SALZMAN: KOA needs a Rush counterbalance

News-time commentary raises fairness issue

By Jason Salzman, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published August 1, 2008 at 8 p.m.

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Comments

August 1, 2008

8:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

WestminsterJ writes:

>her response: "I would consider a short-form commentary if the quality was comparable to what Rush and Paul Harvey provide."

That tears it. There's no one on the Left that bad.
August 1, 2008

11:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

fatheromalley writes:

It was called "Air America 760Am and it went in the tank.. tell me again why KOA should purposely produce a show to lose money?

What of advertising losses because they have someone on their like you to displace a profitable show. Aren't you doing enough decreasing the bottom line of the Rocky? Just because John Templeton is joined at your hip? Doesn't your conscience bother you that your veiws, your writing, your ideology put Air America in the tank..

Then other than KOA the listener has spanish radio, all the FM stations, all the other AM stations, they still have 760 limping along. The American listener (customers that respond to advertising) has ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS, HBO and all of Hollywood the get YOUR message out, but KOA has to lose money for you to be satisfied... How many Americans, viewers and listeners alike is that?

Just the major networks alone have 25 million viewers. That doesn't include NPA, PBS, HBO and Hollywood.. Fox News has about 2.5 million -3.5 million if they are very lucky... and still it is UNFAIR to little "poo-poo"..

Pack up your bags, or go to www.fatheromalley.com and treat yourself to some truly progessive ideas for your next column.... and for god sakes put things in a larger perspective socialist! You might graduate from being one of Lenin's "useful idiots"..

You can also try
www.votesmart.org
www.jihadwatch.org
www.numbersusa.org
www.fatheromalley.com watch the videos and maybe some perspective will come.. who knows. eh?

Now for me scotch.. 15 year single malt.. ah there she is...

Love to you
Father O'Malley...

Just because I ball you out doesn't mean I don't love you..

Have a scotch!
August 2, 2008

3:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

mrfxx writes:

her response: "I would consider a short-form commentary if the quality was comparable to what Rush and Paul Harvey provide."

Putting Paul Harvey - who is doing (if you will) "fluff" like "the rest of the story" - in the same sentence with Rush - shows just how far to the right the program director is. Harvey's commentary is sometimes intriguing, at least semi-interesting - and NEVER hate-filled bile.

As far as the Salzman's whine that "I don't mean to say that Colorado's Morning News, airing from 5 a.m. to 9 a.m., is radio journalism at its finest. It's overly chatty, with lots of weather, soft news, and sports, sports, sports." GUESS WHAT - it started as a sports station - and I am fairly willing to bet that most of us only turn 850 on during the drive in to check the local news, weather and SPORTS! We listen to Dave (or whoever is filling in for him when his coaching job conflicts) and Lois on the drive home for the same reason.

The drive time shows tend to be moderate - if 850 turns it into an increasing slice of Rush (I can ignore a minute of his bile), I'll only listen when the station is broadcasting a game I want to listen to - and suspect I won't be the same person changing stations.
August 2, 2008

5:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

roger44 writes:

When rush comes on I change the station or turn the radio off.
August 2, 2008

5:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mike846 writes:

Another plaintive cry for "fairness" from the Left of center, who are about the least "fair" on any topic you could find. The regularly savage anyone that doesn't hew to the politically-correct views and language that they espouse, silence dissent with cries of "racist", "sexist" or "xenophobe" because they have no logical arguments in many discussions. "Useful idiots" indeed. What they don't understand is that come the Revolution, they will be the first ones sent to the cattle cars. When you hunt others on the other side to begin with, sooner or later you hunt your own. Ask Trotsky or Rhoem. Mike
August 2, 2008

6:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Oh_Wise_One writes:

Jason- So you want to balance a one minute commentary? I want to balance Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, Williams and the rest of the biased national news. When that happens or when hell freezes over, you can have your I presume 'free' minute.
You're the buggy whip maker Jason, find a real job.
August 2, 2008

7:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

Most of the news breaks on KOA are left of center.
August 2, 2008

7:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

NPR and PBS are 90% left of center. Democracy now. That is not truth or objective. Frontilne, come on.

AM radio has finally found it's niche, serving the conservative, free market, limited government folks and the lefts pantys are all twisted up in a knot.

Salzman, get some finacial backing (private sector) and start you a radio show.
August 2, 2008

8:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Gonzopozo writes:

The one minute of Rush is good - you can hear his same tired old whining then and switch to something interesting for the rest of the day.

Caldera is still around? I thought he left town with Holtzman after they single-handedly got Ritter elected.
August 2, 2008

8:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Lemmingsfollowidiots writes:

Once again the lefties want a free lunch. As if it is not enough to have all the major newspapers, broadcast news and courts on their side they want to take away what little conservative programs there are.

Why is the left so afraid to let the conservative voice be heard? Air America proved you can't force people to listen to hate spewed 24/7.

A lefty has no clue of what humor is and how tongue and cheek Rush's comments are at times. Stop thinking everything is about you and laugh every now and then at your self. You might find life is much better than you think it is. Why allow yourself to empower someone else to make you feel good or bad? Take responsibility for your actions, find the proper solutions and enjoy life for once.

For thinking so high and mighty about yourself and allowing other to chid you to the point of anger only shows how insecure you are. Find God and find faith, that is when you'll realize others can't offend you with simple words.

Stop empowering others to Offend you! A good conversation has Two sides. Let the conservatives have their little 10% piece of the broadcast pie while you enjoy the 90% that is left of center.
August 2, 2008

8:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Darwin writes:

Salzman, others have said it well regarding the majority of print media and TV. I will wait with "baited breath" for you to make the argument that PBS (large public funding), ABC, CBS, NBC, etc., L.A. Times, New York Times, Denver Post, etc. should give equal time to the conservative point on issues. I don't listen to KOA, but now I might give it a try. You will whine until the left controls ALL media, than will whine that it is not left enough. While I think that as a whole, the Republican party is not much different than the Democrat party when it comes to lack of ethics, pettiness, and self-service (if am registered as unaffiliated), it is interesting that the Democratic party wants to change the "Fairness Doctrine" since it is not serving THEIR best interest.
Though I doubt that I will ever see it, I can still hope that someday there will be a viable third party as both current parties stink. "By the people, for the people" - NOT
August 2, 2008

9:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

blacksho89 writes:

Froward69: I might be more inclined to accept your opinion as educated and balanced, if:
1) you curtaileD your Use of Random Capitals;
2) You proofread your posts for fragments prior to posting;
and 3) You actually researched what you were saying.

Alan Berg was murdered, not by men of conservative thought, but by totalitarian fascists. These "men" believed, much like Charles Manson, that they were firing the opening shots in a race-based revolution that would leave them in positions of power.

In the words of Ken Hamblin, "They only succeeded in killing one old Jew."

I offer the following observation: Froward and Limbaugh have more in common than not. They each have an overinflated sense of self importance, combined with a view that denies any other side to reality than that on which they have already decided.
August 2, 2008

9:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

blacksho89 writes:

Oddly, I find myself defending Jason in this dust-up. I disagree vehemently with the idea that private parties, like KOA, should be forced to offer views in opposition to their own.
However, Jason makes a compelling point that KOA should do this this, in this one instance, as a matter of pride! Kris Olinger, in her response, does not appear to disagree.
August 2, 2008

9:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

bxwatso writes:

NPR is the biggest radio network in the country, reaching nearly every citizen. Their moderate left, big government bias is indisputable. I doubt that there is hardly ever a place or time when Rush is on the air that NPR isn't a push button away, so what is the problem?

Does Salzman think people are so helpless that they can't find the dial? Does he think people are forced to listen to Rush by some evil mind control?

No, he thinks that people that disagree with him are stupid and must be forcefully educated to agree with him. Typical left wing arrogance. Nancy Peolsi want's to pass a law requiring fairness (which means the end of talk radio). This is what CO really got when it sent Democrats to Washington 2 years ago.
August 2, 2008

9:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

elmstreet239 writes:

KOA doesn't "NEED" anything. If you don't like the commentators, turn the channel. It's called free market.

Isn't this the problem with the proposed fair broadcasting requirements? It takes media out of free market and makes it "fair". America isn't based on "fair" market principles, they're "free" market principles. Figure it out.

There is another channel, right up the dial that is nothing but equally crazy liberals, try listening to 760am if you don't want to hear Rush. That channel is the anit-Rush. When the free market can support more channels like 760, there will be more channels like 760.
August 2, 2008

9:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

mombo writes:

Rush does not need "balance". His comments are purely entertainment. He is a comedian, a bozo. He has created a wildly successful empire based on humerous commentary which is entirely devoid of thought or purpose. Let him sit on the pedestal he created and carry on with his schtick.
August 2, 2008

9:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

fntsymtn writes:

Why isn't Salzman pushing for equal time for Rush or Hannity on NPR? He and his kind (like Pelosi) are only begging for balance in places where leftist commentary and programming has proven to fail. As soon as Salzman and Pelosi start pushing for "equal" time for people like Bill O'Reily on broadcast (not cable) networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS) then I'll believe that they are interested in fairness or balance.
August 2, 2008

9:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

Hey Salzman-

AM 760 is all liberal talk all the time.

Where are your cries for equal time for conservatives on that station, or as have others pointed out, on the taxpayer funded lefty NPR?

