http://denver.yourhub.com/Longmont/Blogs/News-Politics/Commentary/Blog~327680.aspx

6/28/2007

What's so dangerous about Fairness?

Bing Van Gorden

I encourage everyone to go and see exactly what the Fairness Doctrine
is before they go screaming into the night about censorship.
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

First the doctrine was in place for 40 years to ensure those who were
using the public airwaves on radio and TV that equal time be allowed
for opposing views.

Sure conservatives complained about the doctrine because they weren't
free to slander political opponents and mislead the audience without
fear of being exposed.

The most popular conservative talkers and pundits like Rush Limbaugh,
Michael Savage, Laura Schlesinger and the like are free to air their
opinions.

Unfortunately all too often they severely distort the views of
political opponents, of pending legislation and public policy issues.

In short they are using the public's airwaves to push a conservative
agenda and the result is an uninformed and often overly excited group
of people.

Critics of the Fairness Doctrine have legitimate concerns.

Of course capitalism and the desire to see "free" markets are impeded
when radio stations and the major networks of ABC, NBC, and CBS and
PBS are forced by government mandate to present opposing views.

This is of great concern for those who believe the freedom to make a
buck outweighs the public's interest.

The internet and cable TV news as well as satellite radio is not the
public's airwaves but privately owned and operated would not be
effected by the doctrine.

Also, there is much disinformation from the conservative talkers that
they will be censored or impeded from speaking their minds.

Not true.

They would face a possible rebuttal.

This may eat into the station owners profits, or it may actually
encourage even more listeners, but the profit motive is outweighed by
the public's interest.

The Fairness Doctrine isn't about promoting one ideology over others,
it's about fairness after all.

It deals more with FCC licensing than content.

The idea being that owners of stations will have to more frequently
renew their license and go before the FCC for review.

This will allow more balance in programming for a better informed
public.

We're not talking about a panel of handpicked cronies sitting around
listening to hours of talk radio picking out what's acceptable and
what's not.

If Rush Limbaugh, for example, says something about John Edwards say,
and it is patently false, Mr. Edwards can contact the FCC.

The FCC contacts the radio stations that broadcasted the program and
if Mr. Edwards successfully made his case that he was misrepresented,
Mr. Limbaugh could clarify his remarks or a rebuttal could be offered
by Mr. Edwards that would then be broadcast by the radio stations.

It's not perfect.

But the role of the media, at the very least on our public airwaves,
is to inform the public.

Not just make a buck.

Unfortunately the de-regulated and merger driven press does not
currently do this.

Jefferson stated that our democracy must have an informed electorate
and he was right.

There are plenty of opportunities to make the unimpeded buck on
privately owned operations as I described above.

If the markets provided this without government intervention we
wouldn't need the Fairness Doctrine or something similar to it.

But the current crop of conservative talkers who claim that
progressive talk has no market and have been claiming for four years
that it's a lost cause are not only mistaken but they are currently
perpetuating more myths about fairness.

This is not censorship.

This is not about "changing the rules" because they can't compete.

AirAmerica and other progressive programming is not given a
transparent and level playing field.

In several markets progressive programming does very well, often times
beating the more conservative talkers.

Yet they are not given the same opportunity.

Sean Hannity's program on ABC radio networks for example will insist
that other conservative talkers get air time if a radio station wants
to buy their product.

Conservative radio in effect protects its own through monopolistic and
abusive capitalistic practices.

Shutting out competition through ridiculous demands like this is not
"free" markets.

If conservative detest fairness so much, perhaps it is time to make
such practices against the law.

Another myth that the conservatives trot out is that the rest of the
media is so liberally biased that talk radio balances it out.

First conservatives confuse their opinions with actual facts, so the
idea that they need talk radio to balance is inaccurate.

There isn't one radio host that is bound by journalistic standards and
the majority of them, state their opinion as fact.

Two, there is no liberal bias pervasive in the main stream media.

