Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Was the Giffords' alleged shooter motivated by politics or just crazy?

By Howard B. Owens
Bob Harker

The left continues to amaze me. They cannot see the double standards they constantly call for. This tragedy is only the latest example.

From the left winged sheriff (who should be apolitical but obviously is not and now holds the world record for the use of the word "vitriol" in one statement)to left winged "democratic leaders" calling for radio talk shows to be held accountable for this nutjob's actions. Limbagh, Hannity, and Becks' stated opinions caused this.

Yet when a muslim extremist, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, shoots up Ft. Hood - killing 15 - these same voices were calling for the public nit to "jump to conclusions" that his ties to radical islam were involved in his motivation.

For me, the scariest aspect of this blind bias is that those that encourage and support such rhetoric can't see the unjustifiable content and naivete of their words.

Jan 10, 2011, 11:57am Permalink
George Richardson

The Sheriff spoke his true opinion based on seventy five years of living. There was nothing political about it, at all, and he is absolutely right. What the world needs now, is love sweet love, it's the only thing that there is just too little of. C'mon people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together try to love one another right now. Tin soldiers and Nixon coming, we're finally on our own. This summer I hear the drumming, four dead in Ohio. Comprende Amigo?

Jan 10, 2011, 12:14pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Bob, so far the only poster to make this political is you.
This event was a tragedy. A senseless shooting spree that left, among others, a nine year old girl dead.
If this has any positive benefit, it may be the realization that demonizing public officials can trigger an unstable mind into acting out what he/she perceives as the 'right' thing to do.

If you are a fan of Limbaugh, Beck, Palin or Hannity, then you probably don't find their rhetoric, vitriolic.

From what I've read and heard, most of the media talking heads are taking a serious look at what they say and how they say it.

If you didn't catch it, Keith Olbermann's apology for things he has said, and comments made by others, is well worth watching

Olbermann: Violence and threats have no place in democracy

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40981503/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_o…

Jan 10, 2011, 12:37pm Permalink
John Roach

I only heard one radio talk show host, Stephanie Miller (a lefty) on 1520 AM try to make this political. The others today, both on the left and right, are not.

From what you see on the TV news, this guy is a nut. Interviews with past teachers and fellow students all seem to agree with that. It's like John Hinckley. He did not shoot President Ronald Reagan because he was a left wing nut, he shot him because he was a nut; period. Politics had nothing to do with it. There are just people like that.

Jan 10, 2011, 1:24pm Permalink
George Richardson

She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah. She loves you yeah, yeah, yeah. With a love like that you know it can't be bad.
Don't reload, press reset on the love button.

Jan 10, 2011, 2:24pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/48N3lP42qdA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/48N3lP42qdA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Jan 10, 2011, 2:34pm Permalink
George Richardson

I love this one too, Dave. True gutteral expression from a genius with a brain and a heart. People don't understand irony any longer.

Jan 10, 2011, 2:40pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

True Story: early 1978, I had heard of but had not yet heard The Talking Heads (remember in the days of only commercial, tightly programmed radio, it was hard for a band like this to break through). I was on the punk rock/new wave train already by this time.

A friend had free tickets to a show at a little college-campus club called The Backdoor. Real small venue. The headliner that night: The Talking Heads.

Again, I knew nothing of their music, but thought it would be a good show to go to.

The image of a sunken-eyed David Byrne singing "Psycho Killer" just 10 feet in front of me is as etched into my mind to this day as clearly as if you set a photograph in front of me. It was an awesome performance.

That is the only thing I remember from that show.

That was the first time I ever heard this song, now one of my all-time favorites.

Jan 10, 2011, 2:53pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

OUR public airwaves have become political opinion-shapers. Whether we agree or not, pundits who used to be buried on low-wattage AM stations, entertaining mostly insomniacs have evolved (for whatever reason- likely budget) into messianic experts leading sheep of varied ilk, possessing nothing more than gift of gab.

I used to be amused by some of these loudmouths: the purveyors of pyramidology, alien abduction and the late Gene Scott, who never inspired me, but certainly married cigar, esoteric blather and performance as high art.

I am not one for censorship, but the former regulation, mandating equal time seems to have been abandoned. The frequency-bands allocated to commercial interests are not owned by the broadcast company- they are public. Financial standing and an agenda should not be the sole qualifier for use of those bands. The FCC should interrupt focus on five words and start enforcing neutrality. We all pay for this BS- whether we agree or not.