I would like to hear your explanation as to why they aren't included in your equal time argument.
August 2, 2008

9:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

fcs25 writes:

There is a reason that a counter-remark to Rush has never aired on TV or Radio for the past 20 yrs of his show,he speaks the truth and the liberal left wing dead heads can not respond without using emotional hype and spin.Ex: Bill Clinton;Whenever you corner him on any issue he turns red and begins shouting like a lunatic.Why?He has no valid argument to counter with so he gets mad and uses emotions to make his point instead of facts and reality,a typical democrat.
August 2, 2008

11:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Rol1968 writes:

Amen to Joel Salzman’s RMN column on Rush Limbaugh. This is so overdue. Rush’s approach is at the core of why we can’t get good leaders. Character assassination built in parsing misinterpretation, twist and shout about the ideas that come from aspirants should they be of the wrong party. In his case he’s gone drunk on power. Rush is for people who can’t take time to evaluate issues and need someone to give them a simple emotionally satisfying beat-the-bad guys approach. The only problem is that Rush is in business to make money. He’s become filthy rich by not informing but instead fermenting emotional bias based on bending facts and sincerely spouting half truths while he beats on his table. The real pity is that the nation is now in deep trouble because of so-called conservative values and ideologies. Instead of stirring up simple minded hate why doesn’t he turn is attention to what we should be very upset about: failing education system, loss of engineering and science leadership, health care costs driving jobs out of the country and bankrupting people who happen to get really sick, a $2.5 trillion surplus that has been turned into a $7 trillion dollar deficit by the people he loves (or did) love, the menace of terrorism, our loss of respect and trust world-wide, and last but not least the misguided war that is crippling our ability to fix any of these problems.
Ed Shultz would be a good counterpoint because he makes more sense and even sounds like Rush which makes his counter points that much more interesting.
August 2, 2008

11:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Rol1968 writes:

And I forgot to mention I don’t just turn off KOA because of Rush, I never listen at all (except for Rockies games of course)due to their conservative bias. I can’t support their pandering to conservative Colorado for ad revenue. I’m all for the free market except when it comes to news. I guess that makes me a commie pinko Lenin loving open borders welfare coddling gun hating effete anti war hippie but so be it.
August 2, 2008

12:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

roland-

How do you know what Rush says on his program if you don't listen? You must just be interested in getting the skewed Media Matters talking points and carefully selected soundbites taken out of context, as evidenced in your post.

Hell, I even sat through Michael Moore's movies to get a first hand account so I could form my own opinion.

BTW, who is Joel Salzman?
August 2, 2008

12:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Landy47 writes:

Salzman

Open your eyes and ears. NPR...MSNBC...CNN all offer what you are seeking. the opposite to Rush. One station views a conservative bent and the libs come out in ddroves whining and whimpering about "unfair...unfair".

Hmmm Al franken is not sit-by-the-wayside purveyour of lib doctrine. He is your face, so stop whining. If you dont like Rush...turn the channel. there are plenty of other spots to feed your left-wing egos and diatribe.
August 2, 2008

12:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

ScottbArvada writes:

"Fairness" - wow, you scare me.

Between Obama wanting to decide how much profit companies can make, you deciding what can and can't be aired by a private broadcaster, and Pelosi deciding which House members can and can't speak on the floor and when, it's becoming more obvious that the real America is dying.

KOA is a commercial business, licensed to sell a product. There is no requirement for the content of their show besides decency and other limitations set out in their licensing agreement from the FCC. Does that include 'fairness?' Are they taking tax money and required to be an 'equal opportunity' broadcaster?

KOA chooses their product based on what they think sells, and that's it...your pollyannish view of 'journalism' (unbiased reporting of issues, facts and happenings) hasn't existed, EVER. Don't you know that?

Most of us learned that in college as freshmen. All reporting is biased by the personal position of the reporter and his/her employer. Most of us learn to read both sides and make informed decisions, and those who don't need to grow up.

For you to set up a straw-man of 'fairness' and then judge others by that standard shows your personal position...your naive 'we just want reporting to be unbiased' position is just a slick way of saying 'we want you to do it our way; we want our voice to be equal whether people want to hear it or not; our ideas are valid even if they don't work.'

God help us, that's socialism at it's core.

What is happening to America? What has happened to liberty and the right to say what we think even if someone thinks it's not 'progressive?' What's happened to the right to present an opinion, or sincerely hold a set of beliefs others don't agree with? Why is the left constantly pressing everyone to think, act, spend and do as they say?

If I wanted a balanced opinion I'd switch channels to one of the left-learning channels who play their rants continuously, or go listen to NPR.

In the meantime, please rethink your opinion. If you start telling people what's fair and not fair and pushing people to do as you say from your lofty perch in print, it's only a matter of time before you're the one getting told.

If you use your position to break down the basic structures of personal liberty in our country, there eventually won't be any, and you'll suffer as surely as the rest of us.
August 2, 2008

1:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

roland0524: an excellent description of just what Limbaugh does. Although many informed people, including those who self-identify as conservatives, understand him for the blow-hard he is, many others take him all too seriously. You can see it in the several angry, identify everything by its place on a left to right spectrum while denouncing Salzman and anyone else on "the other side" sort of replies here. If I didn't know better, I'd think it was a bunch of 14 year olds talking. Rush appeals to the low and juvenile in all of us.

As to Mr. Salzman's suggestion that KOA put a counterpoint, such as Jim Hightower on, well, that would just give us another one-sided, attack someone, political commercial, wouldn't it?

Let's not forget that KOA doesn't *own* the airwaves. The public does. They operate by license. So KOA has some obligation to the public, and not just to their bottom line. I wish we had more fair political commentary as some of the public radio stations (e.g., am 1340) have. It would support a democratic society, instead of of this large cadre (30 million?) of angry, hateful people who regularly listen to commercial talk radio and those who stir them to anger (Rush et al).
August 2, 2008

1:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Oh, to those who say "turn the dial" it bears mentioning that KOA, unlike most stations, can be heard at great distances. It's the last station I can pick up as I drive east and I can hear it almost all the way to the Nebraska border. When you get outside of Denver, the choice of radio stations drops off dramatically.
August 2, 2008

1:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Rbcc writes:

Excellent column. I had no idea that KOA was airing commentary by Limbaugh during its morning "news" show. Yet more evidence that we need to restore the Fairness Doctrine to take the public airwaves back from these radical extremists on the far right.
August 2, 2008

1:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

carlindenver writes:

Oh, pull the plug on KOA...Jason has been offended!! IF you are offended Jason, well simply call in on Mike Rosen's show and using all of your skill and reasoning ability show all KOA listeners how brilliant you are and how "neanderthal" KOA appears. PLEASE...PLEASE Jason just give Rosen a call. Think what a great service you would be giving all listeners of every faith and ploitical persuassion. Go Jason! Go!!
August 2, 2008

2:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Chacmool writes:

"The Fairness Doctrine" will also have to apply to the 3 network nightly newscast, the NY & LA Times, and on America's college campuses. Liberals have become intolerant of other view points and are every bit as close-minded as the far right lunies they condemn.
August 2, 2008

3:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

carlindenver writes:

Jason suggests (yes, yes Kommissar!) we need to listen to Jim Hightower. Jim Hightower is the self proclaimed "America's #1 Populist." If listening to KOA is painful JUST SIMPLY move your dial to AM 760. There you can blissfully listen to Jim Hightower, Jay Marvin, Randi Rhodes and rest of Air America. Jason you are an overpaid, petulant and chronic complainer. A near perfect fit in your Liberal politcal gang.
August 2, 2008

3:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Brain writes:

Salzman; 850 KOA’s morning show is not political and the drive home is not political. 760 KKZN has no such thing, all the shows all day long and into the night are political liberal/regressive shows. Someone mentioned Ed Schultz; he is on KKZN from 10am-1pm and then, if you like you can here the hateful regressive talk from Randy Rhodes from 1-4pm; these happen to be at the same time as Rush on KOA (noon-3). And don’t forget you can listen to Jay Marvin in the morning instead of having to hear 1 minute of Rush. Also KOA has this guy named John M that gives top of the hour news reports that are slanted left too, shouldn’t that balance out the 1 minute of Rush? And as father O’Malley pointed out there is still those other FM channels that you can listen to music on. Somehow you are forced to listen to the Morning Show, oh yeah, your paid to.
August 2, 2008

5:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

nobozons writes:

Salazman,

What do you propose that the MSM do to counteract their being in the tank for Obama. Limbaugh is small potatoes. Check out NBC, ABC, CBS and MSNBC. In keeping with your bias you will probably contend that the MSN has no bias. Give me the hemlock.
August 2, 2008

6:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Jim_in_Erie writes:

I fail to understand why, if the author is so bothered by KOA'S selections, he doesn't just change the station.
Which is precisely what everyone can do if they don't like what they hear.
It's what I do often to Rosen and Limbaugh when they go to far.
But I don't demand for a second that the business of radio seek to fill MY particular interests.
Then again, I don't demand that anyone but me work to satisfy my particular interests.
August 2, 2008

8 p.m.

Suggest removal

daRock writes:

Jason, Rush Limbaugh is a commercial product. The 3 hour program, the promos/ advertising for his daily show and yes, the one minute blip in the morning. It is a package that ClearChannel buys because they can sell that programming to advertisers and make money. They do NOT give that time away, just like they do NOT give Paul Harvey time away. It has nothing to do with political content in either case.

The same thing with their sports programming and support shows.

There is a simple solution, buy a 2 minute spot from KOA to run every week day near the Rush break.

Many left of center or even far left advertisers intentionally buy during the Rosen or Limbaugh show.

Problem solved.
August 2, 2008

8:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

daRock writes:

Another example would be to wonder why KOA has so much airtime, programs, commercials and promos for CU Football.

One could ask why CSU does not get a show like 'The Dan Hopkins Show". Once again, KOA bought a programming package that they bundle and re-sell. It is not about ClearChannel liking CU more than CSU and since there are CSU fans here KOA should give equal time.

