95% of the time. He’s made some big mistakes, but they’ve been infrequent and are in large part long in the past. The leading voices of the right have said and done outrageous things within the last year or so – repeatedly – and they have never been asked to pay a price. The seemingly cannot do anything that cost them credibility amongst the rank and file of conservatives.
4. Which do you see as a greater threat to our nation and why: media outlets such as the New York Times publishing top secret national security information like the NSA’s wiretapping of terrorists and their use of SWIFT to identify terrorist funding networks, or; talk radio programs like the one in question, the Howard Stern Show, or programs broadcast on Air America Radio making statements that might be offensive to some listeners?
Answer: I’d like to get away from any discussion of Howard Stern or Don Imus or any of the other “entertainers” that don’t primarily talk about politics. I don’t listen to them, no political junkie on the left or right, that I know of, derives any kind of opinion from them, and as such, for the purposes of this debate, they are irrelevancies.
This question strays pretty far from the issue at hand, but I will endeavor to answer it to the best of my ability.
These are two entirely different issues. While I will not deny that it is conceivable for a press organization to cross the line and publish sensitive national security information that harms our nation’s security, neither of these issues rise to that level.
The news regarding terrorists wiretaps was not that we were doing it – even the most bumbling oaf of a terrorist can be expected to know that any government would do whatever it could to intercept and disrupt terror communications. Indeed, any terrorist that did not have that level of awareness is probably not a terrorist we need to worry about. No… The news here is that the administration had circumvented clear law established by the FISA statutes. The government is prohibited from intercepting American’s wire communications without a warrant. It’s that simple. If we could make it through the height of the cold war without violating that statute – a time we were facing down the nuclear annihilation of the entire planet – well, I think it is safe to say that we can handle a crazy fellow with a couple of sticks of dynamite strapped to his belly.
The SWIFT program was in the public domain. Again, people that transfer enough money to be caught up in SWIFT monitoring, I believe, will be concerned enough about their money to be cognizant of the means and methods that are used to transfer and track it. In fact, and perhaps you will want to show me the error in my thinking, but I do see an incredible danger in an increasingly authoritative government telling a free press what information in the public domain they may or may not discuss.
On the other hand, as I noted in my questions to you, I do see dots connecting the rhetoric employed by conservative talk radio show hosts to the leading Republican politicians that legitimize the opinions of these hosts by appearing on their shows. In a world that is shrinking by the day – networked like never before – I am certain that Indonesians, Pakistanis, Iranians, Egyptians, Saudis and other Muslim populations are aware that a large portion of America views their very existence as an enemy threat. At a time when we should be pursuing a strategy based on winning the hearts and minds of sane and reasonable Muslims, we are instead throwing gasoline on the fire.
Let me finish this answer with a rhetorical question. You are a young male Iraqi. You hear from interpreters that the Americans listen to the Armed Forces Radio Network. Some guy comes on the radio just about every day and sells “Gitmo Gear”. Worse yet, he called the Abu Grahb atrocities (a lot of Iraqi’s died there, some tortured by Americans – look it up) nothing worse than college pranks… Well, if you are this Iraqi and you just happen to look out your window as two terrorists plant a roadside IED, are you going to risk your life to tell the Americans? Perhaps you need to do some role reversal – make the occupied country the USA, the occupiers Muslims (that hate Christians because Christians killed 3,000 people in their prosperous, far away and morally degenerate country in a terror incident), the radio host constantly ridicules you and your lifestyle, and the Supreme Leader of the Army that occupies your town has regular chats with this talk show host. Will your heart be won over? Your mind?
So to me, this is a no brainer. Freedom of the press good. Irresponsible speech, allowed, but bad.
5. In your first post about this issue on January 3, 2007, you wrote the following (emphasis mine):
I’ve got visions of Micky [sic] Mouse with his snapped neck caught in a mousetrap of Spocko’s making. Spocko took on a giant and so far, is winning. How’d he do it? He did it the way it’s always done - by working within the law, identifying points of weakness, exploiting them and being absolutely tenacious.
Having hopefully seen the actual transcripts of the broadcasts in question, from a legal perspective, as a potential future attorney, how do you think Spocko’s arguments would hold up in court? After all, his contention that a KSFO representative said the word “sh**ty” to disparage a carmaker was 100 percent false. Furthermore, when you look at the actual context of the discussions in print, and hear them in complete audio clips, they are not at all what was presented at his blog or in the letter that he sent to AT&T. In fact, not even close.
With that in mind, do you think his claims of “hate speech,” “fear mongering,” and “racism” emanating from these broadcasts would hold up in court? Or, would a good attorney rip his position apart due to all of its seemingly obvious flaws? As a potential future attorney, please explain your answer in detail.
Answer: Spocko’s claim will hold up in court just fine. The EFF has just today posted their answer to ABC’s cease and desist letter.
That said, and at the risk of being cherry-picked by your side, I will break some news: I was not happy when I heard the Chivvy tapes – especially after the KSFO hosts put those remarks into context. If that context is the truthful and complete story, I do not think Spocko’s “Chivvy” clip lives up to my personal standards. It is not acceptable to “spin” the facts to be something they are not. That said, I think it is asking an awful lot for me to believe the KSFO defense without anything further. They have lied – repeatedly – throughout this ordeal. I have examples if you are interested.
To sum up, from my perspective, that is the fundamental difference between right and left. I don’t point this out to sleight any single conservative; instead I think the problem is a plague on the movement. There is a fundamental lack of dishonesty in politics. Somehow, conservatives have come to see politics as a game of advocacy – something to be won at all cost. If “spin” is necessary, so be it. If outright lies are required, well, it’s all in the game. Mock outrage? Check. Race-baiting? Sure, if it will win an election… Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Dick Wadhams, and Ralph Reed have corroded the foundations of the conservative movement. Honor and integrity are secondary to victory. This model is not sustainable. 2006 was merely a foreshadowing of 2008. Until the grass and netroots of your party starts holding your leadership accountable for their moral failings, things will just keep getting worse for conservatives. And honestly, I think that’s a shame because when one party is so weakened as to become an afterthought, the other becomes arrogant in its hubris. We all lose.