Jan 10, 2011, 2:54pm Permalink
John Roach

CM,
I don't want the FCC to enforce what it thinks is "neutrality".

Being a government agency, sooner or later the political party in office, who appoint who will run the FCC, will decide what is fair. Then you get hidden censorship. Some of us think the government has already picked sides by continuing to funding NPR. You have to stretch credibility to say they are neutral or in the center

Right now the airwaves are governed by the market. Most people seem to like what they listen to. Around the Buffalo area, you can hear the right on 930 AM, you can hear the left on 1520 AM, and the "fair" NPR on 970 AM. Seems fair to me, I get to pick what I will listen to. The station that gives the public what they want gets the most advertising money. The losers will either get less money or drop the broadcasts.

We don't need the government telling us what is fair or neutral, we can decide ourselves.

Jan 10, 2011, 3:14pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Jack,
If Olbermann is a clown, in your eyes, so be it.
However, I'm not one to gorge on the pap that most of the talking heads feed the public.
I'm not blaming either side. I do believe that the rhetoric needs to be toned down.
The New York Times did a piece, yesterday, on the fact that this event will generate debate on the right and wrong of vitriolic rhetoric.
There are people who feed on it.
This shooter may not be one of them but what about the next?

Jan 10, 2011, 3:15pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

Howard, I think that if i could time-travel, one of the first things for me would be the late 70's New York City, and catch the "New Wave" bands on the cusp of breaking out at CBGB. Must've been great. The sad part is, I graduated high school in 1977 and could've done that, but knew nothing about it. C'est la vie.

Jan 10, 2011, 3:48pm Permalink
kevin kretschmer

Keith Olbermann is a clown in the eyes of just about every television viewer in America, as well as all of his former co-workers and previous employers. His apology is no more genuine than his vow to stop his obsession with all things Bill O'Reilly, end the "Worst Person in the World" segment, stop blogging on the Huffington Post, and cancel his Twitter account.

A piece today in The National Review sums up his antics quite nicely -

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256747/mr-civility-katrina-trinko

Jan 10, 2011, 3:51pm Permalink
Bob Harker

C.M. to follow your thinking:

You work hard, do your research, and invent an immensely popular widget. You prosper.

I, on the other, bring to market an inferior product. Let's call it the anti-widget. Try as I might to sell my anti-widget, people just aren't interested, and I can't make enough money to keep marketing my product.

In steps our friendly government. "It" believes that in spite of folks lack of interest in the anti-widget, because they are flocking in droves to your widget, they should be exposed to the anti-widget. They are not capable of making their own decisions as to what widget best suits their need.

As simplistic as this analogy is, it pretty much sums up what I hear when the left calls for revisiting the "fairness" doctrine. Government knows best what it's SUBJECTS needs.

I personally think Michael Savage is an idiot. I change the station. Capitalism at work.

Jan 10, 2011, 4:05pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

I gotta go with Bob and John on this C.M and Bea. Freedom of speech, freedom to be an ass and all that. Personally, I can't take it anymore and don't listen to or watch either side. I used to flip between radio stations when driving to get different points of view and watch different TV pundits for the same reason. No more, they all irritate me to no end and give me a headache because of the partisanship. I either listen to sports talk radio or NPR (when it's not a political story) and watch PBS for news. Mostly, though I have about 6 sites linked to my facebook and I read the articles which interest me and then surf around for more on the same subject.

Jan 10, 2011, 4:17pm Permalink
George Richardson

Kevin, my doctor told me that if watching that crap was causing me pain, then I should stop watching that crap. He is a smart man, even though I totally ignore him.
Be a lover, not a fighter, and enjoy life like it was meant to be before the fuggin' internet. Thank you Al Gore, for being a visionary that made things possible for us assholes. Howard, what is so funny about peace love and understanding? I don't get it.
You too, Billie.

Jan 10, 2011, 4:22pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

I specifically decried censorship. I'm asserting that the airwaves are public domain. If John doesn't see the FCC as the proper agency for "balancing" the editorial output of commercial broadcasters- that has no bearing on my premise. The airwaves are public, and just because corporations have gobbled up the outlets, does not give them the right to mandate the editorial policy of those airwaves. I am only advocating for "balance;" something that used to be policy. How that balance is attained or who enforces it is nuts and bolts. Left, right or center, I don't begrudge anyone their opinion. Don't use my tax dollars to shovel it down my throat (ears).