Rush Limbaugh recently appeared on CBS news for an opinion segment, he
demanded he speak with no rebuttal offered and guess what?

He lied.

Glenn Beck has his own show on CNN and is often asked for his
commentary on the major networks.

His spiel on TV is the same as on the radio.

One sided and full of BS.

There are numerous conservative pundits and commentators who are
mistaken for journalists on cable news.

Outside of possibly Kieth Olberman on MSNBC where are the liberals?
Where is the liberal point of view in the main stream media?

It's scarce folks.

As a liberal who consumes news all day long I am thoroughly
disappointed with the lack of liberal views on the main stream news
channels and papers.

The editorial pages of the Washington Post and NY Times, two of the
conservatives favorite targets as the liberal media, are filled with
conservative writers and opinions with the occasional liberal point of
view.

Conservatives have effectively brow beaten the major networks and
papers to lean to the right even if their own reporters dispute the
opinion writers.

If there were a main stream media liberal bias there would be far
fewer ill informed people as a recent Newsweek poll has found.

There would be fewer people who believe Saddam Hussein was directly
involved in 9-11, that we found WMD in Iraq, that they had a nuclear
program etc. etc.

A liberal media would have done a much better job in dissecting the
dubious claims Bush used to get us in Iraq in the first place.

A liberal media, whatever your definition of liberal may be, would
have made a case for impeachment for Bush, Cheney and Gonzales.

The bias in the media is market driven.

Money driven, profit driven.

Not information driven.

Not in providing a public service.

We need something like the Fairness Doctrine to correct this, else our
republican democracy is in peril.

_______________________________________________

Harry

http://denver.yourhub.com/Longmont/Blogs/News-Politics/Commentary/Blog~327680.aspx

6/28/2007

What's so dangerous about Fairness?

http://denver.yourhub.com/Longmont/Blogs/News-Politics/Commentary/Blog~327680.aspx

6/28/2007

What's so dangerous about Fairness?

Bing Van Gorden

I encourage everyone to go and see exactly what the Fairness Doctrine
is before they go screaming into the night about censorship.
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

http://denver.yourhub.com/Longmont/Blogs/News-Politics/Commentary/Blog~327680.aspx

6/28/2007

What's so dangerous about Fairness?

Bing Van Gorden

I encourage everyone to go and see exactly what the Fairness Doctrine
is before they go screaming into the night about censorship.
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

First the doctrine was in place for 40 years to ensure those who were
using the public airwaves on radio and TV that equal time be allowed
for opposing views.

Sure conservatives complained about the doctrine because they weren't
free to slander political opponents and mislead the audience without
fear of being exposed.

The most popular conservative talkers and pundits like Rush Limbaugh,
Michael Savage, Laura Schlesinger and the like are free to air their
opinions.

Unfortunately all too often they severely distort the views of
political opponents, of pending legislation and public policy issues.

In short they are using the public's airwaves to push a conservative
agenda and the result is an uninformed and often overly excited group
of people.

Critics of the Fairness Doctrine have legitimate concerns.

Of course capitalism and the desire to see "free" markets are impeded
when radio stations and the major networks of ABC, NBC, and CBS and
PBS are forced by government mandate to present opposing views.

This is of great concern for those who believe the freedom to make a
buck outweighs the public's interest.

The internet and cable TV news as well as satellite radio is not the
public's airwaves but privately owned and operated would not be
effected by the doctrine.

Also, there is much disinformation from the conservative talkers that
they will be censored or impeded from speaking their minds.

Not true.

They would face a possible rebuttal.

This may eat into the station owners profits, or it may actually
encourage even more listeners, but the profit motive is outweighed by
the public's interest.

The Fairness Doctrine isn't about promoting one ideology over others,
it's about fairness after all.

It deals more with FCC licensing than content.

The idea being that owners of stations will have to more frequently
renew their license and go before the FCC for review.

This will allow more balance in programming for a better informed
public.