My advice to y’all – and please don’t think I’m being sanctimonious, sarcastic or anything less than sincere…
In everything I have ever done as an activist, I have been careful to make sure that I could not be accused of “spinning” or “exaggerating” my claims. The most important asset a progressive activist has is a reputation for honesty. The reason I wasn’t hurt by any of the attacks you folks threw at me after the George Allen incidents is that I never acted in such a way as to bring discredit upon myself – at least not from the perspective of a fair-minded person willing to listen to all of the facts. To reiterate – if I had acted irresponsibly or dishonestly – ever in my blogging career – you can bet that the George Allen oppo research people would have found it and crucified me with it. They spent 30 million dollars on that race. If they could help it, there was no way they would have let me get away unscathed.
These are the questions I presented to Mr. Sheppard.
1. Given the right’s history of protesting the CBS miniseries The Reagans, radio station’s boycott of the Dixie Chicks and, perhaps most damningly, Melanie Morgan’s personal involvement in attempting to prevent theaters from screening Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, exactly how does Spocko’s campaign differ from the trails previously blazed?Noel’s answer: There are certainly some similarities between those campaigns and Spocko’s. However, the differences are glaring.
For instance, KSFO is a conservative radio station, and celebrates that fact. It actually advertises on television and in print that it is a conservative voice in the Bay Area. I should know, as unlike most folks espousing an opinion on this issue, I actually live within the reach of its non-Internet broadcasts.
As such, complaining about KSFO offering conservative opinions – even ones that occur during extremely satirical moments intended to push the envelope to make a serious point – is akin to getting angry because a classical radio station played Beethoven’s “Ninth.”
Actually, Edgar Varèse’s “Ionisation” is probably a better analogy; somebody sound the sirens.
By contrast, I don’t recall television or radio ads for “Fahrenheit 9/11” disclosing that it was a liberal’s view of the events leading up to the attacks on our nation with the intent to sway viewers from voting for President Bush in the upcoming elections.
Do you remember it being promoted that way, or simply as a documentary?
More importantly, there were falsehoods in Spocko’s complaint letter to KSFO’s advertisers. In particular, his statement that one of the station’s announcers said “sh**y” to describe a sponsor’s product was 100 percent incorrect.
As I wrote in my January 15 article on this subject, Tom Benner said “Chivvy” to comically mock car dealers who mispronounce the words “Chevy” and “Chevrolet.” As someone who lives in the Bay Area that should be aware of this extremely common joke, Spocko either intentionally misrepresented this segment to KSFO’s advertisers, or there is another explanation significantly less flattering.
Moreover, the snippets that were clearly offensive as presented in Spocko’s correspondence, and disseminated all over the Internet in this abbreviated form except by NewsBusters, were not close to being as distasteful when heard or read in their full context which was not provided to advertisers in this complaint letter.
Therefore, in my view, Spocko was guilty of attempting to inflame sponsors with false and misleading information with the expressed goal of silencing political voices he disagreed with. For this to be analogous to what Move America Forward did in 2004 with its protest against “Fahrenheit 9/11,” one would have to show that the letters sent to theater owners by this organization contained false and misleading information about the film.
As a potential future attorney, you certainly must see the difference between protesting the content of a movie or radio program, and distributing false and misleading information about said content in order to disrupt or prevent its dissemination.
Now, Spocko certainly has the right to voice his complaints about KSFO, and is welcome to continue doing so. However, those who disagree with his position, and his methods, similarly have the right to protest and speak out against his actions.
Or, is this a right accorded only to the left?
2. Understanding that, so far, the only person who’s free speech has been curtailed in any way at all is Spocko himself, what, exactly, is the issue? In an attempt to answer my own question, I believe Spocko’s opponents object to his efforts to contact KSFO advertisers because you define that effort as an attack on the KSFO host’s free speech. If that is correct, the solution to the problem would be for Spocko to shut up – to stop his communications with KSFO advertisers. Is this not advocacy of exactly what ABC/Disney thought they were doing when they shut down Spocko’s blog?
3. On Reliable Sources, I suggested that the way to fight speech you disagree with is with more free speech. In this example, Spocko spoke with advertisers that decided they did not want their money to be used to support speech they disagreed with. Do you believe businesses should be insulated from knowledge of what their ad budget is supporting? If not, isn’t Spocko providing corporate America with a service?
4. Enlarging the playing field somewhat, let’s talk about free speech, talk radio and eliminationist rhetoric for a moment. Lee Rodgers suggested that we should threaten millions of Indonesian Muslims with annihilation. Ann Coulter, at CPAC, said, “Ragheads talk tough, ragheads face consequences,” and was met with applause from the room full of conservatives. The event was attended by Dick Cheney, Mitch McConnel, John Fund, John Cornyn, Tom Tancredo and scores of other influential conservatives. Coulter has been invited back to this year’s event. Rush Limbaugh compared the events at Abu Grahb to fraternity hazing and sells “Gitmo gear”. Some time later, George Bush invited Limbaugh to the White House. Do you believe talk radio rhetoric is helpful to winning hearts and minds in the war on terror? Is it wise for the nation’s political leaders to legitimize this kind of rhetoric?
5. I’m fully aware that some on the left have engaged in equally irresponsible rhetoric. War protestors, for example, will often march with Bush=Hitler signs. Others have called George Bush a terrorist. The difference between over-the-top rhetoric from the left, as far as I can tell, is that the most outlandish and irresponsible amongst us are marginalized and ignored by our political leaders. On the other hand, as previously mentioned, the right embraces Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Melanie Morgan, Charles Johnson, Michelle Malkin and the rest of your “shock troops”. From our perspective, it is difficult to see how a good faith exchange of ideas can take place when we our very patriotism (amongst other things) is under constant attack. Given the public face you’ve chosen to embrace (as a movement), how would you suggest we return to civil political discourse?