Jan 10, 2011, 4:27pm Permalink
Bea McManis

"If a Detroit Muslim put a map on the web w/crosshairs on 20 pols, then 1 of them got shot, where would he be sitting right now? Just asking."
- Michael Moore

Jan 10, 2011, 4:27pm Permalink
Lorie Longhany

How does a nut job like this walk in to the gun store and walk out with a glock 19? Does anyone on this site believe that this psychopath should have had access to firearms? If he can't get back into school or get into the military how in the hell did he walk out of the store with a semi automatic weapon?

Hate speech on both sides and especially gun metaphors (I said both sides, John) need to end in the political discourse. No more cross hairs, no more targets, no more "second amendment remedies". No more fund raisers at the rifle range with metaphorical implications.

Jan 10, 2011, 5:44pm Permalink
George Richardson

Oh Bea, Mike's a Socialist Commie, just like you and me. Just believe what you are told and then puke it up later. I love you girl, but what other choice do you have? Politics means money, I try, but I've never cheated anyone; so I constantly come up short. Love you Dudette.
Howard, You da' MAN. Man, I mean Dude, dude.
You know dude. I know you do.
Cha cha cha.

Jan 10, 2011, 4:51pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

Thank you, Bea, for reminding me of something... The other night, driving home from work- around 1 AM, I had the opportunity to listen to some pundit (the FM station was around 92 on the dial) go on for twenty minutes in pigeon English, mimicking an Arab, voicing the most absurd stereotypical, over-the-top monologue. I wasn't angered. I wasn't sympathetic. I was embarrassed. I think Marconi, Hertz, Fessenden and Deforest, having heard what I heard, would have rescinded their inventions, likewise embarrassed by the utter misuse of their technologies. To imagine the dollars and instrumentation necessary to accomplish broadcasting- and understand the trite, self-serving garbage that typically drools out of speakers and display panels is pathetic.

Jan 10, 2011, 4:56pm Permalink
John Roach

Lorie,
The answer is that while we now know he is a "nut job", he had not been confined for mental illness in the past. And remember, mental health issues are off limits to many in our politically correct society. And most of the time, even if you know somebody needs help, you can force them to seek mental health treatment.

And as you know, we can't profile a person. This came up with a shooting in Virgina, remember?

He had no criminal history.

He didn't get in the army because he failed the drug screening. But that is not a crime and is not reported. Based on his lack of criminal history and no reportable mental history, he could have gotten a gun even in NY. Let's just hope he doesn't get off easy like Hinkley did.

Jan 10, 2011, 4:57pm Permalink
John Roach

CM,
I agree with you, they should not use our tax dollars to shove anything down our throats (ears). That's why we should end giving our tax money to National Public Radio (NPR).

Jan 10, 2011, 5:00pm Permalink
George Richardson

Don't get me wrong Howard and Billie. I know y'all know about, and believe in, peace love and understanding. I just worry about the rest of the world. They scare me into sleepless nights too often. It really sucks.

Jan 10, 2011, 5:03pm Permalink
George Richardson

C.M.: I read that book once, but thank you for making me read it again. You are pretty damn cool yourself, although you deny it. I aint lyin', dude. You are a closet liberal and I'm telling everyone about you, bad boy.

Jan 10, 2011, 5:26pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Bea quotes Michael Moore..."If a Detroit Muslim put a map on the web w/crosshairs on 20 pols, then 1 of them got shot, where would he be sitting right now? Just asking."
The answer, home in his living room after it was determined he had nothing to do with it. What an idiotic question. The initial reaction to the shooting represented one of the lowest points in American media. The MSM was literally tripping over itself trying to blame Sarah Palin and the Tea Party for this guys actions just like they tried to do with the Kentucky census worker(murder linked to Tea party/Glenn Beck, turned out to be suicide/insurance scam), Alabama professer(blamed on Tea Party/right-wing racism, turned out to be about her tenure being denied and she was actually an Obama obsessed liberal), the IRS building plane crasher(first linked as Tea Party nut, turned out to be a delusional anti-capitalist), the Pentagon shooter(linked again to Tea Party right wing rage, turned out he was obsessive anti-Bush 9/11 truther), the Manhattan Muslim cabbie stabber(blamed on right-wing anti-Ground Zero mosque rhetoric, turns out the stabber actually worked for an organization that supported the mosque and the incident was a result of a drunken college kid who had a history of same).
Rahm Emanual said ‘You never want a serious crisis to go to waste’ and the left as well as the MSM sure have lived up the that mantra.