We're not talking about a panel of handpicked cronies sitting around
listening to hours of talk radio picking out what's acceptable and
what's not.

If Rush Limbaugh, for example, says something about John Edwards say,
and it is patently false, Mr. Edwards can contact the FCC.

The FCC contacts the radio stations that broadcasted the program and
if Mr. Edwards successfully made his case that he was misrepresented,
Mr. Limbaugh could clarify his remarks or a rebuttal could be offered
by Mr. Edwards that would then be broadcast by the radio stations.

It's not perfect.

But the role of the media, at the very least on our public airwaves,
is to inform the public.

Not just make a buck.

Unfortunately the de-regulated and merger driven press does not
currently do this.

Jefferson stated that our democracy must have an informed electorate
and he was right.

There are plenty of opportunities to make the unimpeded buck on
privately owned operations as I described above.

If the markets provided this without government intervention we
wouldn't need the Fairness Doctrine or something similar to it.

But the current crop of conservative talkers who claim that
progressive talk has no market and have been claiming for four years
that it's a lost cause are not only mistaken but they are currently
perpetuating more myths about fairness.

This is not censorship.

This is not about "changing the rules" because they can't compete.

AirAmerica and other progressive programming is not given a
transparent and level playing field.

In several markets progressive programming does very well, often times
beating the more conservative talkers.

Yet they are not given the same opportunity.

Sean Hannity's program on ABC radio networks for example will insist
that other conservative talkers get air time if a radio station wants
to buy their product.

Conservative radio in effect protects its own through monopolistic and
abusive capitalistic practices.

Shutting out competition through ridiculous demands like this is not
"free" markets.

If conservative detest fairness so much, perhaps it is time to make
such practices against the law.

Another myth that the conservatives trot out is that the rest of the
media is so liberally biased that talk radio balances it out.

First conservatives confuse their opinions with actual facts, so the
idea that they need talk radio to balance is inaccurate.

There isn't one radio host that is bound by journalistic standards and
the majority of them, state their opinion as fact.

Two, there is no liberal bias pervasive in the main stream media.

Rush Limbaugh recently appeared on CBS news for an opinion segment, he
demanded he speak with no rebuttal offered and guess what?

He lied.

Glenn Beck has his own show on CNN and is often asked for his
commentary on the major networks.

His spiel on TV is the same as on the radio.

One sided and full of BS.

There are numerous conservative pundits and commentators who are
mistaken for journalists on cable news.

Outside of possibly Kieth Olberman on MSNBC where are the liberals?
Where is the liberal point of view in the main stream media?

It's scarce folks.

As a liberal who consumes news all day long I am thoroughly
disappointed with the lack of liberal views on the main stream news
channels and papers.

The editorial pages of the Washington Post and NY Times, two of the
conservatives favorite targets as the liberal media, are filled with
conservative writers and opinions with the occasional liberal point of
view.

Conservatives have effectively brow beaten the major networks and
papers to lean to the right even if their own reporters dispute the
opinion writers.

If there were a main stream media liberal bias there would be far
fewer ill informed people as a recent Newsweek poll has found.

There would be fewer people who believe Saddam Hussein was directly
involved in 9-11, that we found WMD in Iraq, that they had a nuclear
program etc. etc.

A liberal media would have done a much better job in dissecting the
dubious claims Bush used to get us in Iraq in the first place.

A liberal media, whatever your definition of liberal may be, would
have made a case for impeachment for Bush, Cheney and Gonzales.

The bias in the media is market driven.

Money driven, profit driven.

Not information driven.

Not in providing a public service.

We need something like the Fairness Doctrine to correct this, else our
republican democracy is in peril.

_______________________________________________

Harry

6/28/2007

What's so dangerous about Fairness?

http://denver.yourhub.com/Longmont/Blogs/News-Politics/Commentary/Blo...

6/28/2007

What's so dangerous about Fairness?