The rest of Noel’s answers to my questions can be found here.
39 Responses to “Debate!”
- 1 Trackback on Jan 31st, 2007 at 1:22 am
- 2 Pingback on Jan 31st, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Leave a Reply
Search
Login
Donations Accepted
Subscribe
Posts- Comments
- Podcast
Mike, you are wilfully uninformed on Leftist hate speech and slander against the Right. I suggest you read “Slander” by Ann Coulter or “Unhinged” by Michelle Malkin. They have lots of quotes uttered with complete sincerity by members of the liberal media and political establishment. When it comes to hate speech and outrageous statements, the Left is unsurpassed.
As for KSFO, you and Spocko have indeed misrepresented the station. I listen to the Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan show every weekday morning on the way to work and to the Brian Sussman show ever weekday evening on the way home. The show is largely satire. There has been no sincere statements that anyone should be executed without due process or whatever other silly and insincere charges you want to make.
Let’s have an example. The next time you are upset with some conservative and you say “they should hang him to the highest tree” (a common exaggeration that no one would take seriously), maybe we can quote you and say Mike believes in lynching politicians he disagrees with. We can say, oh look at the hate speech from this man! He should apologize to the world and seek therapy.
The other night I was listening to another host on KSFO, Barbara Simpson, who was filling in for Brian Sussman who was away. She talked about the San Francisco mother, a black woman, who threw her three young children into the freezing waters of San Francisco Bay, killing them. Simpson said, I think they (the authorities) “should throw her in the Bay.” So Mike and Spocko could quote her out of context and say “KSFO radio host advocates drowning a mentally impaired black woman.” Well didn’t she? No, she wasn’t serious and only a complete moron would interpret her remarks as such. She was expressing anger at happened to the children.
She also talked about the guy in Missouri who kidnapped two young boys and held one of them for five years. The police caught him and put him in jail. They put him on “suicide watch.” Simpson, disgusted with the pedophile’s kidnappings, said, “why don’t they give him a rope?” NEWSFLASH: “Barbara Simpson advocates lynching prisoners without a trial!” Again, she wasn’t being serious.
KSFO radio is largely conversational. The hosts talk like the common citizen does in private conversation. They are sometimes angry (usually for good reason), sometimes frustrated. They joke around a lot. The bit about OV (Officer Vic) creating an audio satire of a NY Times editor being strapped to Old Sparky was about as serious as any skit you will see on “Saturday Night Live.”
Once again, you misrepresent the truth for the purpose of slandering conservatives. If you want to sit down and have a serious debate, you will lose. The truth is not on your side.
Stogie,
What transpires on KSFO is by no means satire or parody.
Websters describes satire as:
1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
and parody as:
1. a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing: his hilarious parody of Hamlet’s soliloquy.
2. the genre of literary composition represented by such imitations.
3. a burlesque imitation of a musical composition.
4. any humorous, satirical, or burlesque imitation, as of a person, event, etc.
5. the use in the 16th century of borrowed material in a musical setting of the Mass (parody Mass).
6. a poor or feeble imitation or semblance; travesty: His acting is a parody of his past greatness.
–verb (used with object)
7. to imitate (a composition, author, etc.) for purposes of ridicule or satire.
What Morgan and Rodgers do in no way meets those definitions. A comedian on Saturday Night Live presenting a skit that mocks mannerisms of Bush, and creates a storyline that can clearly be seen as farsical meets the definition of parody. What is done on the Daily Show fits the standards. Part of the assumption for an item to be a “parody” is that it must be understood from the onset that the statement or action is not to be taken seriosly.
That is where Morgan and Rodgers cross the line. During the course of a discussion that is of a serious nature, they are claiming that individual comments are intended as satire. This is not possible without a clear deliniation of where serious discussion ends and satire begins.
That is where your flaw in reasoning lies.
Discussion of topics of a political nature are inherently serious, and the gravity is understood by the presenter as well as the audience. Parody and satire may be presented, but must be learly deliniated, or you run the risk of a comment intended to be saterical being taken seriously. For someone to be discussing the topic of Supreme Court decisions, and to inject the comment “Well, maybe someone should put rat poison in Justice Stephen’s creme brulee” is shocking, and nobody believes the speaker was literal, but it did not belong in the topic, and runs the serious risk of being misconstrued. It is also irresponsible, as you have no knowledge if the next Timothy McVeigh is listening to the discussion, and a comment of that nature could strike the psychotic tuning fork buried deep within their twisted psyche.
Ask yourself….for the most part, does Ms. Morgan intend for her opinions to be taken seriously? I believe the answer is yes. Her program is not presented as satire. It is not presented as parody. It is presented as a discussion of opinions on a variety of serious topics.
If you want to present satire, it requires a clear deliniation between opinion and satire. If you have ever actually listened to any “liberal” program, you will find that those deliniations are made clear.
It is highly irresponsible for Morgan to inject comments that she later claims to be saterical into a reasoned discussion without that distinction.
I thought the debate was refreshingly civil and even-handed, even rational, by both of you.
Much as I fundamentally agree with you, Mike (99% of the time in this particular arena), and would like to declare you the winner, I must say that I thought Noel Sheppard held his own. I can’t accuse him of not supporting his arguments well. Like Harry Reid said about Tony Scalia: “I disagree with many of the results that he arrives at, but his reasons for arriving at those results are very hard to dispute.”
There is that 1% where I agree with him though: the Fairness Doctrine. No matter how I slice it it’s a restraint on free speech and free press. The Fairness Doctrine was a mistake to begin with and it’ll be a dark day if it comes back.