Jan 10, 2011, 5:45pm Permalink
George Richardson

Yeah, told you. I live for clutter too. It's going to get better without a doubt. Attitude is awesome C.M. wait a few years and then tell me I'm wrong. Peace is peaceful and we all need it bad.

Jan 10, 2011, 5:48pm Permalink
Lorie Longhany

You are very funny, George.

Why is the vitriol and violence primarily targeted at the Democrats? Just wonderin. The attacks from the right toward the Democrats started when the health care debate heated up and have continued at a fevered pitch. Our own neighboring congresswoman, Louise Slaughter's office, was vandalized as well as Monroe County Democratic HQ's. No representative should be afraid for their lives and their staff's lives.

Gabby Giffords' own prophetic words.
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/R7046bo92a4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/R7046bo92a4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Jan 10, 2011, 6:06pm Permalink
John Roach

Lorie,
Could it be that the party in power is usually the target, no matter which one?

Back in 2004, the Democrat Leadership Council had a map of the US with bulls eyes on Republican districts that were up for grabs. Were Democrats hinting that they had to kill Republicans? No. Was Sara Palin saying kill Democrats, no. They both used similar imagery to make a point to go after perceived weak candidates. No more, no less.

Jan 10, 2011, 6:17pm Permalink
John Roach

Lorie,
I don't remember anyone saying otherwise? But this guy was a nut and the "rhetoric" on the left and right does not seem to have played any part in the crime. It turns out he was a registered independent that did not even vote last year.

This guy is no different than the two nuts who tried to kill Pres. Ford, the one who shot Reagan or the one that killed Kennedy. None of them were motivated by politics (well, maybe Oswald, we'll never really know with him).

Jan 10, 2011, 6:29pm Permalink
Lorie Longhany

Here's a large anonymous snip from a Republican Senator today in Politico. I'm sure he was concerned about the wrath of Limbaugh and other rabid talkers if he had gone on the record.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47294.html
A senior Republican senator, speaking anonymously in order to freely discuss the tragedy, told POLITICO that the Giffords shooting should be taken as a “cautionary tale” by Republicans.

“There is a need for some reflection here - what is too far now?” said the senator. “What was too far when Oklahoma City happened is accepted now. There’s been a desensitizing. These town halls and cable TV and talk radio, everybody’s trying to outdo each other.”

The vast majority of tea party activists, this senator said, ought not be impugned.

“They’re talking about things most mainstream Americans are talking about, like spending and debt,” the Republican said, before adding that politicians of all stripes need to emphasize in the coming days that “tone matters.”

“And the Republican Party in particular needs to reinforce that,” the senator said.

Jan 10, 2011, 6:30pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

If more of our elected representatives would spend more time on doing the job they are being over-paid for, instead of angling for re-election support or who can be beat in what district; there wouldn't be as much anger out here.

Jan 10, 2011, 6:38pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

I agree a lot with Dave.

Vitriolic speech has been a part of the Republic since the beginning.

But my basic answer is: If you want less partisan speech, stop being so partisan.

That's not directed at anybody in particular (it's my usual rant), just saying: You get what you pay for. If you make party more important than governing, then that's how people are going to respond. We're never going to get rid of the vitriol until we get rid of the two-party system.

Read the links I posted, too.

This crime was, we now know, in no way connected to any political speech. It's just a nut job who wanted media attention.

Jan 10, 2011, 6:57pm Permalink
John Roach

Lorie,
Democratic Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) literally shot a copy of a bill he did not like last year in a TV commercial, showing how he was taking "dead aim", at a bad law (which did not pass).

Was Sen. Manchin, a democrat, inciting violence? He denied it today and I agree with him, I don't think he was. He was just making a dramatic statement that he would fight bills he thought were bad. He was not advocating shooting or killing the opposition.

Jan 10, 2011, 7:02pm Permalink
Lorie Longhany

Time to tone it down John. That's all I'm saying. Incendiary gun metaphor's need to go on all sides. All for free speech but words do have consequences.

I will also go as far as condemning those violent liberals throwing bricks through all those windows of Republican law makers and driving their hippie Prius' to the Tea Party events just to provoke and disrupt. Oh, wait. That never happens.