Bing Van Gorden

I encourage everyone to go and see exactly what the Fairness Doctrine
is before they go screaming into the night about censorship.http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

First the doctrine was in place for 40 years to ensure those who were
using the public airwaves on radio and TV that equal time be allowed
for opposing views.

Sure conservatives complained about the doctrine because they weren't
free to slander political opponents and mislead the audience without
fear of being exposed.

The most popularconservativetalkers and pundits like Rush Limbaugh,
Michael Savage, Laura Schlesinger and the like are free to air their
opinions.

Unfortunately all too often they severely distort the views of
political opponents, of pending legislation and public policy issues.

In short they are using the public's airwaves to push aconservative
agenda and the result is an uninformed and often overly excited group
of people.

Critics of the Fairness Doctrine have legitimate concerns.

Of course capitalism and the desire to see "free" markets are impeded
when radio stations and the major networks of ABC, NBC, and CBS and
PBS are forced by government mandate to present opposing views.

This is of great concern for those who believe the freedom to make a
buck outweighs the public's interest.

The internet and cable TV news as well as satellite radio is not the
public's airwaves but privately owned and operated would not be
effected by the doctrine.

Also, there is much disinformation from theconservativetalkers that
they will be censored or impeded from speaking their minds.

Not true.

They would face a possible rebuttal.

This may eat into the station owners profits, or it may actually
encourage even more listeners, but the profit motive is outweighed by
the public's interest.

The Fairness Doctrine isn't about promoting one ideology over others,
it's about fairness after all.

It deals more with FCC licensing than content.

The idea being that owners of stations will have to more frequently
renew their license and go before the FCC for review.

This will allow more balance in programming for a better informed
public.

We're not talking about a panel of handpicked cronies sitting around
listening to hours of talk radio picking out what's acceptable and
what's not.

If Rush Limbaugh, for example, says something about John Edwards say,
and it is patently false, Mr. Edwards can contact the FCC.

The FCC contacts the radio stations that broadcasted the program and
if Mr. Edwards successfully made his case that he was misrepresented,
Mr. Limbaugh could clarify his remarks or a rebuttal could be offered
by Mr. Edwards that would then be broadcast by the radio stations.

It's not perfect.

But the role of the media, at the very least on our public airwaves,
is to inform the public.

Not just make a buck.

Unfortunately the de-regulated and merger driven press does not
currently do this.

Jefferson stated that our democracy must have an informed electorate
and he was right.

There are plenty of opportunities to make the unimpeded buck on
privately owned operations as I described above.

If the markets provided this without government intervention we
wouldn't need the Fairness Doctrine or something similar to it.

But the current crop ofconservativetalkers who claim that
progressive talk has no market and have been claiming for four years
that it's a lost cause are not only mistaken but they are currently
perpetuating more myths about fairness.

This is not censorship.

This is not about "changing the rules" because they can't compete.

AirAmerica and other progressive programming is not given a
transparent and level playing field.

In several markets progressive programming does very well, often times
beating the moreconservativetalkers.

Yet they are not given the same opportunity.

Sean Hannity's program on ABC radio networks for example will insist
that otherconservativetalkers get air time if a radio station wants
to buy their product.

Conservativeradio in effect protects its own through monopolistic and
abusive capitalistic practices.

Shutting out competition through ridiculous demands like this is not
"free" markets.

Ifconservativedetest fairness so much, perhaps it is time to make
such practices against the law.

Another myth that the conservatives trot out is that the rest of the
media is so liberally biased that talk radio balances it out.

First conservatives confuse their opinions with actual facts, so the
idea that they need talk radio to balance is inaccurate.

There isn't one radio host that is bound by journalistic standards and
the majority of them, state their opinion as fact.

Two, there is no liberal bias pervasive in the main stream media.

Rush Limbaugh recently appeared on CBS news for an opinion segment, he
demanded he speak with no rebuttal offered and guess what?

He lied.

Glenn Beck has his own show on CNN and is often asked for his
commentary on the major networks.

His spiel on TV is the same as on the radio.

One sided and full of BS.