Stogie,
just because the hosts of the show present their stuff under the guise of satire and parody does not necessarily make it inoffensive. What you may find funny, others (including some of the advertisers) do not find funny at all no matter in what form it is presented.
I’m confused, and perhaps someone can explain it to me. Why does it seem that so much of right-wing “humor” revolves around death?
Ann Coulter and poisoning a Supreme Court Justice
Melanie Morgan’s seeming infatuation with Nancy Pelosi’s death (putting a bullseye on her)
Barbara Simpson’s joke about giving someone on suicide watch “a rope”, as mentioned above.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but death really isn’t all that funny to me.
Are there any funny conservatives? Dennis Miller used to be funny, but that was back in the 80’s. Or maybe Rushbo making fun of people with Parkinson’s is their version of “Funny”.
Stogie - if all the eliminationist rhetoric from the likes of Coulter (suggesting it would have been better if the 9/11 hijackers had hit the NYT), and Malkin (suggesting interning innocent people without regard to any actual actions on their part simply because of race or national origin) is just “satire”, then why is it that so much direct violent action has happened because of it? We have had fake anthrax threats mailed to Keith Olbermann and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer sent by an avid devotee of Ms. Malkin and Coulter. We have bombings in Georgia including the Olympics bombing performed by radical anti-choicers, and the worst domestic terror attack pre-9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing, performed by right-wing radicals who believing fantasy hate literature that the evil liberal government was coming for them.
For all the whining about how “it’s all just a joke”, there seems to be more than enough actual violence being propagated to suggest that some concern on this issue isn’t misplaced. And how many domestic bombings have happened planned by people brandishing copies of “Fahrenheit 9/11″ or “Crashing the Gate”?
DO you or somebody you know suffer from ACS?
ACS is a socially debilitating disease that strikes millions of Americans annually. It is highly prevalent among certain segments of the population, especially people of caucasian western european heritage.
ACS is highly contagous, and interestingly, it has the distnction of being the first documented virus capable of being spread via prolonged or excessive exposure (sessions of 3 hours a day or more) to radiation in the A.M. radio and cable television transmission bandwidths.
ACS, while commonly known by it’s initials, however, it is more accurately referred to as “Ann Coulter Syndrome”.
Sufferers of ACS can only gain strength through their absolute hatred of others.
It is a devistating disease that eventually leaves those infected by it with a complete inability to interract in social situations without being perceived as total flaming assholes.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta recently issued an “Infection Hazard Warning” identifying Sean Hannity and John Gibson as known carriers of the ACS gene.
Other famous ACS carriers are said to include Brian Killmeade, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham and Melanie Morgan.
In the same release, CDC also noted that it is currently estimated that an astounding 96% of FAUXNews viewers may already be infected with ACS.
There is hope, though…..Preliminary tests show immediate improvement can be achieved through complete isolation from AM and Cable radiation, and repeated sessions of exposure to truth.
ACS…It can be cured in our lifetime.
stogie cannot seriously suggest that one read either malkin or coulter for examples of hate speech from the left.
both have been proven to be time and again inveterate liars who frequently use hyperbole to make inane points.
i believe that mike did acknowledge incidents of hate speech do occur, so the point is moot.
what is even more amazing is that stogie is not the least bit phased by a replacement host using the same rhetoric, and indeed finds it funny.
and this ladies and gentlemen is what we are up against…the remaining 30 percent of the population who thinks that george bush can do no wrong, that the war in iraq is going swimingly, and calls for someone to poison a supreme court justice is the height of comedic brilliance.
oh, for an example of a conservatve comedian, check out the doc on hbo called “friends of god” by ALEXANDRA PELOSI (the speakers daughter). towards the end she shows a conservative comic, who has blatently stolen his cadence from the late bill hicks, but then totally misses the point, as he tells one weak joke about jesus walking on water, then goes on a tear about how christians are persecuted and how he cant get a sitcom (which he alledges is due to his being conservative and i know is due to his having absolutely no talent.)
Hey Mike,
The one big question I have regarding this debate is why not bring up the simple and relevant point that Spocko is/was informing advertisers of the content of the shows they were advertising on? This, to me, diffuses the wingnut argument that Spocko was somehow affecting KSFO’s right to free speech. My understanding, from reading the spockosbrain blog, among others, is that many of the advertisers were blissfully unaware of exactly what their brand was being associated with - i.e., to wit - hate speech. When spocko’s actions are presented as simply informing advertisers and media buyers that the Disney-owned ABC station was not so family oriented as they might have assumed, and letting them choose whether or not to continue, sans further action from Spock and /or the left.
I watched your tv appearance, and have read all your blog posts, including both sides of the current debate, with the watchful eye hoping this point would be made. Please tell me, why not include this point with your other well-reasoned arguments?
Reading the comments over there, it seems that conservatives don’t understand that they/we collectively own the radio and broadcast TV bands that are leased by radio stations, nor do they understand how these were originally leased and have since then been renewed. I don’t know a lot about it, but I do know that makes them fundamentally different then cable or print mediums.
I also like how Kos is thrown out as some sort of bombthrower equivalent to Ann Coulter, I don’t remember him advocating rat poison at any point. I know he said that insensitive thing about the hired help in Iraq, and I feel bad for those individual families because they got screwed by their employers, but the fact is those companies are in the mercenary business and owe no alleigence to the U.S. outside of getting paid (and I would put money on the Blackwaters of the world being incorporated in Bermuda or the Cayman Islands, thus they are foriegn entities).
Michael Moore always seems to come off as rather more polite than a Melanie Moore as well.
A minor point clarifying Fairness Doctrine.
Satellite radio and TV do, in fact, use public radio spectrum. The satellite frequencies used in the United States are negotiated by the State Department internationally. All satellites are licensed to use the spectrum by the FCC, in accordance with international agreements.