They buy programming that appeals to the majority of their listners, sponsors, advertisers allowing them to maximize revenues from the sales of that time.

The goal of commercial radio stations is to sell advertising at the highest price they can while selling out their inventory. The programming between the commercials is what drive the value of the ads.

Call KYGO and tell them they play too much country and they should put in speed death-metal punk rock in the name of 'balance'. See how that works out for ya.
August 3, 2008

7:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

UglyDuck writes:

SALZMAN: Yet another driveling liberal who can't tolerate the success conservative talk radio is experiencing and the fact that all liberal talk shows are dismal failures. People of his ilk whine about "lack of balance" while failing to understand that conservative talk radio is so popular simply because it IS balance. So, here is some liberal advice. If you don't like what you hear, turn it off!
August 3, 2008

8:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

vudumom writes:

Where is the balance to Salzman's whining?
August 3, 2008

1:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Brain writes:

Dave Kopel is the "balance". daRock; its the Dan HAWKINS Show, but good points anyway.
August 3, 2008

1:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Alive writes:

If you can't win fair and square, change the rules. That move works well on the playground, but not so well in mean 'ol real world.

Here is the guarantee that comes with being born a human on earth:

"If you are smart and wary, you may not be eaten."

That's it, the whole thing. Good luck trying to change the laws of thermodynamics.
August 3, 2008

4:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

dragonfly writes:

Rush does a superb commentary with half his brain tied behind his back. Perhaps KOA can't a liberal with an entire brain to compete at Rush's level.
August 3, 2008

7:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

spiker77 writes:

Sean Rima at KOA radio says that all of us listeners should write to you and accuse you of being a girly-boy.

If you don't know what a girly-boy is, here are two videos for you to watch.

The first video is by a girly-boy who created the Leave Britney Alone http://tinyurl.com/2weh76 video that s/he posted to YouTube.

The second one is by someone who over dubbed it to make the Leave Barack Alone http://tinyurl.com/68yjow video.

Once girly-boy gets his sex change and is on 24/7/365 Prozac IV, s/he'll lower its carbon footprint, thus contributing to saving the world.
August 3, 2008

8:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Charles writes:

I suppose KOA could add a one-minute commentary by Salzman to balance Limbaugh, but then how would they get their audience back? I haven't seen Salzman offering Limbaugh half of his space on the Rocky's opinion page.
August 3, 2008

9:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

bobjohnson writes:

Lets see, seven of the last ten national elections were won by Republicans, yet over ninety percent of TV news people consider themselves Democrats, and a like number of college professors. Yet you get bent out of shape by the minute a day given to some blow hard.
August 3, 2008

10:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Castle writes:

The biggest problem to finding a counter point to Rush is finding a left liberial socialist commentater that has the audiance of Rush. No one wants to listen to the left. Even the left won't listen to the left, let alone support their few advertisrs. Except for NPR, and that's government subsidised, no left wing radio show can stay on the air for more then a month or so.
August 3, 2008

11:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Rbcc writes:

Castle wrote:

"Except for NPR, and that's government subsidised, no left wing radio show can stay on the air for more then a month or so."

Who says NPR is a "left wing" radio show? What is "left wing" about NPR? It's the most thorough, objective, and factual source of news and political news on the radio airwaves.

Does reality have a "liberal bias"?
August 4, 2008

9:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

NPR is left of center. To say that NPR only presents reallity is non-sense.

Economics is reality. Anytime you stand in the path of economics you are attempting to distort reality. NPR is constantly standing in the path of economics.

Funny thing is, economics just keeps marching forward with or without the statist. Sure economics gets distorted by market interference but it always marches forward even if slightly perverted by political interference.
August 4, 2008

10:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Salzman writes:

I want to be clear. KOA can air all-conservative commentary all the time, if it wants to. And mostly it does.

But during KOA's newscast, when it tries to be fair and accurate, it should air a left-leaning commentary if it's going to air a commentary by a right-leaning commentator like Rush Limbaugh.

That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that KOA needs to air an hour of Jim Hightower to balance every hour of Rush. Listeners can tune to AM760 for this.

But during the KOA's newscast, fairness and accuracy should carry the day, and this means airing a short commentary to balance Rush.
August 4, 2008

11:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

Here is a novel idea for Salzman and the other whiners to try...... it's called an On/Off button.

If they don't like hearing what KOA has determined the VAST MAJORITY want to hear, then don't listen to it.

It worked for Air America. Americans turned that clown show off and the outfit of hatemongers went bankrupt. It clings to life with donations from fatcats wanting to continue to fill the airwaves with what 99.9% of Americans reject, but it's their right to do so.

Just like it's KOA's right to reject the same leftist nonsense... since they know it alienates 99.9% of Americans.
August 4, 2008

noon

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

It's amazing to me the number of people who don't realize Limbaugh and his ilk (which includes Air America but not NPR) are pulling their nose. It's not even subtle. They just follow like sheep and repeat, I mean, bleat, whatever nonsensical argument they heard on talk radio that day--the same one they've been hearing for 20 days in a row. Mr. Salzman makes an appeal to fairness and what do we get. Baa! I hate anyone different than me or *on the other side* so watch me heap my scorn upon them. Baa!
August 4, 2008

1:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Gene, don't let your nose get out of joint.
August 4, 2008

4:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Rbcc writes:

Lowtaxes wrote:

"NPR is left of center. To say that NPR only presents reallity is non-sense."

Prove it. What is left of center about NPR's news programming. Where do they air a liberal commentary about anything? Simply because the factual events of the day don't jibe with your conservative worldview doesn't make reporting about them "biased". Perhaps it means you should consider modifying your worldview to accommodate reality.

Further, NPR reporters and anchors speak in a calm, reasoned manner that respects the intelligence of listeners. That is something you almost never get from opinion talk radio hosts.

"Economics is reality. Anytime you stand in the path of economics you are attempting to distort reality. NPR is constantly standing in the path of economics."

That is a hoot. Economics is "reality"? Wow -- that's a sad way to view the world if you really believe that. How is NPR "standing in the path of economics"? What does that even mean?

Let's see -- Limbaugh and his imitators basically are freeloading off of the public airwaves to get their message out. If they really believed in the free market, they would move over to satellite radio where their listeners could pay for the "privilege" of listening.

This is why the Fairness Doctrine is relevant. The American people own the AM and FM radio bands -- it's time that the FCC starting requiring stations to serve the public interest.
August 4, 2008

4:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

imPatrickBateman writes:

First of all, it sounds like Mr. Salzman has mistaken Rush Limbaugh's 1-minute commentary (which, to me sounds more like a commercial or promotion for his show than anything else) as actual news. Second, how would a business benefit by taking a crappy product that no one wants (liberal commentation) and a product that's booming with success (conservative commentation) and combine the two? I would think that by adding liberal commentation you risk alienating the target audience (over 14 million listeners nationwide: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07...). Oh yeah, liberals don't really care about business or the economy, only what's "fair" (in other words, anything that promotes liberal ideology). Speaking of which, does KOA advertise that their news adheres to the "standards of fairness and accuracy" anyway? I only listen to KOA once in a while but can't say I've heard them claim they do adhere to those standards.
If Mr. Salzman truly felt that the "basic journalistic standards of fairness and accuracy" were so important than I'm sure he (or the RMN) would have had someone with an opposing viewpoint write an article in response to this one. Then and only then would I have taken this article (and its author) seriously.
August 4, 2008

4:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

yaakovwatkins writes:

Rush talks about political details. He appeals to a very small group of people. His potential audience is the more knowledgeable of the conservative voters. If you eliminate the non-conservative, (you eliminate 60%), the non-voters (you eliminate half of what's left), and the less knowledgeable (let's draw the line at the upper half), you are down to a potential audience of maybe 10% of the people with radios. Of the people with radio, most are listening to to CDs, MP3s, cassettes, or music stations. Others are carpooling or talking on their phone.

Now we are down to maybe 3%. Is this a problem we need to worry about?
Salzman's problem is two-fold. The first is that Rush outrages much of the press because he gets the story either completely wrong (if you are a liberal) or almost right (if you are a conservative). But the bigger problem for the press is that Rush makes so much money as a talking head that everyone is envious.

Many of us think we would love to be a talking head. (It's more work than it looks like.) Just spout opinions all day long. Hang up on people we disagree with. Get paid millions.

Most reporters barely support themselves. Many have "day jobs". It's not Rush's opinions that bother them. It's his multi million dollar income.
August 4, 2008

4:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Wow. Fair means anything that promotes liberal ideology? Another talk radio parrot seemingly unable to think his way out of a paper bag. Fair has no instrinsic meaning, and no value. It's all about us v. them. Squawk!
August 4, 2008

5:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Actually Yakoov, I'm less concerned about Limbaugh's multi-million income than I am about fairness. The latter is one of those fundamental concepts that's been floating about this republic for 200+ years.

I'm puzzled by your statement that Limbaugh appeals to the more knowledgable conservative voters. Is that really what you meant to say? His show is nothing but propaganda, slightly more sophisticated than a carnival barker. I would think any thinking conservative would not be interested.
August 5, 2008

10:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

Quote: Gene writes:

I would say John M. reading his news updates is the liberal balance at KOA."

Gene that is exactly waht I said in my original response. All of the news breaks on KOA are left of center. The balance is already there.The problem is Salzman does not understand what center is. The center has been moving slowly left for the last 70 years. Sure Republicans lean up against one side of the center wall and Democrats lean up aginst the other side of the center wall but the wall is not in the center. The wall has shifted left ever so slowly.