There are numerousconservativepundits and commentators who are
mistaken for journalists on cable news.

Outside of possibly Kieth Olberman on MSNBC where are the liberals?
Where is the liberal point of view in the main stream media?

It's scarce folks.

As a liberal who consumes news all day long I am thoroughly
disappointed with the lack of liberal views on the main stream news
channels and papers.

The editorial pages of the Washington Post and NY Times, two of the
conservatives favorite targets as the liberal media, are filled withconservativewriters and opinions with the occasional liberal point of
view.

Conservatives have effectively brow beaten the major networks and
papers to lean to the right even if their own reporters dispute the
opinion writers.

If there were a main stream media liberal bias there would be far
fewer ill informed people as a recent Newsweek poll has found.

There would be fewer people who believe Saddam Hussein was directly
involved in 9-11, that we found WMD in Iraq, that they had a nuclear
program etc. etc.

A liberal media would have done a much better job in dissecting the
dubious claims Bush used to get us in Iraq in the first place.

A liberal media, whatever your definition of liberal may be, would
have made a case for impeachment for Bush, Cheney and Gonzales.

The bias in the media is market driven.

Money driven, profit driven.

Not information driven.

Not in providing a public service.

We need something like the Fairness Doctrine to correct this, else our
republican democracy is in peril.

_______________________________________________

Harry

DEAR HARD-WORKING, TENACIOUS ACTIVIST CITIZENS OF THE NUMBERSUSA ACTION
NETWORK,


a.. For at least five months, most newspaper editorial boards, the
majority of columnists and news stories and pronouncements from the other
elite institutions of America have told you that a "comprehensive
immigration bill" would inevitably pass the Senate this year.

That only caused most of you to fax, phone and visit Senatorial offices
all the more often.


a.. Most national religious leaders who spoke out on this issue said the
moral high ground was in rewarding the U.S. businesses and foreign labor
who broke our immigration laws.

But in the pews (and quietly in most of the parsonages), the overwhelming
majority of the people of faith stayed grounded in the values of justice
and freedom, and stood against massive new flows of foreign labor that are
at the expense of our society's most vulnerable citizens. You stood
against this massive government-coerced population explosion that is so
destructive of the natural habitats or our country that stand in the
bulldozers' path.


a.. In the last week, several venerable warriors from past decades of
massive legislative battles such as this one have gloomily proclaimed that
when The Establishment almost totally unites for something, the grassroots
never prevail.

But the nearly HALF-MILLION activist members of the NumbersUSA Action
Network just devoted even more time and energy to leaving no doubt where
the quantity, the quality and the passion was among each Senator's
constituency.

YOU NEVER GAVE UP -- DESPITE MANY TWISTS AND TURNS THAT WERE DEMORALIZING.

YOU NEVER GAVE UP -- DESPITE VICIOUS SLURS THROWN AT YOU BY U.S. SENATORS,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATE AND MAJOR NEWS MEDIA FIGURES.

THE ESTABLISHMENT lost today.

The average American citizen won. You disproved the cynicism (born of
great experience) in this town that this kind of victory was impossible.

53 U.S. Senators actually paid attention to what you had to say, felt
enough pressure to wonder if there might be validity on our side of
analysis, and concluded that through combination of political wisdom and
policy wisdom they should vote the way the majority of their constituents
believed proper -- rather than be swayed by all the power, money and
prestige of The Establishment.

That may not be a miracle, but it is a mighty cool breeze of
representative democracy on a hot, humid, sticky mid-day in the marble
chambers sitting atop the swamps along the Potomac!

Just to make sure you don't miss the context of your victory, consider
this:

In recent months, the pro-amnesty, pro-globalized-labor forces had
assembled this Establishment Goliath of support for their "comprensive
immigration reform" concept:
Pres. Bush
Senate Democratic Leaders
Senate Republican Leaders
House Majority Democratic Leaders
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Dozens of other corporation lobby groups
The largest philanthropic foundations
Perhaps 90% of the newspaper editorial boards that weighed in
The Washington offices of most major religious denominations
Nearly all ethnic advocacy groups
Most of Washington's think tanks

As the L.A. Times said on its Sunday front page, NumbersUSA activists were
probably the largest and the loudest going up against that formidable
force.