Satellite radio and TV should be subject to the same Fairness Doctrine rules as terrestrial broadcasters. In fact, it could be argued that satellite services should be more regulated since they use national radio spectrum assets licensed on an exclusive, non-interferring basis. Whereas, terrestrial broadcast licenses have a limited local range of coverage and the licensed radio spectrum can be re-used by another licensee outside the coverage area.
More detail on the history of the Fairness Doctrine can be found at:
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm
“FAIRNESS DOCTRINE
U.S. Broadcasting Policy
The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the “Fairness Doctrine” is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were “public trustees,” and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.
This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.”
Michael J. West
…I must say that I thought Noel Sheppard held his own. I can’t accuse him of not supporting his arguments well.
I can. After reading through Mr. Sheppard’s responses, I couldn’t find anything that counters or even directly addresses Mr. Stark’s questions. Sheppard’s responses mainly consisted of diversionary, tangential topics that provided no foundation for any points he attempted to counter (the term “muddying the waters” came to mind).
And when going to Mr. Sheppard’s site, I couldn’t help but notice all of the juvenile pictures that he felt compelled to include with his responses. Are his readers unable to follow his line of thought without some sort of illustrated guide? Or did he feel that his arguments would somehow be strengthened by including pictures like the Hillary behind bars cartoon?
I do applaud your efforts in providing a civil discourse on this topic. I hope that more will make similar efforts in the future to present clarity of thought without resorting to lowest common denominator.
I just want to clarify a few issues under discussion if I may.
Everybody is throwing around the “right” of “free speech”. The First Amendment is a prohibition on the GOVERNMENT from censoring what you say.
Now, despite this very clear prohibition, the government has, over the years decided it CAN censor things like “dirty” words and “obscene” content. It has also decided (rightly so) that commercial entities, not being “people” don’t have a right to “free speech”, if that involves making false claims about a product or service.
KFSO is a corporate entity which is LICENSED by the GOVERNMENT, and in accordance with that license, has many obligations and responsibilities that the private citizen does not. Failure to comply with those obligations can result in their speech being curtailed or CANCELED outright.
Spocko is a citizen, and only has requirements within the context of libel.
Spocko has voiced his criticism of KFSO and sought to inform KFSO’s sponsors of that criticism. Some of these sponsors, upon review of the criticism, have chosen to withdraw sponsorship of KFSO programs. This was a voluntary decision upon their part, not in anyway compelled by the GOVERNMENT. These sponsors would certainly have an ethical obligation to confirm the substance of any claims from Spocko, but that is not a legal obligation.
The important point here is that KFSO’s First Amendment rights have NOT been violated. It is wrong to claim that their RIGHTS have in anyway been infringed, since the GOVERNMENT did not come in and tell there sponsor to stop sponsoring KFSO programming.
KFSO may, if it feels it has been libeled, file suit against Spocko for his actions. They may also seek a court order to silence Spocko, providing, of course, that they can convince a judge that Spocko’s actions are in fact libelous. This would have the effect of curtailing Spocko’s First Amendment right, and would be germane to a discussion of the First Amendment since it would be the GOVERNMENT (i.e. the judiciary branch) doing the censoring.
The issue as to whether the curtailment of Spocko’s rights was legal and appropriate would be decided by a judge and/or jury by “due process”.
However, this is NOT what KFSO did. What they did was claim that their copyright had been infringed, then used a government law (the DMCA), to abridge Spocko’s First Amendment right to free speech. Since they are using a GOVERNMENT law, they are acting as the GOVERNMENT by proxy. This power has been granted WITHOUT judicial review, which is why the DMCA is a very BAD law. Imagine if someone could go to your employer, or your church, or your gym, accuse you of violating a law, and have that NON-GOVERNMENT entity curtail your freedom in some way.
The only trouble is that the basis for their claim under the DMCA, was false. Spocko’s use of their audio clips was CLEARLY “fair use” under the Copyright Act. He was criticizing KFSO’s conduct on public airwaves, licensed by the GOVERNMENT on Spocko’s (and all citizens) behalf.
This is the same thing as swearing out a false complaint against someone, and getting them arrested.
While the DMCA does have a provision that such complaints are sworn out under penalty of perjury, DMCA also says you only need a “good faith belief” that the material is infringing to file a complaint. As such, it is a toothless provision. Lawyers will always be assumed to act in good faith, especially when they don’t.
KFSO could have filed an action against Spocko for libel, which it would have been within its rights to do. It could have also asked the court for injunctive relief during the time before the issue was decided by the court, to abridge Spocko’s rights. If they could persuade the judge that they were likely to prevail in the case, the judge would have granted the injunction. Thus, Spocko’s First Amendment right would then have abridged after due process of the law.
The trouble was, KFSO was highly unlikely to prevail in such a suit, which is why they did not follow that route. Instead, they claimed copyright infringement and used a law that did not require them to go before a judge and prove their case. Instead they abridged Spocko’s First Amendment rights WITHOUT due process, on a bogus claim that would NOT stand up in court. They have done this on the presumption that Spocko will not have the financial resources to fight the issue, and/or countersue KFSO for abusing the law to deprive him of his constitutional rights.
Unfortunately for KFSO, this may not turn out to be true.
I hope this helps clarify the issue under discussion.
And no, I am NOT a lawyer, but I have seen one played on TV. Other than that, I am a publisher with a vested interest with understanding how these laws apply to my personal welfare.
Observer makes the most valid and oddly overlooked point that Spocko merely advised the advertisers of the content of KFSO.
Rather than meet the facts head on and discuss with its advertisers the purpose of its content, KFSO launched a personal attack on Spocko.
Neo-Con (ie: New-Lie) spokespersons forever attempt to raise straw-man attacks in order to distract critics from the salient issue, ie: their own hypocrisy. Thus the specious introduction of the “fairness doctrine” complaint, as if KFSO was being prevented from free speech by being held to account for the speech it actually made. Added to this the utterly hilarious assertion of distorted context, as if ad hominem attacks could somehow be excused as satire. Should we also understand that KFSO is actually a liberal outlet that is only satirizing the mindset of neo-con rednecks?