The news breaks on KOA are left. Hell even Rush is left. Sure he is closer to the center than most but often he is left.
August 5, 2008

10:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

Quote Rbcc
“That is a hoot. Economics is "reality"? Wow -- that's a sad way to view the world if you really believe that. How is NPR "standing in the path of economics"? What does that even mean?”

Economics is reality, means that economics is no different than the law of gravity. Human nature will not change. You can have any theory of economics you want and you can pull any levers you want but there will always be a predictable result. Many people view economics as optional or even mysterious. I do not. Economics is a force that cannot be changed. When government tinkers too much or takes too much the system crashes and then rebuilds.
“Let's see -- Limbaugh and his imitators basically are freeloading off of the public airwaves to get their message out. If they really believed in the free market, they would move over to satellite radio where their listeners could pay for the "privilege" of listening.”
Who ever said the airwaves were public? Did the public create the airwaves? Did the public invent the airwaves? Does the public financially support the Limbaugh show? No, No, No. Rush is simply using resources that were here on the earth before we all came on board. To call him a free loader is a joke.
"This is why the Fairness Doctrine is relevant. The American people own the AM and FM radio bands -- it's time that the FCC starting requiring stations to serve the public interest."

The airwaves do serve the public interest. The most popular content gets the most listener ship. They are playing what we want to hear. We confirm this with our dollar via advertising impact. You are bassackwards if you think they are telling us how to think. They are a mirror image of what we think. AM radio is very popular with conservatives because conservative lifestyle allows them to listen to radio rather than watch TV.

The fairness doctrine is ANTI freedom.
August 5, 2008

11:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Low taxes says Salzman doesn't know what the center is, but implies that he does (yet he doesn't define the center and he won't). He says KOA is moving to the left but doesn't offer any evidence. He says Rush Limbaugh is center to left, again without evidence. This is something I've noticed about talk radio--it's nothing more or less than swapping lies and misinformation--the more outrageous the better. Those who listen to talk radio, in turn, tend to engage in the same sort of blustery exaggerations--for example, that Rush is left of center (undefined, and not to be defined).
August 5, 2008

11:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

I figured this might be news to some but the radio spectrum is limited. It is not KOA's private property. Stations operate by license from the government. Somewhere in the law (the FCC act) is a statement regarding their duty to the public.
August 5, 2008

11:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Talk radio is popular in part because people are told what they want to hear. The world is unfair to ME, and it's all about ME. As I've suggested before, it appeals to the 14 year old in all of us.
August 5, 2008

4:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

imPatrickBateman writes:

"Wow. Fair means anything that promotes liberal ideology? Another talk radio parrot seemingly unable to think his way out of a paper bag. Fair has no instrinsic meaning, and no value. It's all about us v. them. Squawk!"

You wasted no time assuming that I was just another talk radio puppet based solely on the fact that I made a comment that you didn't agree with? Allow me to rephrase it because it appears that my previous post hit a sore spot with you. Fair means anything that's providing a liberal point of view or perspective regardless of whether or not a conservative one is being provided as well. This is an undeniable fact. If you dispute that fact then google the "fairness doctrine" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness...) and ask yourself why it applies to the only part of the media that conservatives actually have a strong grip on and not the MSM as well. Maybe then you can gain some perspective and...GASP!...realize that people on the left are actually capable of being hypocrites!

If people like Mr. Salzman (who feels KOA should play fair but never thought to have an article to counter his own out of fairness) and politicians believe in this impractical dream of "fairness", then they need to turn their attention to news on the television and newspapers as well, not just the garbage that is spewed on talk radio.
August 5, 2008

5:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

Anderson,

Please enlighten us all. What is center?

Up until about 1910 the US government has never controlled any more than 12% of the capital. We have slowly escalated to nearly 45% if you combine Federal, State and Local. So yes we are slowly but surely moving left. I guess when progressives use that label they are warning us that they are slowly moving us to a 100% tax rate.

I define center as the government controlling anywhere between 12-17% of the monetary supply.
August 5, 2008

6 p.m.

Suggest removal

Rbcc writes:

The FCC only regulates the "public" airwaves, which consist of the AM and FM radio bands as well as over-the-air broadcast television (essentially channels 1-13). Thus, a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would ONLY apply to AM and FM radio stations as well as television stations broadcasting via over-the-air frequencies (the ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox networks as well as PBS and local independent stations).

A new Fairness Doctrine would NOT apply to cable television channels, such as CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, nor would it apply to the internet or satellite radio.

Obviously, newspapers are irrelevant to the discussion since they are private entities who do not rely on any publicly-owned infrastructure.

The Fairness Doctrine was in place from the 1930s through 1988 as an adopted FCC policy (not a law), and was upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1969 given that the public airwaves are a limited natural resource (like the air and water) subject to government regulation to serve the public interest. When President Reagan did away with the Doctrine in 1988, he did so over the strong objections of many Republicans who viewed the Fairness Doctrine as the only way to guard against opinion programming becoming overly liberal. Three times Congress passed bills to reinstate the Doctrine (this time as law, not policy), only to have the bills vetoed by Reagan and the first President Bush.

Between 1988 and around 1992, the lack of any Fairness Doctrine led directly to the unexpected rise of conservative talk radio. Suddenly, conservatives who had formerly supported restoring the Fairness Doctrine (including Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, and others) now opposed bringing it back.

Today, with all of the alternative media outlets available to most Americans, there is no reason to let the public airwaves be monopolized by one political perspective. There are plenty of private media outlets on cable TV and satellite radio where political opinions can be broadcast without any mandate for fairness or balance. Just as we wouldn't want our public schools, libraries, or museums to be used to promote the political opinions of one select group to the virtual exclusion of all others, so too should our airwaves be balanced in the presentation of political commentary.

It's really not a radical notion.
August 6, 2008

7:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Channels 1 through thirteen are slanted Left, so by Rbcc's standards, there had better be some changes in that forum as well. Tell me PBS and 4, 7, and 9 don't slant Left. And they have just as many viewers combined as Rush has listeners.

Salzman,

Where was the balance when Rather went fishing and caught a whopper with regard to Bush's military service? What about liberal media bias in general (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/...). Rather's producer ran with that story without verifying facts because that is what the television media is looking for. They so desperately wanted it to be true.

Radio is for conservatives what television is for liberals. Liberals have the public television market cornered (with a couple of exceptions), and conservatives have the radio waves cornered.

KOA's daytime (and other select times) listeners tune in for conservative talk. When they want something less politically-slanted, they tune into the morning show and the ride home (I know for a fact that Dave and Lois try to stay neutral, and I would argue that April and her co-host actually chit chat with a slightly left bent).

Remove Rosen and Rush from the lineup, and you just dealt a huge blow to their bottom line because their audience just walked. Put Rush and Rosen on network TV for the evening news to give their Right Winged slant where there was formerly a Left Winged slant, and the evening news will probably lose viewers.

And getting past the media...what about acedamia? Why aren't you moaning about the lack of neutrality there?
August 6, 2008

10:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

imPatrickBateman, sorry, you show all the signs of a parrot. "It's an undeniable fact" (your words parroting a talk radio phrase, not mine). Your insistance that the concept of "fair" has meaning only with respect to the Fairness Doctrine (i.e., something you heard discussed on talk radio, not what I was talking about, not what Salzman was talking about). Your use of the talk radio term "main stream media" and insinuation that talk radio is not part of it.

So sad. Civil discussion and a sense that we share the same country has gone by the wayside to be replaced in every instance by "us v. them". Given that talk radio likes to play old rock songs, I'm reminded of one by the Who, that goes something like this (with a little editing of my own). I'll call it Babble O'Reilly:
Radio wasteland.
Radio wasteland.
They're all wasted!
August 6, 2008

11:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

LowTaxes: I never claimed to have a definition of the political center. In fact, that's my on-going criticism of your claim (and others) that there is a center and that you can identify everyone and everything on one side *or* the other. At least you offered a definition (not sure how it's related to politics but you tried).
August 6, 2008

11:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

spencerr, why don't you use your education instead of spouting talking points about the liberal slanted media and cherry picking evidence to support your argument.

Salzman has discussed the UCLA study extensively in his column. Speaking for myself, I think it's flawed, among other things, because it takes just a slice of media (as you do) and proclaims it as the whole, not to mention the problems in using an ADA definition as the basis for a center.

What does academia have to do with the media, or Salzman's argument about KOA? Maybe we should start defining parents as liberal or conservative and talk about their kid's "bias". Maybe we could start identifying cities, even blocks, as liberal and conservative and attribute some "bias". What about the birds and the trees? What about the TV commercials they're blasted with all the time? Or Channel 1? As Ayn Rand would say: [blank out].
August 6, 2008

1:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Hey, you're right anderson, I got on a rant at the end.

Why are you so scared of conservative talk, anyway? Are you scared that they will convert some people. I'm not scared of CNN or the rest of the television media?
August 6, 2008

1:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Sorry, I meant to say that last sentence with a period, not a question mark.
August 6, 2008

3:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

spencerr, talk radio would not be of great concern to me except that it's clear that a lot of people (30 million or so are regular listeners) buy the claims made there lock, stock, and barrel. It's not a benign presence. I can see the arguments parroted here every day on these pages at the RMN amongst other places.

No one would reasonably think of such ridiculous, rhetorically-laden arguments on their own. Who could imagine, to give just one example, that people would take umbrage to the concept of a hate crime--unless they're planning to commit one themselves. I'm sure most people aren't, so I figure they're being stirred up somewhere. I know where.

Last year, and the year before, the Senate judiciary committee worked very hard to craft a bi-partisan immigration reform bill. After talk radio fans flooded Congress with their opposition, Senator Trent Lott (Republican) said, "Talk radio is running America". He was on to something.