But you all were also part of an incredible chain-reaction type of civic
involvement that used the internet and talk radio to multiply the message
along with dozens of other citizen groups.

And we were greatly assisted by the fact that a handful of significant
sources of power joined the citizen revolt of bloggers, talkers and
forwarders. Among them:
The American Legion
The AFL-CIO (somewhat timidly)
The National Review on-line magazine
CNN's Lou Dobbs

Your power was not in just being loud and persistent. It was that you knew
the issues. You knew the many ways this bill was bad for America.

It is trite to say but the exclamation of the boy in the crowd that "The
Emperor Is Wearing No Clothes" describes so well what you did.

Thank you to those who have acted almost daily since Congress returned in
January.

Thank you to those who recently have acted several times a day.
Incredible.

Thank you to those who had so little time to give, but stepped in once or
twice a week.

And thank you to the 78,343 "replacements" who only joined since June 1
but have been so important in overwhelming the Senate with our message.

We will even lavish praise on the 6,733 of you who joined yesterday and
made your first calls and sent your first faxes!

At this moment, there are 444,496 of you who are registered, proven
activists using the NumbersUSA tools! What an army you have been. But you
are not MY army, or OUR army. You are YOUR OWN army -- 444,496 separate
individuals working in collective, cumulative power, saying just what you
want to say, writing just what you want to write. That is the power that
won the victory today.

I only caution that what we did today was forestall disaster.

Our future, the next generation's future, depends on our marshalling these
same forces together to begin to make improvements in immigration policy,
one piece at a time, starting tomorrow.

We will be posting new opportunities of action soon, and especially
opportunities to praise and criticize the votes today of your own
Senators.

www.NumbersUSA.com/actionbuffet

THANKS FOR ALL YOU DID ON THIS ANTI-AMNESTY CAMPAIGN,


P.S. We welcome responses to our Alerts. Do NOT click "reply." Please send
your responses from our Help Form at:
http://www.numbersusa.com/helpform

"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:m0l8839jsoatg4jm2dbrkmj7h1hu9muh8g@4ax.com...

http://denver.yourhub.com/Longmont/Blogs/News-Politics/Commentary/Blog~327680.aspx

6/28/2007

What's so dangerous about Fairness?

Bing Van Gorden

I encourage everyone to go and see exactly what the Fairness Doctrine
is before they go screaming into the night about censorship.
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

First the doctrine was in place for 40 years to ensure those who were
using the public airwaves on radio and TV that equal time be allowed
for opposing views.

Sure conservatives complained about the doctrine because they weren't
free to slander political opponents and mislead the audience without
fear of being exposed.

The most popular conservative talkers and pundits like Rush Limbaugh,
Michael Savage, Laura Schlesinger and the like are free to air their
opinions.

Unfortunately all too often they severely distort the views of
political opponents, of pending legislation and public policy issues.

In short they are using the public's airwaves to push a conservative
agenda and the result is an uninformed and often overly excited group
of people.

Critics of the Fairness Doctrine have legitimate concerns.

Of course capitalism and the desire to see "free" markets are impeded
when radio stations and the major networks of ABC, NBC, and CBS and
PBS are forced by government mandate to present opposing views.

This is of great concern for those who believe the freedom to make a
buck outweighs the public's interest.

The internet and cable TV news as well as satellite radio is not the
public's airwaves but privately owned and operated would not be
effected by the doctrine.

Also, there is much disinformation from the conservative talkers that
they will be censored or impeded from speaking their minds.

Not true.

They would face a possible rebuttal.

This may eat into the station owners profits, or it may actually
encourage even more listeners, but the profit motive is outweighed by
the public's interest.