There is almost nothing in Noel Sheppard’s questions or answers that is worthy of comment. It is all fabrication.
The only question is whether or not he knows that he is attempting sophistry or that he has actually lost so much of his ability to reason that he really thinks he is making sense.
pbh
In response to Observer — In talking with several right-wing co-workers regarding the aspect of the issue you mention, I’ve found that they have literally taken to heart the concept that “free speech = money or profit”.
Therefor, by Spocko telling KSFO’s advertisers about the station’s content problems and the advertisers subsequently pulling their ads from the station, they believe Spocko was in effect depriving the station of money, which could eventually force them to change their broadcasts’ content in order to regain monetary losses or force them off the air if they keep losing ad revenue because they refuse to change.
This logic leads many right-wingers to believe that their First Amendments rights have been violated any time the TRUTH deters them from practicing capitalism and making a profit.
Anyway, that’s just my 2 cents worth, which is worth about 150 words at the going rate. — Coach Hed
I am not aware that Michael Moore or Al Franken, or any of the other leftie critics put forth by Michael, have recommended murdering public servants or physically assaulting those they disagree with, as Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin have. I believe that was Noel’s point, that lefties who would make such recommendations or attempt to incite violence, are rightfully marginalized.
Please, anyone here correct me if I’m wrong with some public statements from these guys recommending, for instance, that a conservative Supreme Court Justice be poisoned. I would be very interested to know if they have and would work to marginalize them myself, if it were true.
Stogie,
The use of liars to make your point is typically regarded as a rather poor way of making a point. Coulter tells no truth. Malkin as well. Likewise your post makes no sense because you’re making suppositions of what people you don’t know would say about a particular subject. You are projecting. You are practicing the delusion that says “I’ll ust bet you guys would chime in and slander this poor woman on the radio because that’s how we tar you so that must be how you guys act.”
Seriously, get outside and do something with yourself.
The problem with right-wing talk is it’s always advocating action that is outside accepted law. These things are said without regard to the even more right-wing idiots that are just crazy enough to take them up. The right-wing has been harping for over a century about liberals and how they destroy everything, yet it’s the republican party we have to thank for the major screwups and the marks on our credibility.
Yet no matter what happens it always seems to be the liberals’ fault with you guys. If I fault liberals in the US for anything, it’s that they’ve let the slander continue unabated for too long. You guys give only lip service to responsibility and accountability, and then do the opposite, and then blame everyone else for the failures in your policy. Only a blind fool blames liberals for the failure in Iraq when it was wholly a republican effort from day 1.
People like you convinced me the republicans are wrong.
Sorry, but I fail to see the “satire” in “call Allah a Wh*re”. Maybe I just have a crap sense of humour.
Good idea, Mike, but not really practical with wingnuts.
I do think that Noel has left himself wide open on both the use of and growing popularity of eliminationism on the right. Further, one can certainly argue that ABC/Disney is being a bad corporate citizen, even if people practice bad corporate citizenery every day.
Would Noel committ an immoral act just because another wingnut did? That’s the sum total of his argument regarding Disney’s abuse of their legal department: other lawyers do it, so Mike, as a future attorney, should not be able to criticize it. A beautiful piece of right-wing circular reasoning that totally dodges the question.
Mike,
I thought this debate was a great idea with an honorable objective. After reading both sides questions and answers, It can only be conclude that Noel Sheppard had no intention of honoring his side of the agreement.
Sheppard used more space employing the arguement; “the left does it too. . .” than actually answering questions. Anyone who uses the phrases; “homocide bombers, DemoCRAT Party,” etc., are incapable of honest debate. It is obvious that Sheppard believes you are wrong on every issue, while conceding virtually nothing.
Although your goal was honorable, it’s a waste to engage in a debate with someone who’s rhetoric can not stand on it’s own merits. Such a person only spins the facts, changes the arguement to one he/she can win, sets up straw men, or employs the ‘Two wrongs make a right’ method of debate.
If I were a Conservative, I would speak out against the likes of Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, and Morgan. I wouldn’t want my views to be associated with this type of speech. It would appear that their listeners either enjoy it or think nothing is wrong with it. Perhaps they don’t know any better.
Rick
asking a caller to call allah a whore, is indeed satire
it is either that or amazing stupidity
allah is the arabic word for god
sussman was therefore himself calling god a whore
now that is fookin funny
Yo Mike,
Pete has cut to the heart of this attempt to reason with some on the right:
“There is almost nothing in Noel Sheppard’s questions or answers that is worthy of comment. It is all fabrication.
The only question is whether or not he knows that he is attempting sophistry or that he has actually lost so much of his ability to reason that he really thinks he is making sense.”
I think the people on the right, especially the most vicious advocates of all things “conservative”, have psychological, ehtical and spiritual defects which prevent them from ever thinking the members of their “cult” could possibly do anything wrong. If any citizen thinks anyone in their cult is wrong, the members jump in, to gang up and beat you into submission. Their hate for any democratic reply to any of the crimes of their leaders is cataloged every day on dozens of websites and TV channels. At times they even admit that the enemy is not terrorists, it other americans, you know, LIBERALS.
For instance the free republican “freeper” creeps that invade liberal websites and post childish insults every time the truth about their cult is exposed by another fellow american.They are just like bullies in my neighborhood, who only ruled when three or four of them could beat a kid half their age into tears. When caught alone, they wet their pants and ran home.
This is the outcry you hear from KFSO and Newsbusters. The Bully, beaten and now crying “I’m the victim”, standing in a puddle of humiliation. At that point, they insist that there’s something YOU need to understand. Their failures at intimidation and mob rule are not the reason for failure, it’s because everyone else on the planet doesn’t understand. This is the standard response on almost every front, including in Noel’s silly responses and amatuerish questions. The frames one has to accept, always try to stipulate his bias and demonization, as if parts of his point are understood and acknowledged by all, when in fact the opposite is true. It becomes almost impossible to have a low key, respectful dialog, when one side believes that every contrary point made is wrong because conservatives are superior, and you don’t understand.
I give you credit for trying. You are a bettert man than I, for I lost patience trying to reason with the unreasonable years ago.
Can you imagine what would happen if Al Franken told a caller to say “Call Jesus a fag!”…yikes.
Hey Mike,
Though I applaud your motives and your ethical stand, I wonder if it’s even possible to convince some folks on the right that there is more out there to learn. They would help themselves and the families that must endure their obsession, if they could be open-minded. This is a term never used by the fear-and-hate-cult industry members, like ABC and KSFO, who take advantage of the ignorance and fear. Remember that there are still 25% in the country who still worship the conservative PARTY, not the conservative values. The hate industry plays the self-delusional like a bunch of fools, and the fools thank them for it.
Can you really open up a reasonable conversation with anyone who chooses ignorance over information, party over country, old testament punishment over new testament love and kindness? Even as they choose delusion over reality, the self-delusional on the right always ask “whose reality?”, like it’s multiple choice.
What is it that makes some humans more vulnerable to self-delusion? Is it chemical, like some forms of mental ilness, or is it enviromental, like growing up in a christianist/militia/anti-government, whites-only cult town?
That parts of the rapture-right are delusional, is not in dispute. When a person or segment of society rejects all offers of help or recovery from their illness, without fail, the self-delusional will fight them to the death. It’s similar to the alchoholic drowning in a vat of beer. They fight with determination to be protected from the help or cure of their illness. People CHOOSE to be foaming at the mouth, choose to be vicious, hateful, and ignorant. (”I only watch FOX news or KSFO ” is typical of many of the self-delusional.)
This is an acitve choice, to be ill-informed, yet usually very loud and opinionated. Noel and Newsbusters feed into that illness, and even seem, as many in the cult, to be victims of their own chosen ignorance. Whether we can show these unfortunate souls the light, and rehab the ill among them is possible, but not probable. Just as some criminals are so hardened that rehab is not possible, so it is true of some “republicants”. Sad, but true.
Also, a white “poisonous powder” was found in Florida courtroom last week, another domestic terrorism case which is not terrorism, cause the intended victims are liberal, and the perps probably conservative. In America, it’s only terrorism if the perp is not white, or conservative, or christian. It’s only illegal if a liberal does it.
If you doubt this, just ask yourself what would happen if Gore, Kerry, Hilliary or Obama comitted any of the many war crimes, domestic spying, or treasonous leaking of CIA assets comitted and defended by the conservatives? Newsbusters and FOX and KSFO would be calling for criminal prosecution at the least, and for execution during their “comedy/satire segments.
Homeland Security officially designated Animal Rights and Enviromental activists are terrorists, but the abortion clinic bombers, judge murderers, KKK and Christian Identity soldiers are not. Conservative crime, no matter how radical, is below the radar.
This is sadly the situation we are in. Good luck trying to win over conservatives with reason and logic.
You can try to teach a zebra to be an eagle, but the lack of wings will determine the outcome, not well-intentioned flight lessons.
“There is a fundamental lack of dishonesty in politics.”
Don’t you mean HONESTY?
.
I haven’t seen this point brought up by anyone else.. (I’ll work to the point, give me a minute of buildup)
I’m probably considered fairly liberal but I don’t disagree with many supposed core ‘republican values’. My problem with Republicans and real conservatives is that I’ve never met one, not a real one. I can’t recall ever talking to anyone on ‘the right’ who wasn’t, in some way, tragically flawed and usually a raging hypocrit.
-Fiscal Conservatives are never fiscally conservative but they’re always greedy. It’s always about THEIR money not yours..
-Social Conservaties are all about forcing their ‘morals’ on others and they don’t give two craps about freedom. God forbid you resist though.. resistance immediately becomes an attack on them.
-The rest are flim-flam men and women.
On to my point:
Another lie from supposed Conservatives is the purported love of the free market.
I, a liberal, am a strong supporter of the free market. I am an unabashed supporter of the free market until the point where the pendulum swings to monopoly and the ony higher power (our government) has to step in to smack them down. This is required for the health of the market as a whole even if it destroys that one monopoly. It’s the economic circle of life, if one organism grows too dominant, it destroys everything around it and it needs to be put down. Only when balance is restored do we see innovation and growth of and in the market.
What Spocko did was in no way a suppression of Free Speech for a variety of reasons. It was, however, the free market at its finest. If KSFO were completely innocent, the market would have supported them. If there was no merit in SPOCKO’s claims, his complaints would have been dismissed as the rantings of a crank. The fact that prominent corporations dropped support of KSFO after they were informed of KSFO’s rhetoric is proof beyond a doubt that they are not marketable. If their speech was not contemptable to the average person the advertisers would have stuck with them. If SPOCKO’s claims were actually without merit, KSFO would regain their advertisers after clearing up the issues or, more likely, they would have never lost advertising revenue because KSFO would have cleared this up as soon as the advertisers contacted them about pulling advertising.
Here is my real bottom line to the Right Wing.
If you love the free market, you must support SPOCKO’s actions. SPOCKO only brought KSFO’s product to the attention of their customers (customers in the sense that Radio Stations are financially supported by Ad revenue in much the same way stores are supported by buyers). It is, ultimately, the advertisers who ‘buy’ what the Radio Station produces. The loyal listeners are simply the commodity that the Advertisers are buying.
SPOCKO pointed out what they were spending their money on. If the product was good, the advertisers would have stayed. The product was bad, the customers moved to another product. (I should note, the real product is more complex; the real product is the listening audence (numbers and quality and relevance to the advertisers market) and the programming content (specifically how it reflects on the clients who purchase that advertising time)
KSFO had a product
SPOCKO dusted off the label on the product
The shopper moved on
.. Did I mention How much I love the free market?