I believe in working together as a country to make it a better place. Call me an idealist. Talk radio, it seems, is committed to the idea that we are a divided country. Liberal v. conservative. Black v. white. Me v. you. Herr Gobbels would have been pleased. I'd like to think we can do better.
August 7, 2008

6:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Hey, anderson,

Firstly, I would like to let you know that I respect your opinions.

However, I listen to talk radio quite often, and I haven't heard a day-time talk radio host spouting any sort of hate. I think you are referring to the Greeley transgender thing, right? No. The fact is that, while most anyone would not do the same thing if they wound up in the same situation, most of us can understand having that sort of emotion.

And conservative talk radio pushes hard for markets, strong borders, and success in Iraq. These are things that are missing largely from the traditional television media. The media goes on and on about failing social security and kids without healthcare. The answer...government bailouts and universal healthcare. I have not once seen a market-based answer to healthcare televised, and there are reasonable market based answers. The media was all over us failing in Iraq three years ago. Where are the success stories now that we are seeing success?

So...maybe I have convinced you that there is a niche that radio fills left by a void in televised programs???

Furthermore, while the airwaves are public, they are not public in the sense that PBS is public. They are a business, and they are filling a demand in the market place in order to make a buck. I have listened to 760 during the day, and it is a very liberal counterpart to KOA. Why doesn't Salzman give us his take on radio with that in mind?
August 7, 2008

6:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

By the way,

Making reference to the Righties in talk radio as fascists is akin to making reference to Lefties as communists. Both groups were very different politically, but they both resorted to government strongarming in order to control society.

I guarantee that todays conservatives aren't using government to strongarm anyone with the exception of terrorists. It is our American Left that is attempting to use government to control what we can and cannot listen to over airwaves that no one owns. Our media might as well be the Chinese propaganda machine if people like Salzman get their way.
August 7, 2008

7 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

And BTW, nobody, not Rosen or Rush, has ever put a thought into my head. Rosen is an economics genious and is good at bringing clarification from an educational standpoint when he talks about it...so he has contributed to my vocabulary, not my beliefs.

Rush, on the other hand, is just grandstanding to people who already think the same way he does. Yes, ninety percent of his listeners already agree, and while he has the ability to persuade about 0.5% of the voting population to register as Democrats and vote Hillary, that is about as far as his influence goes.

You always argue that 18-year-old college freshman are not that impressionable and are capable of thinking for themselves, despite usually being in an academic arena that is biased, to one degree or another, to the Left. Why not give conservative radio listeners, who number most between the ages of thirty and sixty, the benifit of the doubt with regard to their ability to make rational choices and think independantly.

It's not like inexperienced college freshman, with relatively little knowledge, have some sort of magical advantage over people who have spent significant amounts of their lives in the workforce and political world already.

All due respect, but I think you are being hypocritical when you poo poo any arguments about Left in the visual media or Left in academia, and then you make a huge deal out of a relatively small conservative niche. I would argue, that for you (and many liberals), it is about suppressing conservative thought and allowing for the free proliferation of liberal thought, so that we can have one conformist population of American quasi-liberals.
August 7, 2008

11:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

BTW, Anderson,

I listened to most of a show on 760 this morning, and the same goes for that show as you state in your last post. The host completely ignored legitimate conservative talking points.

And she and her guests have somehow got it into their heads that Republicans have anything to do with making this election about race. McCain has gone there, but by and far, it is Obama who keeps throwing out the card...and Hillary may have gone there, but then, that is a completely different topic.

Anyway, my point is that the people calling in were listening to this lady as if she were their beloved ice queen, and she completely omitted anything that turned her arguments on their heads. They took it lock, stock, and barrel, and most of the listeners, and her, sounded like complete drivel-spewing populism and socialism-loving, take the wealth from those rotten rich, morons.
August 7, 2008

11:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

anderson writes:

LowTaxes: I never claimed to have a definition of the political center. In fact, that's my on-going criticism of your claim (and others) that there is a center and that you can identify everyone and everything on one side *or* the other. At least you offered a definition (not sure how it's related to politics but you tried).

Anderson what do you think that this is all about? What do you think politics is all about? Control of capital. Do private citizens control the fruits of their labor or does the government. There is no in-between and there is nothing else. As the government taxes us more and controls more of the capital we move towards fascism, socialism, communism, totalitarianism and as the government taxes us less we move towards freedom, individualism, limited government, private property, Laissez Faire Capitalism, Liberty and finally anarchy (self government).

So my center can always be defined by tax rates. Any politician or media person who advocates higher tax rates is moving us left, any politician or media person who advocates lower tax rates is moving us right.

On the far left you have communism on the far right you have anarchism. Where do you stand?
August 7, 2008

11:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

The only fair solution is to let the consumer decide. If a media outlet fails then what they are preaching is not what the customer wanted to hear. They deserved to fail. That is perfectly fair.

Now on the other hand if the government comes on board and forces the consumer to listen to politics that they do not want to hear then that is the opposite of fairness.

The free market is really a beautiful thing and guarantee you that with minimal effort you can find a media outlet that meets your needs and desires.

Why must you attempt to control what my needs and desires are? You try to control me in the name of the fairness doctrine.
August 7, 2008

12:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

spencerr, my reference to Gobbels (maybe a poor choice) was not to insinuate that talk radio is fascism (I don't think that), but just to name the most famous propagandist. Talk radio is largely propaganda. It is engaged in the *purposeful* dissemination of misinformation. It uses all the tools and techniques of the propagandist. The straw man. The red herring. The glittering generalities. The exaggeration. THE EXAGGERATION. The single point of view. I heard a guy the other night (Lou Fame?) say (and this is a typical comment): "I wish someone would explain to me how...(proceeds to set up and cut down another's view)"--when he really wanted no explanation at all--for he will never allow a different point of view to be expressed. Talk about conformity.

Another example: a couple weeks ago, I heard Bob Newsome say, over and over, that Obama had proposed some civilian police force that would be more powerful and cost more than our current armed forces and that they would engage in warrantless search and seizures. If people can't see through this sort of bs, there's probably not much I can say.

Yes, they engage in hate. Again, if you don't see it, there's probably nothing I can say. I mean, there are a lot of people (and they get this sort of idea from talk radio) who deny that there is a racist element to the anti-immigrant movement, or who implicitly deny that racism exists altogether. Whatever. I'm still waiting from the memo from the White Committee that Runs America (of which you and I are members) to identify some manifestation of racism in America. It ain't gonna happen.

Academia (which you compare talk radio to), by and large, is not a disseminator of propaganda. That is not their mission.

Your claim that "if Salzman gets his way" (an appeal to KOA to broadcast another point of view) we would see something akin to "Chinese propaganda" is disingenuous.

As you often do, spencerr, you make general statements, always based on the idea that the world is divided into two camps, ever at war with each other--e.g., (paraphrasing) "The American Left (who??) wants the government to control what we listen to". And like PBateman, above, you turn this whole conversation into something about the Fairness Doctrine instead of engaging Salzman's point, as is.
August 7, 2008

12:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

I've said this before: there is rational radio out there--generally on the public radio stations. Talk radio is largely propaganda. I've *repeatedly* said here that 760 or Air America is propaganda too, but right wing talk radio fans apparently are not listening--I guess because of what it implies about what they listen to. I'm looking for one brief shining moment, when we can take this discussion outside of left v. right. I acknowledge there is a spectrum from left to right. I acknowledge it may be useful in some instances to identify political views on a spectrum. That does not mean that every claim, every argument, such as an appeal to fairness on the radio, has to be framed as a war between left and right.

If you know of a conservative radio program that is not propagandist in nature, please let me know. There may be some out there and I just don't know about them.
August 7, 2008

12:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

LOL, Low Taxes. Your appeal to freedom, individualism, limited government, and liberty is the classic definition of liberalism. Not that you will hear that on talk radio.

No, despite your theoretical claim, the free market does not provide what I want to hear on the radio. I listen almost exclusive to public radio stations because it's the only place that has any decent music.
August 7, 2008

12:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Oh, taxes may be your litmus test, but it is not for everyone. Before proclaiming that such and such media is left or right based on taxes, don't you think there should be some sort of consensus?
August 7, 2008

12:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

One day I heard Savage call Limbaugh a "liberal Republican"--which supports my idea that, for talk radio, "liberal" (or any of it's manifestations) has no real meaning save for "someone I oppose" or "someone who opposes me".
August 7, 2008

12:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

anderson writes:

Oh, taxes may be your litmus test, but it is not for everyone. Before proclaiming that such and such media is left or right based on taxes, don't you think there should be some sort of consensus?

Anderson what is your litmus test? Please answer so this discussion can move forward.

Consensus? I do not understand you point/question?
August 7, 2008

1:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

anderson writes:

"LOL, Low Taxes. Your appeal to freedom, individualism, limited government, and liberty is the classic definition of liberalism. Not that you will hear that on talk radio."

I understand what the classical definition of liberalism is and how the communist have perverted the meaning of the word liberal. Conservative talk radios does sometimes mention this discrepancy but they avoid it as to not confuse the issue. They also avoid it because they do not always advocate classical liberalism but rather some hybrid of fascism. See Anderson it does not matter what label they were, if they want the government to expand for any reason(other than to defend liberty) they are no friend of liberty.

"No, despite your theoretical claim, the free market does not provide what I want to hear on the radio. I listen almost exclusive to public radio stations because it's the only place that has any decent music."

Sure the free market can provide you with what you desire. Are willing to pay for an Ipod? Pay for CD's? Pay for high def radio? Pay for xm?