Jan 10, 2011, 7:15pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

One area that has been overlooked in this discussion is the element of religion. When political rhetoric merges with religious fervor, the self-righteous become crusaders, assuming a mantle of divine justification. ...A charming costume for psychotics.

We may be programmed to default-finger-point toward the east when the subject of religious terrorism comes up. One should not overlook James Kopp, Scott Roeder, the Hutaree Militia, Michael Bray, Brenda Kaye Phillips, David Wayne Hull, Stephen John Jordi, David McMenemy, Chuck Foster, Paul Hill...

It is less than coincidental that conservative political ideology and fundamentalist religious ideology have coalesced. That alliance in and of itself may be benign. ...Add the reconstructionists, theocrats, Nazis and racists; a horse of a different color emerges.

Jan 10, 2011, 7:59pm Permalink
Lorie Longhany

No one is claiming that there hasn't been Democrats that make violent metaphors, but lets be honest here there's one side that's had the market and the microphone the last couple years. To put up a false equivalent at this time is just silly John and you know it.

There's a teachable moment right now and hopefully we won't squander it. If the 112th congress can get on a conference call with ALL of their members and families (800 people) we can only hope that it means that maybe just maybe the incendiary period that we have witnessed since Obama was elected will be quelled and in its place healthier debate and compromise will prevail.

Jan 10, 2011, 8:00pm Permalink
Bea McManis

John,
Go back and find where anyone from the left has made any reference that only the right is to blame for vitriolic rhetoric.
The rhetoric does have to be dialed down on all sides.

Jan 10, 2011, 8:02pm Permalink
John Roach

Lorie,
How will Congress doing anything stop a psychopath like this guy from doing anything.

Who was at fault for the attempts on Ford and Reagan? Democrats and their rhetoric? No, not at all. The attackers were nuts who were not influenced by politics.

Dialing down speech is not a bad idea. But you should learn the difference here. Very few mass murders in this country have been based on politics or hate speech. From the Texas bell tower shootings to the recent killings on that Virgina college campus, they are mostly committed by people with serious mental problems.

Jan 10, 2011, 8:36pm Permalink
Lorie Longhany

John, I'm learning something every day that I'm blessed to walk this Earth. Don't need you to set up my lesson plans. What have you learned? I've already made my opinions known in several comments.

Jan 10, 2011, 9:06pm Permalink
Lorie Longhany

Okay, good night and as the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts often sing around the camp fire.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/p3MiD_U4CHQ?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;color1=0x3a3… name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/p3MiD_U4CHQ?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;color1=0x3a3…; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Jan 10, 2011, 9:16pm Permalink
Bob Harker

C.M.!!

1.)What tax dollars go to ANY so-called "news" organizations other than those with an extreme liberal slant, such as NPR??!!!

2.)How, exactly, do you "regulate" opinions WITHOUT it being, by definition, censorship!?? Sorry if the listening audience has opinions that differ from yours. You are correct in your assertion that the airwaves are public. Nobody is stopping ANYONE from finding a vehicle to express opposing views. The public just doesn't support that format (Air America)so you are calling for government intervention!?!? So use of tax dollars is ok in that regard????

C.M. we are on opposite ends of the political spectrum - I don't recall us ever agreeing on any issue of substance. I have, however, respected your thought process and the way you present your views.

On this one I see your post as disjointed and with absolutely no logic. If I'm missing your point please enlighten me.

Jan 10, 2011, 11:37pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

Bob, there is a bureau known as the FCC, funded by our taxes that licenses, allocates bandwidth and regulates broadcasting and frequency allocation. In 1996, Congress surrendered to existing broadcasters the rights to broadcast digital television on the public airwaves. If the airwaves were real estate, the broadcasters paid nothing for ownership of $70 billion of bandwidth.

The public owns the airwaves, the FCC regulates the airwaves and broadcasters profit free-of-charge. The FCC has come to recognize the value of licenses and typically conducts auctions. The 1996 Telecommunications Act, however, not only nixed auctioning for digital television licenses; it mandated they go to existing broadcasters.

If that isn't usurpation of my tax dollars, then what is? Incidentally, the annual budget for the FCC is approx $450 million. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) spent $2.8 million on campaign contributions in 2008.

Bob, I'm not talking about call-in shows, censoring Hannity or taking Bob Lonsberry off the air. I'm talking about corporate management of public opinion. A handful of corporations own most of the media in this country. The public may own the airwaves, but the public doesn't program the airwaves.

Jan 11, 2011, 1:36am Permalink
RICHARD L. HALE

Have you ever noticed, at night, the radio stations that come in the clearest, are the religious stations? Think that means anything, or is it just me?

Jan 11, 2011, 1:55am Permalink
RICHARD L. HALE

Have you ever noticed, at night, the radio stations that come in the clearest, are the religious stations? Think that means anything, or is it just me?

Jan 11, 2011, 1:55am Permalink
Bob Harker

CM, I appreciate the history on the FCC, but I still don't get your point.

"The public may own the airwaves, but the public doesn't program the airwaves."

I take this to mean that the "public" (spelled g.o.v.e.r.n.m.e.n.t.) should control ALL programming that uses the airwaves as a delivery method.

Are you actually advocating that? I don't think you are - even you are not that far left.

Are you?

One viewpoint not discussed in detail re: shooting:

http://thechollajumps.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/jared-loughner-is-a-prod…

Jan 11, 2011, 4:14am Permalink
Jack Dorf

Charlie you wrote, "I am not one for censorship, but the former regulation, mandating equal time seems to have been abandoned".

Not one for censorship but its OK for big brother to tell companies how to run their business. You are obviously referring to the lack of left wing radio. There is a reason "Air America" went bankrupt which was a left sided radio show, no one listened. Why are CNN and MSNBC ratings by viewers some of the lowest on cable, not hard to figure out. Thank god for free enterprise.

So now as more and more facts about the background of this nut case emerge its very clear nothing these idiots on TV said about what triggered him to kill all these people is true. Thats left wing journalism at its finest. Instead of waiting for the facts to come out they start placing blame based on their personal feelings. Geez I wonder why their ratings are so low???

Jan 11, 2011, 6:10am Permalink
John Roach

Cm,
Yesterday you stated "The FCC should interrupt focus on five words and start enforcing neutrality." That is why it appeared you favor government censorship.

But, it seems what you really want is fair payment for broadcasting rights over the airwaves. You might have a point, an auction or bidding system sounds good. But I think it would almost wipe out liberal/progressive radio. They don't make as much money and might not be able to afford the cost.

The present system has without argument expanded talk radio. If you try, you can find stations that you agree with or disagree with. You will have to be careful not to price your views out of the market where now they at least can compete for listeners.

Jan 11, 2011, 7:24am Permalink
C. M. Barons

I don't source news from the radio or television. I read newspapers and magazines. I listen to music on the radio and watch movies on television. Occasionally when my station presets don't offer anything of interest, I use the SEEK feature and stumble onto a talk-radio program. Personally, I am ambivalent about radio/TV news and opinion content. As a journalist I consider offering one point of view an incomplete story.

I cited the equal time premise, noting that I wasn't advocating censorship. Equal time used to be built into journalism. It was self administered- not enforced: reporters typically got both sides of a story. As I said, how and who amount to details. The nation is a spectrum of beliefs and affiliations. If the airwaves are truly public domain, broadcast point of view should mirror that spectrum.

With the exception of C-SPAN, which points the camera and lets government perform- warts and all, I have yet to find a news outlet that doesn't editorialize in some fashion. ...And from appearances- it's the same fashion for all. I've been watching war coverage on television for over 40 years. I've yet to see a commercial station do anything but marginalize anti-war groups- even when opinion polls demonstrate anti-war sentiments are not marginal.

Frankly, I could never take anything serious juxtaposed with miniature people conversing in toilet bowls and lab-jacketed actors selling male enhancement products. Apparently such aberrations are overlooked by others. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish the advertisements from the programming- all of it is out to sell something. I'm just not buying it.

Jan 11, 2011, 10:42am Permalink
Milly White

When we make a decision to take action on something we are responsible for that action. That thought pattern seems to missing today in many situations. No one wants to take responsibility for for their own actions. It is much easier to blame the group that we do not agree with as being the cause for our or anyone elses bad act. After all if we take responsibility for our actions we must bear the consequences of them. This young man crazy as he maybe made the decision to take a gun and go shot someone that he did not agree with. Because you don't like someone or disagree with them does not mean you take a gun and shoot them and others around them. It is a tragedy for the families of the people who were shot. It is a tragedy for America.

Jan 11, 2011, 11:13am Permalink

Authentically Local