Save yourselves the trouble of digging up the Fairness Doctrine: it died, and that is good!
Instead, look at something such as MORA (Media Ownership Reform Act) as a solution to the Corporate Media Oligopoly: limit the reach of the Corporations, as once we did, perhaps to no more than 30% of the nation (a network might reach more, but only through affiliates under different ownership). Limit loopholes by looking to alternative media as well - perhaps only one additional outlet in a TV market, either a radio station or a newspaper.
That reduces the kernal of the problem, for as noted, the Right and Corporations are natural allies - now, somewhat neutered natural allies. Moreover, simply forcing the disposal of excess stations and/or print media opens up the opportunity for broader access, removing the stranglehold even on local news items that otherwise is inflicted in (say) Sinclair areas.
MORA! MORA! MORA!
ffakr,
the real conservative movement died with goldwater
From Noel Sheppard’s response to Mike’s second question:
Frankly, I don’t believe that ABC/Disney’s attorneys had a leg to stand on with their cease and desist demand to Spocko’s ISP. In fact, I think 1&1 Internet, Inc. foolishly caved into a complaint letter that likely had no legal basis, and could easily have been disputed.
With that in mind, your real beef should be with 1&1 Internet, and not with ABC/Disney. After all, as someone in law school, you should be quite cognizant of the fact that lawyers send individuals, companies, and government entities such letters all the time, many without legal grounds.
I seriously doubt any of the attorneys for ABC/Disney felt they had a leg to stand on in their cease and desist order. That wasn’t the point–this was intimidation pure and simple.
If the ISP chose to fight the C&D order, they faced the prospect of a protracted and expensive legal battle against ABC/Disney–one of the largest and most powerful media conglomerates in the world.
Hi Mike,
I thought you would like to see the wonderful e-mail from In and Out Burger I received in regards to my complaint a bought KSFO radio.
I guess people calling up the advertisers to express there displeasure really works.
1/15/07
Dear Angelo:
Thank you for taking the time to call us today to let us know about the negative statements you heard on KSFO Radio in San Francisco.
I just learned that my Supervisor cancelled this station last week, but apparently her request was not yet implemented. We are pulling our advertising from this station and will remind our Agency to follow up immediately.
We appreciated your feedback, and sincerely apologize for this incident.
Thank you again for bringing this matter to our attention.
Kind regards,
Phyllis Cudworth
In-N-Out Burger
Marketing Department
949-509-xxxx Phone
949-854-xxxx Fax
I think I’ll go there for lunch today.
The problem with this is that he still doesn’t satisfy Stark’s questions. I’m not taking this out of context as it’s clearly quoted above. Again he confuses the logic. ‘Winning the hearts and minds’ referring to the enemy is exactly what right wing talk radio is trying to do. Who is the enemy to the right wing? The Left? Progressives? Anyone who doesn’t agree to tow the party line?
In the second part of that question you asked if it is “wise for the nation’s political leaders to legitmize this kind of rhetoric.” He obviously missed the key point of this question by explaining that leaders do not take their cues from from right wing talking heads. No one said that they do. Instead what the leaders do is legitimize the right wing talking heads by being “invited” onto their shows and then giving their talking points which then gets regurgitated over and over again. Yes it sounds like I’m saying that all they do is repeat administration talking points and they do to some extent. In reality they repeat Party talking points. The party doesn’t always agree with the administration as he so curtly points out. But that also happens on the left as well. Did Al Franken agree with Joe Lieberman’s strategy to stab the primary voters in the back and run as an Independant with the support of the GOP? Nope. Do most left leaning bloggers support Hillary Clinton? Nope. Barack Obama? Nope. And so on.
Stark didn’t mention anything in those questions about the Bush administration either. He instead spins your question to narrow it down to the Bush admin instead of keeping the realm of the answer broad which could include anything from Nancy Pelosi speaking on “The Daily Show,” Harry Reid on the “Al Franken Show,” Sam Brown back on the “Sean Hannity Show,” or President Bush on “The Radio Factor.” The question was not whether or not the Bush administration takes its cues from talk radio, but rather if it was wise for political leaders to confirm the viewpoints of the talk radio hosts.
In my opinion Sheppard owes Stark at least an honest real answer to his questions and not just stuttering and stammering around them. Note all of the attacks on Stark’s credibility and ability to become a lawyer. Way to maintain civil discourse.
Stark 5, Sheppard 0.
IN FRANCE, HE IS REGARDED AS BUSHIT. FRANCE HAS NOT LOST ONE FRENCHMAN IN BUSHIT’S WAR. FRANCE IS RIGHT IN BOTH CASES.MORE WINE! THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
Bison. regarding In and Out Burgers, THAT IS GREAT!
Could you please forward the email to me with as much info about In and Out Burger in it as possible? You can remove your personal info. I want to verify it and then post on Spocko’s Brain www.spockosbrain.com
Send the email to me at spockosemail at gmail .com
Thanks,
LLAP
Spocko
Sent it Spocko
Keep up the good work Spocko.
Mike,you did a yeoman’s service. I don’t think it will sink through though. Dollars are what drive these assholes,not truth.
Frankly,I’m auprised they have the audacity to claim ‘free speech’ issue whilst clamping on Spock.
But it’s typical of the neocon mindset,IMO. Stick a knife in your enemies back and pretend he spit in their eye. Constantly the victims.
“Well, I obviously wasn’t a General in Baghdad and had nothing to do with war plans, so I can’t really speak to the issues they faced.”
He’s got you there Mike.
Obviously,I wasn’t Queen Victoria during the Crimean War which was notable only in that it provided evidence of military incompetence and the material for the poem “The Charge of the Light Brigade”, by Alfred Tennyson.
So I can’t comment on the slaughter and incompetence that characterized that
particular misadventure.