Oh I see you thought free a market means free. Which NPR is not free , we all pitch in so you can free load.
August 7, 2008

1:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

anderson writes:

One day I heard Savage call Limbaugh a "liberal Republican"--which supports my idea that, for talk radio, "liberal" (or any of it's manifestations) has no real meaning save for "someone I oppose" or "someone who opposes me".

There is such a thing as a left leaning Republican. Rush is like Rosen, they are conservative or limited government on many issues but then on other issues they are willing to grant government the right to grow limitlessly. Hence liberal Republican

Hell even Savage is guilty of which he speaks, Savage is quite the moral collectivist.
August 7, 2008

1:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

Just the other day Rosen said that government subsides for oil were a good thing when oil was near 10/gallon. He also insinuated that subsidies were good in other situations. Mike does not realize that his attitude is the exact problem. Who is to decide which subsidies are good? The prudent approach would be to say that all subsidies are bad regardless of intent. The market is king.
August 7, 2008

1:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Like I said before, I don't have a litmus test for the center. Some views in media are, by consensus (general agreement), on the left (The Nation) or right (National Review) but there is an amorphous middle. So I guess my test if anything is consensus. When someone proclaims, just to give an example, that CNN is "leftist", I think it's rather disingenous, because I don't think there's anything close to a consensus on that, and, besides, CNN reminds me a lot of Fox.

Before moving forward, I have a question: why do we have to draw a line and classify the media as left or right? How about more informative or less informative? How about more objective or less objective? More in depth? Or less? I guess Mr. Salzman drew a line in his column, but I'm not much of a line drawer.
August 7, 2008

1:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

fyi, I don't listen to NPR--pretty much since the time they were lock, stock, and barrel in support of the invasion of Iraq (when it happened).

I don't buy your "market is king" ideology for a second. The market works well for a lot of things, but not for everything--which is why we have public services like highways, a police force, public education, and clean water.
August 7, 2008

1:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Anderson, America has been listening to Rush for the last twenty years. No one has comitted any crimes in his name. And they don't spread hate. They spread their message.

If you have listened lately, the two afore-mentioned hosts are quick to point out that conservatives have not been playing the race card. Is there racism in America. You betcha, and it goes both ways between minority and white, and people on both sides exhibit it, with the possible exception of conservative blacks.

As far as the immigration issue, you are right to an extent. Some of the people don't like seeing hispanics horn in and possibly take over America. I and most conservatives don't care about this. Demography is what it is, and if, when my daughter is sixty, hispanics outnumber whites, who cares, as long as the hispanics in this country are non-cheating participants in our economy. These people are outside the argument and pick the conservative side because it fits their agenda.

There is also the rest of the coalition against ILLEGAL who despises illegals because they take American jobs or the issue can be seen as a security issue.

I am happy to see immigrants move in at a pace that is economically sustainable, and in employment sectors where there is a shortage of workers...including both ends of the educational spectrum...we need engineers and grape pickers.

There are no untruths, even in the Lefty BS I heard this morning. There are strawman arguments (and excuse that I don't know what a ...herring is). There are omissions. For instance, the lady this morning went on a rant about how Hoover, the Republican, didn't end the depression, but FDR did. She left out two things; FDR took 16 years to eliminate the depression, and WWII and the high levels of production and technology resulting from it are what actually pulled us out, not the populist and collectivist policies. You could just as equally make the false assumption that war fixes recessions and should be used as a solution for recession.
August 7, 2008

1:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

BTW, Anderson,

In your last post to lowtaxes, you mention a lot of public goods, where there are market failures if government does not step in. Military is another one. Most tax haters will readily admit that taxes are necessary for those things.

Where the rest of us get bent out of shape is with the progressive scheme and when taxes are used to finance programs for the sake of redistributing wealth and quality of life.
August 7, 2008

1:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

anderson writes:
“Before moving forward, I have a question: why do we have to draw a line and classify the media as left or right? How about more informative or less informative? How about more objective or less objective? More in depth? Or less? I guess Mr. Salzman drew a line in his column, but I'm not much of a line drawer.”

More informative or less is okay, this would require paying it’s staff more and requiring a higher level of insight and understanding.

More depth or less depth is okay as well.

How do we define objective? This will all come down to your core values and how you think the world really works. Sure facts are facts such as body counts and fiscal numbers but what else is really objective?

In our quest for fairness are we going to mandate that Religious folks get equal air time? Those that believe in a theocracy form of government?

How about hardcore libertarians such as Murray Rothbard? What about anarchist? Are you willing to mandate that KOA gives equal time to those who justify complete and immediate abolition of the state? Complete privatization, even of the roads and judicial system?
August 7, 2008

1:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

And Anderson, for your purposes of arguing with me about actual issues, forget the social issues and military issues. Those don't get me going as much as the economics. The one place where conservatives are rock solid is economics. Their economics, assuming a correction by government for market deficiencies, are good economics.

The lady this morning, Erin something or other, is completely confused about economics to the point where she stated that increasing taxes on the rich will actually increase jobs. To be fair to her, she said, "I think." Yeah, you will create some government jobs, but you will lose net productivity, which means net jobs.

However, when Rosen tells you about economics, listen. He is absolutely correct. Where you and he can disagree, and he doesn't include this in his arguments much, is that by taking his approach, you watch traditionally liberal safety nets, such as social security and medicare (and other ludicrous policies such as affirmative action) march out the door. He doesn't talk much about the loss of these programs, which is the only real point of attack.
August 7, 2008

1:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

Anderson wrote:
"I listen almost exclusive to public radio stations because it's the only place that has any decent music."

So do you or do you not listen to NPR? If not NPR then what public radio stations do you listen to? I thought all public radio stations piped in NPR?
August 7, 2008

1:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

spencerr writes:

BTW, Anderson,

"In your last post to lowtaxes, you mention a lot of public goods, where there are market failures if government does not step in. Military is another one. Most tax haters will readily admit that taxes are necessary for those things.

Where the rest of us get bent out of shape is with the progressive scheme and when taxes are used to finance programs for the sake of redistributing wealth and quality of life."

I would have to say the private sector could indeed deliver high quality water in mass quantities. Maybe the private sector would deliver single household recycle units as well?
The defense of our borders is one thing that appears we must all combine. However our current version is FUBAR because we are trying to do so many things with our government that we do not give the defense the time and attention it needs. I would think that the people would prefer a more direct, less expensive less imperialistic version of defense. Maybe even one that was less deadly? Certainly quicker, definitely quicker.
August 7, 2008

1:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

lowtax, I agree. I didn't mean to include all of the items Anderson listed. Police, military, and roads are good examples.

While everyone needs education, including the poor, in order for our economy to function as well as it does, I also argue that vouchers are the way to go, not socialized education, which is the failed system in which we live right now. A market solution to many of the inefficiencies and problems that socialization of education causes.
August 7, 2008

2:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Murray Rothbard left this earth years ago, from what I know. Obviously radio can't give space to every view. The objective here is fairness, not a survey of all the opinions. But I think you are getting to the question, what is fair? I don't know that I have a good answer, but I think most people recognize fairness (or the lack thereof) when they see it. Rush Limbaugh is hardly fair. And, as I suggested way above, Jim Hightower probably isn't fair either (but at least he isn't mean).

I see your objections to my call for objectivity. I guess I was thinking of it in a broader sense than numbers (which are important). For example, if someone makes a political statement, objectivity would call for identifying when where and to whom it was made, and giving a reasonably accurate accounting of the statement--instead of presenting a snippet to be taken out of context. Jeremiah Wright's speech in 2001 and it's presentaton on Fox in 2008 is a classic example of non-objective reporting. But there are many less controversial examples. When I pick up the RMN, and read a news column, I want to know who what where when and how, preferably without having to turn to page 20 to find out. That's the sort of objectivity I'm referring to.
August 7, 2008

2:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

spencerr, whatever your or my perspective on economics is (we obviously differ), I have no confidence that Erin Something *or* Mike Rosen would have anything fair or real to say about the subject. Real people (like your college professors) don't talk that way.

Lowtaxes: we live in an oasis here in Denver in terms of radio for there are several public radio stations and, no, they don't all pipe in NPR (those that do have to pay a lot of money for it). I listen to 89.3 (jazz, very little politics), 1390 (variety of music and lots of politics--often quite slanted but not propagandist), and 1190 (variety of music). 1340 has NPR. They also have some nice local interviews. I also listen to KOA 850 for baseball and football but not the rest of their nonsense.

When I used to live in a town that had just one public radio station, and NPR would come on in the morning, I would often plug in music or turn it off.
August 7, 2008

2:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Rosen is an adjunct college professor, or at least PhDs and grad students invite him into their classes to lecture. He knows his economics that well.

When he argues against someone with whom he disagrees, he, like the others, controls the dialogue and does not let you venture into your real argument...or if you do, he will say, fine, we disagree, and hang up. I would argue that had her instigator called her, Erin's converstion would have ended the same.

Anyway, the hosts are not preaching the KKKs messages, and the listeners are not Cleetus the Slack Jawed Yokle.

Furthermore, (if I am not mistaken) KOA pays for their waves, so they should be able to cater to whichever market they like. If they don't pay for their waves, they should be because the market isn't making them pay their fair share to sit on that invisible property.
August 7, 2008

3:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

It's funny, I could have sworn I've seen a few Cleetus's here on the letters to the editor's blogs, toting their KKK bags with their "I am not a racist" bumperstickers, but, no, they couldn't have got that from the radio. No sir.

I take your word that Rosen knows something about economics (you should know), but that doesn't mean he isn't engaged in manipulative tactics on the radio. It's apparently a lucrative business.