The Fairness Doctrine isn't about promoting one ideology over others,
it's about fairness after all.

It deals more with FCC licensing than content.

The idea being that owners of stations will have to more frequently
renew their license and go before the FCC for review.

This will allow more balance in programming for a better informed
public.

We're not talking about a panel of handpicked cronies sitting around
listening to hours of talk radio picking out what's acceptable and
what's not.

If Rush Limbaugh, for example, says something about John Edwards say,
and it is patently false, Mr. Edwards can contact the FCC.

The FCC contacts the radio stations that broadcasted the program and
if Mr. Edwards successfully made his case that he was misrepresented,
Mr. Limbaugh could clarify his remarks or a rebuttal could be offered
by Mr. Edwards that would then be broadcast by the radio stations.

It's not perfect.

But the role of the media, at the very least on our public airwaves,
is to inform the public.

Not just make a buck.

Unfortunately the de-regulated and merger driven press does not
currently do this.

Jefferson stated that our democracy must have an informed electorate
and he was right.

There are plenty of opportunities to make the unimpeded buck on
privately owned operations as I described above.

If the markets provided this without government intervention we
wouldn't need the Fairness Doctrine or something similar to it.

But the current crop of conservative talkers who claim that
progressive talk has no market and have been claiming for four years
that it's a lost cause are not only mistaken but they are currently
perpetuating more myths about fairness.

This is not censorship.

This is not about "changing the rules" because they can't compete.

AirAmerica and other progressive programming is not given a
transparent and level playing field.

In several markets progressive programming does very well, often times
beating the more conservative talkers.

Yet they are not given the same opportunity.

Sean Hannity's program on ABC radio networks for example will insist
that other conservative talkers get air time if a radio station wants
to buy their product.

Conservative radio in effect protects its own through monopolistic and
abusive capitalistic practices.

Shutting out competition through ridiculous demands like this is not
"free" markets.

If conservative detest fairness so much, perhaps it is time to make
such practices against the law.

Another myth that the conservatives trot out is that the rest of the
media is so liberally biased that talk radio balances it out.

First conservatives confuse their opinions with actual facts, so the
idea that they need talk radio to balance is inaccurate.

There isn't one radio host that is bound by journalistic standards and
the majority of them, state their opinion as fact.

Two, there is no liberal bias pervasive in the main stream media.

Rush Limbaugh recently appeared on CBS news for an opinion segment, he
demanded he speak with no rebuttal offered and guess what?

He lied.

Glenn Beck has his own show on CNN and is often asked for his
commentary on the major networks.

His spiel on TV is the same as on the radio.

One sided and full of BS.

There are numerous conservative pundits and commentators who are
mistaken for journalists on cable news.

Outside of possibly Kieth Olberman on MSNBC where are the liberals?
Where is the liberal point of view in the main stream media?

It's scarce folks.

As a liberal who consumes news all day long I am thoroughly
disappointed with the lack of liberal views on the main stream news
channels and papers.

The editorial pages of the Washington Post and NY Times, two of the
conservatives favorite targets as the liberal media, are filled with
conservative writers and opinions with the occasional liberal point of
view.

Conservatives have effectively brow beaten the major networks and
papers to lean to the right even if their own reporters dispute the
opinion writers.

If there were a main stream media liberal bias there would be far
fewer ill informed people as a recent Newsweek poll has found.

There would be fewer people who believe Saddam Hussein was directly
involved in 9-11, that we found WMD in Iraq, that they had a nuclear
program etc. etc.

A liberal media would have done a much better job in dissecting the
dubious claims Bush used to get us in Iraq in the first place.

A liberal media, whatever your definition of liberal may be, would
have made a case for impeachment for Bush, Cheney and Gonzales.

The bias in the media is market driven.

Money driven, profit driven.

Not information driven.

Not in providing a public service.

We need something like the Fairness Doctrine to correct this, else our
republican democracy is in peril.

_______________________________________________

Harry