I don't understand your comment about KOA paying for the waves. As I mentioned before, the radio is a limited spectrum. Stations operate by license. Stations with a license owe some duty to the public and not just to the bottom line (the extent of that duty is debatable).
August 7, 2008

4:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

What is fairness? What ever the market demands rather than what a bureaucrat or group of elected officials decides! See the beauty of the free market.

BTW Hugh Hewitt played the Rev Wrights speech in its entirety!
Did not change a thing. The dude is still a nut who preaches black liberation theology. A religion of separation. A religion of hatred. A religion of black supremacy. A religion of socialism.
Does Obama know and love this guy? Sure seems like it. Obama hangs with a lot of leftist fruit cakes. Bill Ayers, Rev Wright, Resco just to name a few. Over the next 88 days the list will grow long and you will be faced with objectivity or Kool-Aid.

Is McCain any better? Probally not.
August 7, 2008

5:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

I'm white. I felt no separation. No hatred. I figure I could walk into his church today without fearing anyone. I understood where he was coming from even if I may not have agreed with everything he said. Actually I agreed with most everything he said. That's why there's a problem here. Media fostered hatred and division. A whole lotta people apparently could not conceive of what he was coming from. Not, "I disagree with him on this or that" but, rather, "he has no reedeeming qualities whatsoever". He said what he said about seven years ago and there weren't any riots in the streets, but all of a sudden it's the worst thing that could happen. If I had stood upon a pulpit and made the same statements, not a big deal. But then, I'm white. Us v. them, lowtaxes. Not, let's work together cause we're in it together. Us v. them. Limbaugh is banking on it.

The market is not always fair. That's why we, and countries all over the world, have laws regulating markets. That's why govt's have taken on some functions (those that the market doesn't equitably provide). We can disagree on how regulation is necessary but only ideologues insist the market is always fair.
August 7, 2008

7 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

The media did not convince me on how to think about Rev. Write. Black liberation has been around for a long time. The underpinnings of BLT fly straight in the face of everything I have learned about the Bible.

Nothing is always fair. That is a dream of social utopians. The free market is fairer or should I say more natural than central planning. Our Constitution originally granted the Feds the right to regulate commerce only so that it may keep the states from becoming anti competitive and corrupt. There was never any intention of turning the US into the USSR.

Anderson you brag about objectivity. Did you know there is actually a philosophy of objectivity? Have you ever read The Fountain Head or Atlas Shrugged?
August 7, 2008

9:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

I was speaking in general terms of the effect of the media on how we view Rev. Wright. I've been through this before, and don't mean to re-hash it here, but it's telling when people are long on conclusions (almost always negative) and short on arguments as to why.

Ha. Well it seems the USSR wasn't around when the constitution was drafted. Not only that, but I don't believe the constitution is set in stone (it was written on parchment), even though the principles are enduring. Returning to my point from before: the markets need some regulation. First, there's really no such thing as your idealized free market. We've never seen it anyway. Second, the American people rejected unfettered capitalism in the aftermath of the gilded age. I believe TR campaigned on this idea and was elected. The real debate in this country is not about whether markets should exist but how much regulation is needed.

Yes, I've read nearly everything Ayn Rand ever published, including the novels you mention, including all her newsletters. I used to be a believer, but not any more. As I heard one author say on the radio several years ago, no one really makes it in life without any help.
August 7, 2008

9:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Rbcc writes:

Spencerr wrote:

"Channels 1 through thirteen are slanted Left, so by Rbcc's standards, there had better be some changes in that forum as well. Tell me PBS and 4, 7, and 9 don't slant Left. And they have just as many viewers combined as Rush has listeners."

I don't watch much local or network television, but I sincerely doubt that anything aired on either the local or network newscasts or on PBS, with the lone exception of "Frontline" (which is usually factual, rather than opinion-based), is liberal in the same manner that Limbaugh is conservative. Much less for three solid hours per day. Is there really anything you can think of that consists of rants against conservatives or Republicans on a more or less constant basis for hours on end? If such programming exists, I'm certainly not aware of it.

But yes, the Fairness Doctrine would apply to all of these channels as well.

"And getting past the media...what about acedamia? Why aren't you moaning about the lack of neutrality there?"

Academia isn't in the "neutrality" business. It's in the fact business. In addition, academia has a strenuous process of peer review that generally mitigates against bad information being transmitted to students and researchers. Lastly, academia isn't limited in the same manner as the public airwaves. There are thousands of public academic institutions (and as many or more private ones) to choose from. Academia doesn't belong in any discussion involving the Fairness Doctrine.
August 7, 2008

10:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Rbcc writes:

Anderson wrote:

"Talk radio, it seems, is committed to the idea that we are a divided country. Liberal v. conservative. Black v. white. Me v. you. Herr Gobbels would have been pleased. I'd like to think we can do better."

I'll go you one better -- talk radio is DEPENDENT on America being divided. It relies on it -- foments it -- helps to perpetuate it. There is a lot of money being made by turning Americans against each other.

Go back to the 1980s, when we still had a Fairness Doctrine and political talk radio was required to be roughly balanced. We weren't as divided then. You never heard about "red" and "blue" states. "Liberal" wasn't spewed as invective by one half of the country about the other half. Our political discourse was calmer, more reasoned, and much more civil.

This is the great argument for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. That without it, the public airwaves have been used in a manner that is detrimental to our national culture -- creating tribes and a culture war for them to do battle in. This is the rationale for having government, through the FCC, ensure that the public airwaves are NOT used in this manner.

If you view the public airwaves as a limited natural resource, it becomes more logical for the government to manage the resource so as to be of greatest benefit to our society. In this instance, the free market has failed us. The free market has produced a roughly 90-10 imbalance in favor of conservative political talk on the public airwaves. Government is needed to restore the balance to 50-50, roughly. Will this cost stations some profit? Yes. Of course it will. But these are the risks of utilizing a public resource for your business.
August 7, 2008

10:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Rbcc writes:

Low taxes wrote:

"I would have to say the private sector could indeed deliver high quality water in mass quantities."

Possibly, but the question would then be 'where does the water come from?'.

The other great area where the free market utterly fails us is the environment. The air, surface water (rivers, lakes), and wildlife are all part of the public commons -- they cannot be privately owned (even a stream that crosses your private property is owned by the public, not you). We have environmental laws and regulations (as well as planning and zoning codes) to address this market externality.

Because a large portion of our water supply typically comes from publicly-owned sources in lakes and rivers, the private sector has a limited role in providing water supplies in this country.
August 8, 2008

6:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

RBCC,

No matter how unfair you think it is, if those natural goods that you speak of were defined as private property, there wouldn't be as much of a problem with them. For instance, make the South Platte the property of Joe Millionaire, and he will put it to its best use. He will also sue industry when it polutes the Platte, and he will do whatever else he has to in order to protect it.

I know, RBCC, you and Anderson long for the time when conservatives sat back and did nothing more than dig their nails into their own legs every time America eeked a little more to the Left. You long for the days when we were good, obedient Republicans that complacently let liberals continue the status quo of bucking the status quo just for the sake of it.

Conservatives have their venue now in a world where Liberalism runs rampant, and you hate it.

Not to mention, AM was nearly a gonner when talk radio came on the scene. Now it is not. It was hardly utilized like some sort of resource before the conservatives came along.

Conservatives in America will continue to fight you and your collectivist friends' journey further to the Left, and Rush and his local counterparts will lead the way.

Go to Cuba or Venezuela, you collectivist garbage.
August 8, 2008

6:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

And RBCC,

The media and academia are not abrasively Left. They push their agenda as the status quo because they have a near-monopoly on the airwaves. Imagine if the stations ran a statement like this in the news, "Protestors against global warming take to the streets despite the fact that the globe hasn't warmed significantly in the last ten years." Not abrasive, but there is a definite agenda. Every time the media speaks of man-made global warming as if it were fact, it is pushing its agenda, because, for one, the globe has actually cooled insignificantly in the last ten years, and it is still up for debate whether it is man made. Academia, dependant on public grants, is the true perpetrator because they don't get their public money by producing results that say to the contrary.

And academics are liberal for at least two reasons (and I may be missing some more) 1. Their jobs are a product of a system they are more in-line with; i.e., they are libs and would rather be on the government payroll than out in the business world. 2. They have a near-monopoly, at least on the public side, so naysayers generally have to keep it zipped.

They produce facts, but they put their own agenda to the facts, just like everyone else. Somebody famous once said something about facts getting in the way of the truth. Prime example was a Campos column a couple of months ago about our horribly robust military spending, based on facts, and Rosen's rebuttal, based on his own facts. Two sides, and only the LEFT gets to use academia as a forum in which to lure young minds to the dysfunctional by warm and fuzzy Left (as opposed to the functional but cold-hearted Right).
August 8, 2008

1:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Rbcc, I totally agree: talk radio is profiting from division. And it's not too hard to see that division is part of their marketing strategy. And, damn: it works!

I also agree that our political discourse is a lot different than it was 20 years--as you say, a lot less civil. I would chalk that up not only to talk radio, but to other media (e.g., cable TV) that has seen the success of talk radio in pitting everyone against someone else.

As far as "balancing" media such as the radio waves, even if it were desirable, I don't know how you do achieve some 50/50 balance for that would involve defining a middle, and measuring, and I don't think it can be done.
August 8, 2008

2:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Rbcc writes:

Spencerr wrote:

"No matter how unfair you think it is, if those natural goods that you speak of were defined as private property, there wouldn't be as much of a problem with them. For instance, make the South Platte the property of Joe Millionaire, and he will put it to its best use. He will also sue industry when it polutes the Platte, and he will do whatever else he has to in order to protect it."

That's a laugh. Our natural resources could never be trusted to private ownership -- private ownership would destroy them. Our history proves this out -- before we had active regulation by government, our air, water, timber, and wildlife was in dire condition. All of the strides we have made toward improving these resources have occurred in response to laws and regulations, and would not have occurred in their absence. ONLY regulation by government guarantees the quality and perpetuation of our publicly held resources in this country.

"I know, RBCC, you and Anderson long for the time when conservatives sat back and did nothing more than dig their nails into their own legs every time America eeked a little more to the Left. You long for the days when we were good, obedient Republicans that complacently let liberals continue the status quo of bucking the status quo just for the sake of it."

Since when is the so-called "status quo" good or even worth maintaining? What sort of political philosophy is even predicated on this notion? I used to be a Republican -- it's not about one "side" versus another. I don't even believe there are any "sides". It's about what makes this country better -- it's a process of continuous improvement.

"Conservatives have their venue now in a world where Liberalism runs rampant, and you hate it."

It's not "their" venue. All Americans, most of whom are NOT conservatives and do NOT have any desire to listen to political talk radio, own the airwaves. If conservatives want a venue of their own, they should have to pay for it -- it's called satellite radio. Freeloading off of the public commons is what they are doing.

"Not to mention, AM was nearly a gonner when talk radio came on the scene. Now it is not. It was hardly utilized like some sort of resource before the conservatives came along."

I remember when AM radio played music and had real news programming. Sure would be nice to get that back -- there isn't a single pure 24-hour news station on AM radio in Denver. Not one. Anyhow, under the Fairness Doctrine, a station could air as much political talk as it wanted so long as the amount of hours devoted to one political perspective is roughly equal to the number of hours devoted to the opposite perspective.

"Go to Cuba or Venezuela, you collectivist garbage."

Nice. I see how you have learned your social skills from talk radio. Incidentally, America has ALWAYS been a "collectivist" nation. You might consider getting used to that fact.
August 8, 2008

2:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

ALWAYS been a collectivist nation...anyway, since FDR brought in the welfare state more than eighty years ago. Hardly always.

"That's a laugh. Our natural resources could never be trusted to private ownership -- private ownership would destroy them. Our history proves this out -- before we had active regulation by government, our air, water, timber, and wildlife." You are joking right. These things weren't privately owned. They were a public good and people used them up as fast as possible so that the other guy wouldn't. Give them to one person, and they will protect it. Otherwise they would go out of business. Believe me, if they have their interests to watch out for, they will do what it takes.

From my point of view (and many others), the status quo is better than the road you would take us down and is worth maintaining. So you do happen to think that creeping leftward unabated is the right way to progress. You would hold down conservative thought so that liberal thought could take over. For one belonging to a group of people who always stand on freedom of speech, you are a hypocrite.

not their venue. KOA pays for the rights to the waves, as CNN pays for their right to broadcast, as does TLC. They make the most efficient use of it (can't deny the audience is huge and a moneymaker), so why shouldn't they make it their venue.

You must be a dino, if you remember when AM radio was the place to be for "news." I maintain that it was waning in the late eighties when Rush took control.

Sorry about the garbage thing, you caught me in a bad mood...and I have false balls when I get behind this computer screen. I would never act that way for real.
August 8, 2008

2:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Furthermore, 760 plays as much leftist rhetoric over their waves as 850 and 630 combined play righty rhetoric. So what are you complaining about? 850 only does five hours. 760 is going hard at six thirty in the morning, and still going hard at 4 in the afternoon. At least KOA breaks for soft news and non-political talk (the ride home starting at three).
August 9, 2008

12:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Rbcc writes:

Spencerr wrote:

"ALWAYS been a collectivist nation...anyway, since FDR brought in the welfare state more than eighty years ago. Hardly always."

We haven't always behaved in a collectivist manner, I'll grant you that. But it's right there in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which gives the federal government the right to promote the "general welfare". If that isn't "collectivist", I don't know what is. It just took us a century of experimentation with unregulated laissez faire capitalism to realize the many failures of that model before we began to use the federal government in the way the founders intended.

"You are joking right. These things weren't privately owned. They were a public good and people used them up as fast as possible so that the other guy wouldn't. Give them to one person, and they will protect it. Otherwise they would go out of business. Believe me, if they have their interests to watch out for, they will do what it takes."

Air, water, wildlife, etc. were always public goods, but prior to the 1960s, we didn't have any formal government regulation scheme in place to manage them. Which left them to the mercies of private action, which is why we had rivers catching on fire and smog as thick as Beijing's in places like Los Angeles. The individual actions of private parties, each designed to maximize that individual's own benefit, do not constitute what is best for the resource.

"From my point of view (and many others), the status quo is better than the road you would take us down and is worth maintaining. So you do happen to think that creeping leftward unabated is the right way to progress. You would hold down conservative thought so that liberal thought could take over. For one belonging to a group of people who always stand on freedom of speech, you are a hypocrite."

I view Europe as the model for what America should be -- the more we mimic European policies on most issues, the better off we will be as a nation. Europe is the standard-bearer for modern civilization, not America any longer. I have no desire to "hold down" any political thought -- only to see that public resources are used in a way that best serves national interests.

"not their venue. KOA pays for the rights to the waves, as CNN pays for their right to broadcast, as does TLC. They make the most efficient use of it (can't deny the audience is huge and a moneymaker), so why shouldn't they make it their venue."

KOA pays for a license from the FCC, which stipulates that they broadcast in the public interest (broadly defined, admittedly). So it is perfectly legitimate for the FCC to require certain things from KOA as a condition for renewing their license. CNN and TLC are different entities -- they do not rely on the public airwaves and therefore are not subject to FCC regulation.
August 12, 2008

11:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

And what about 760, which plays nothing but liberal talk?

Our constitution was based as much, if not more, on basic freedoms and Adam Smith's economics (not to mention religion...oh my gosh!!!!) as it was in some sort of collectivist agenda.

If that individual's benefits happen to align with the public's benefit, then private property ownership is the answer. For instance, give a logging company 1000 acres to destroy. They will destroy it, and they will plant behind them, ensuring that the forest re-grows and remains. In the meantime, old growth fire-spots get weeded out and the fire problem largely goes away. Same goes for salmon fishing in waters. Same goes for big cats, Elephants, and Rhinos on the African Savannah. Would-be owners would actually ensure the populations grew, and because the black market is gone (because a legal market now exists), poachers won't destroy the species." Air pollution is trickier because air pollution travels outside the area in which it was produced.

If you view Europe as the model of what America should be, why don't you move to Europe? America is the greatest nation in the world, growing on the backs of hard-working Americans willing to risk everything and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Europeans and Asians (and currently latin Americans) move here for the opportunity that exists, not the free handouts that you would give them. Go live in France, and then you can come back and tell me that France is better. Right now, you don't know that. You are an idealist who would like to make America a collectivist utopia (BTW, utopia and collectivist only belong together in pipe dreams).

It is in the public interest to have an anti-liberal movement, no matter how close to marxism you would like America to move.

Just like I agree that a liberal presence in America is a good thing (it helps keep corruption out of the more reasoned and liberty-loving Republican party).
August 12, 2008

9:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Castle writes:

RBCC writes: "Yet more evidence that we need to restore the Fairness Doctrine to take the public airwaves back from these radical extremists on the far right."

The Fairness Doctrine is not fair. It applys only to radio talk shows. Not TV news, not newspaers, but conserative radio talk shows. The reason the liberals are pushinhg it is simple. They can't keep a liberial on the radio waves long enough to collect his first pay check. I guess no one wants to listen to a liberial, even liberals won't listen to liberals.
August 15, 2008

12:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Most liberals probably recognize talk radio as the low-brow organ of propaganda it is, and that's why they don't listen to it. You can fool some of the people some of the time...

I wonder sometimes: do those who listen to talk radio, also sit up at night watching infomercials for leisure? The only difference between the two, from what I can see, is that the infomercial doesn't try to make you angry.
August 19, 2008

12:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

primafacie writes:

If KOA must offer "balance" to Rush Limbaugh, then I'd expect them to also offer "balance" to the homerism that passes for Rockies and Broncos coverage. KOA's voices for the Rockies have easily passed up those clowns in Atlanta for the worst homer act in all of baseball radio, Jeff Kingery making no pretense that he waves pom-poms for the Rockies -- rooting "stay fair baseball!" when a Rockies player hits one down the line, and generally playing the role of fan.

And we won't even discuss Dave Logan -- a high school football coach, of all things! -- serving as play-by-play man for the Broncos. You mean there isn't a professional radio personality willing to take the job?

The powers at KOA should check out Vin Scully in Los Angeles or Jon Miller in San Francisco to find out how real pros do it.

Of course, the homer act doesn't quit after the game. The morning-drive "news" anchors freely admit partisanship to the home team. That's just plain embarrassing.
August 20, 2008

10:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

mniday writes:

Rush is a white person speaking to white conservatives. He is an articulate speaker with superb communication skills, and has many absolutely great ideas.

Your article, 'KOA needs a Rush counterbalance' is disgusting. I am so sick of your insecure leftist attitude. All of you people are unsure socialists struggeling to ruin this country.

It is clear to me that you personally are nothing more than a common, ordinary, disgusting liberal who, hopefully, while attending the DNC debacle-to-be, will suffer the results of some of the physical reprecussions that are sure to happen during that event.
May the 'bird of complete and total business failure' fly up your nose.

Home › Opinion › Opinion Columns & Blogs

SALZMAN: KOA needs a Rush counterbalance

News-time commentary raises fairness issue

By Jason Salzman, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published August 1, 2008 at 8 p.m.

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs