OK..I should've added "Duh" at the end of the thread title.

But I think the article offers a glimpse at the strategy the Left might use to try to derail
Right-Wing Radio.

Quote :

"Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management. This analysis suggests that any effort to encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming will first require steps to increase localism and diversify radio station ownership to better meet local and community needs. We suggest three ways to accomplish this: --Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations. --Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing. --Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting. "

Quote :

" If commercial radio broadcasters are unwilling to abide by these regulatory standards or the FCC is unable to effectively regulate in the public interest, a spectrum use fee should be levied on owners to directly support local, regional, and national public broadcasting. A fee based on a sliding scale (1 percent for small markets, 5 percent for the largest markets) would be distributed directly to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting with clear mandates to support local news and public affairs programming and to cover controversial and political issues in a fair and balanced manner. We estimate that such a fee would net between $100 million and $250 million and would not overly burden commercial radio broadcasters."

This last suggestion is interesting. The group sort of admits that just bringing back the Fairness Doctrine might not kill Right-Wing radio. So basically if the FCC admits it cannot effectively create this so-called balance...all stations must pay a fee/tax to ...guess who? Yep The Public Broadcasting Service. So when in doubt..create a tax.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/talk_radio.html

6/24/2007 12:19:44 AM

Some people really hate the 1st amendmant.

[Edited on June 24, 2007 at 12:51 AM. Reason : edit]

6/24/2007 12:50:36 AM

It is the public airwaves and it is only fair for the companies using them to pay for them.

In reality though, it will be hard for left wing radio to take off; because as soon as anything controversial is said on left win radio, people will be calling for boycotts and the corporations will cave since by nature corporations are conservative entities and cave into the the appeal of right wing demagouges.

6/24/2007 2:10:34 AM

the real problem is local media outlets across the nation being scooped up by national or multi-national conglomerates.

anything that works to decentralize media ownership and restore local ownership over regional broadcasters/publishers --- can only be a good thing.

and yes, the airwaves are public. this is not a new developement.

6/24/2007 3:09:09 AM

Quote :

"In reality though, it will be hard for left wing radio to take off; because as soon as anything controversial is said on left win radio, people will be calling for boycotts and the corporations will cave since by nature corporations are conservative entities and cave into the the appeal of right wing demagouges."

gee, what happened to that imus guy

6/24/2007 3:17:25 AM

the right wing radio is market driven, its what the listeners want, ie see the failure of air america. all this is is the "free speech" left looking to censor those who disagree with them.

6/24/2007 3:42:14 AM

pretty much


whats funny to me is, the owners of some of these stations that air "conservative" shows... are pretty liberal

6/24/2007 3:53:01 AM

i dont really think imus is considered "left wing" or "right wing"

6/24/2007 5:59:35 AM

the left wing tv is market driven, its what the viewers want

6/24/2007 7:02:44 AM

This is retarded. The Fairness Doctrine is ultimately going to hurt left wing media as well if not more. Rush and Hannity will prop up another point of view only no mock it. Could you imagine a progressive on Micheal Savage's show? People can chose to listen to what they want. If I want progressive programming then I seek it out (i.g. On the Media, This American Life, etc.) and if I want some entertainment or to get pissed off them I listen to Boortz (who does make sense about 5% of the time), Micheal Savage and the like.

As previously stated many times over the problem with Air America is that they started out trying to push an agenda. Hell, I am pretty progressive and I never even heard of it until all the wingnuts came out of the woodwork to sing and dance about its demise.

The last thing I want to hear is Faux News touting how they are really now "fair and balanced" while all they did was hire more potato heads like Alan Colmes.

6/24/2007 8:21:19 AM

Quote :

"and yes, the airwaves are public. this is not a new developement."

Be careful declaring that things belong to the public/gov't.

Power-hungry politicians have never liked the protections of the 1st amendment. Controlling information is a crucial factor in maintaining a tyranny. When commercial radio came along in the 1930s, politicians weren't going to make the same mistake twice. They needed to control braodcasting so they declared that the airwaves belonged to the public and thus the gov't. And the fix was in.

The "Fairness" Doctrine was put in place by the FCC in 1949 to require broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance." As with most gov't interference, the doctrine accomplished the opposite effect. Fear of FCC reprisal forced radio and TV stations to completely avaoid controversial topics altogether.

The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 allowed the free market to determine what the public wanted to hear on their airwaves.

So be careful declaring things to belong to the public. Eager politicians would love nothing more than to declare the internet a public good.

6/24/2007 10:05:54 AM

http://www.wchl1360.com/
Chapel Hill-Carrboro's News, Talk, and Tar Heels Station

After hearing enough of this/air america suddenly "This American Life" which is "primarily a journalistic non-fiction program" doesn't come across as so leftist. I mean sure, its left of center if fox is your center, but a lot of npr stuff isn’t as far left as I’ve heard it accused of being (not specifically in this thread, but in general).

6/24/2007 10:22:32 AM

This American Life is more "boring as fuck" and "narrated by the most annoying person possible".

Its like they went out of their way to go find the gayest college radio guy they could find. I cant listen for more than 30 seconds before I change it to something else.

Air America had its chance and failed. Partly because their audience doesn't listen to AM radio and because the other half hates their bullshit rhetoric as much as they hate it in conservative radio. Air America's problem was that everyone knew there was no market for left wing raido, but a few people tried it anyways out of idealism. Had their been a market, there would have already been left wing networks because people would have used them to make money. And it would be the same people that own conservative radio. This "hurr big business only airs republican stuff durrr" shit is retarded. Big business likes money. If they could make money on left wing radio they'd be doing it and using it to point out how they're balanced in their media coverage.

So now that they've failed in the market and cant knock of conservatives by expansion, they're going to use the law. This is bad for everyone, but mostly bad for people who aren't members of either party.

Forcing broadcasters (tv or radio) to carry 50/50 representation of reps/dems gaurantees that they get face time, but knocks out any third parties. Its a compromise. We wont screw you, you dont screw us, and we'll both screw the little guy. And all the licensing provides a barrier to entry so that only large corporations can afford.

If you wanted actual fairness you'd deregulate the airwaves entirely. So any guy with a transmitter in his backyard can have a say.

6/24/2007 10:47:48 AM

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the Fairness Doctrine either, but I think complete de-regulation so "any guy with a transmitter in his backyard can have a say" is a bit far in the other direction. There needs to be some sort of regulation to allocate bandwidth so that the little guy in his backyard isn't drowned out by the big corportation down the street broadcasting more power on the same frequency.

My biggest concern is along the line that joe_schmoe mentioned--media conglomerates buying all of the media outlets (radio and otherwise) in a single market. Instead of enforcing some sort of unworkable Fairness Doctrine, I'd really like to see the government promote use of technology to lower airwave access barriers. Perhaps promote digital terrestial radio in a manner such that would allow cheaper and broader access to broadcast...similar to how the internet has made publishing such that almost anyone can do it.

6/24/2007 11:00:32 AM

Quote :

"f you wanted actual fairness you'd deregulate the airwaves entirely. So any guy with a transmitter in his backyard can have a say."

you mean, if he has a more-powerful transmitter (or jammer), he can prevent you from having any say.

6/24/2007 1:40:54 PM

Quote :

"Power-hungry politicians ... never liked the 1st amendment ... maintaining a tyranny ... needed to control braodcasting ... black helicopters ... ruby ridge ... waco "

oh, i see. so its a massive conspiracy. well crap, dude. i don't know what to say now.

Quote :

"So be careful declaring things to belong to the public. Eager politicians would love nothing more than to declare the internet a public good."

say what?? the internet is a public good. as opposed to private, you know? it's an infrastructure. sorry, but I'm not in favor of lettining TimeWarner or NewsCorp gain controlling interest over this public infrastructure any more than they should have control over the public airwaves

6/24/2007 2:00:44 PM

the airwaves are already public. There is no need to change the current system. If you don't like Rush or Hannity etc... just turn on the TV or listen to PBS etc...

It is interesting that when people speak on political topics in a direction certain politicians do not like then it's not a "free speech" issue. Yet, if somebody pisses on a cross or burns a flag then by golly that's "free speech".( or freedom of expression blah blah blah...)

And don't give me that garbage that there is not room for opposing voices, there is plenty of bandwidth to go around, not to mention the internet. The fact that the public is not being oppressed by some "right wing consipracy" (ala HRC) is manifestly evident in the general failure of liberal talk shows.

[Edited on June 24, 2007 at 2:46 PM. Reason : .]

6/24/2007 2:45:39 PM

It's okay, the left now dominates the internet. We've taken over blogging.

6/24/2007 3:17:22 PM

thats only because the right cant be bothered with the lefts passive-aggressive hippie blogging shit

6/24/2007 3:34:09 PM

Equal time would be such a nightmare.

6/24/2007 3:36:22 PM

left wings right

6/24/2007 4:02:35 PM

^^^Blogs raise more money than talk radio and are by nature democratic, where as talk radio isn't.

6/24/2007 4:16:42 PM

yeah, talk radio is really relegated to old cranks who dont have internet access... or maybe just dialup for grandkid's emails.


this whole thing is going the wrong direction anyhow. the problem is not with "equal time" or lack thereof, the problem is with multinational conglomerates buying up entire local media markets, broadcast and print, across teh country.

its the monopolizing ownership that should be regulated, not speech patterns.

6/24/2007 4:46:19 PM

Quote :

"*its the monopolizing ownership that should be regulated,"

Gonna have to disagree with you there, Joe. Adam Thierer over at Cato Institute tells us that the gov't is attacking the 1st Amendment using the censorship tool of regulating the market...

Quote :

"Big Media or Big Government? Media monopoly is not a legitimate threat in a free society because citizens are always free to establish new media outlets, and investors are free to fund them. The scale and scope of private media organizations is not an appropriate target of coercive public policy, because such policy violates free speech. Government restrictions on ownership are themselves censorship and represent the real threat to democracy. Diversity, independence of voice and democracy do not spring from government control of the means of speech, but from a separation between government and media. Information—which at bottom, is what the debate is all about—is fundamentally not capable of being monopolized by private actors. Information is abundant and constantly being created. Only government can censor or prohibit free speech, or the emergence and funding of alternative views. Citizens need not fear media monopoly, rather, in our modern marketplace, it is the media itself that must live in fear of the power of consumer choice and the tyranny of the remote control. "

Quote :

"WALLACE: But let me ask you about yourself. Do you have a problem with talk radio, and would you consider reviving the fairness doctrine, which would require broadcasters to put on opposing points of view? FEINSTEIN: Well, in my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information. This is a very complicated bill. It's seven titles. Most people don't know what's in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty — we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that. Nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system. This bill fixes those flaws. Do I think there should be an opportunity on talk radio to present that point of view? Yes, I do, particularly about the critical issues of the day. WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine? FEINSTEIN: Well, I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way. WALLACE: But the argument would be it's the marketplace, and if liberals want to put on their own talk radio, they can put it on. At this point, they don't seem to be able to find much of a market. FEINSTEIN: Well, apparently, there have been problems. It is growing. But I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people."

Politicians NEVER dwell in hyperbole. And she is seriously confused if she thinks the Fairness Doctrine was suppose to create more "serious correct reporting".

Why do politicians and bureaucrats get to decide what is fair and what is unfair? Who is a better judge of what you can read and watch...you or the gov't?

[Edited on June 24, 2007 at 11:06 PM. Reason : .]

6/24/2007 10:55:56 PM

Quote :

"Gonna have to disagree with you there, Joe. Adam Thierer over at Cato Institute tells us that the gov't is attacking the 1st Amendment using the censorship tool of regulating the market"

I don't see the word PhD or Dr. in his name. How some jerkoff with a MS in business at a partisan "think tank" is an authority on anything, let alone political science or American government.

[Edited on June 24, 2007 at 11:22 PM. Reason : .]

6/24/2007 11:09:42 PM

Oh you dont say.... The Cato institute, libertarian mouthpiece for deregulating damn near every industry, employed a guy who tried to make a connection between government regulation of businesses with the tyranny of oppressing freedom of speech? thanks for bringing that to our attention -- i would have never suspected it.

and as for Mr. Thierer, he shouldnt need a PhD... There are plenty of subject matter experts on TWW who are barely out of high school, amirite?

Quote :

"Adam Thierer earned his bachelor's degree in political science and journalism at Indiana University and received his master's degree in international business management and trade theory at the University of Maryland."

anyhow, he looks like a pretty smart feller. he sure did write a lot of articles for Cato, before leaving in 2005.






[Edited on June 25, 2007 at 1:44 AM. Reason : holy hell, thats a big photo oh well, i guess if you look that good, might as well show it.]

6/25/2007 1:40:18 AM

that guy looks like a winner

6/25/2007 6:59:35 AM

Well I'm trying to avoid attacking the sources. But if you have to have a PHD to have an opinion worth considering than the authors of this liberal think-tank are severely lacking.

The authors consist of a research intern, a speechwriter and a left-wing radio producer. The think tank, the Center for American Progress, was founded by and is led by John Podesta--a Clinton lackey.

It seems disingenuous to discount any opinions coming out of Cato when I haven't seen the same knee-jerk critical comments on the Center for American Progress.

Back to topic: When the gov't regulates how many radio stations you can own, it is limiting your free speech. Imagine gov't telling a newspaper chain how many cities it can publish in.
After all, newspapers are delivered using the public's roads and mail-and the roads, unlike the radio spectrum, are something we actually paid for. Shouldn't we be able to regulate them?

Sen Feinstein (who also is neither a Dr. or has a PHD) is hardly the person I want deciding what is fair and what is not.

So let me ask my question again: Why do politicians and bureaucrats get to decide what is fair and what is unfair? Who is a better judge of what you can read and watch...you or the gov't?

6/25/2007 9:58:40 AM

Quote :

"this whole thing is going the wrong direction anyhow. the problem is not with "equal time" or lack thereof, the problem is with multinational conglomerates buying up entire local media markets, broadcast and print, across teh country."

Quote :

"anything that works to decentralize media ownership and restore local ownership over regional broadcasters/publishers --- can only be a good thing."

This is true, as long as "anything that works" works in accordance with the libertarian principle. Taxes and laws often don't. Only if things were far, far worse would socialist-type policies be justified, and even then, they should only be temporary sunset policies.

Quote :

"Why do politicians and bureaucrats get to decide what is fair and what is unfair? Who is a better judge of what you can read and watch...you or the gov't?"

Certainly you are.
But that doesn't address the point of monopolies and oligopolies. Are they fair or unfair?


[Edited on June 25, 2007 at 11:12 AM. Reason : []

6/25/2007 11:10:03 AM

Quote :

"But that doesn't address the point of monopolies and oligopolies. Are they fair or unfair? "

Show me a media monopoly today-where you can only get information from one source and one source alone.

There are tons more sources for information today than when I was a kid. We had 3 networks, PBS and a crappy cable access channel. That was it..until the gov't allowed our city to have a UHF station.

Mega-media conglomerates still have to deliver programming that someone wants to watch or hear. No matter what car giant Ford did, they still couldn't sell the Edsel. We need to let the market decide, not Nancy Pelosi.

6/25/2007 11:38:02 AM

Um. . .did some of you ever consider that maybe left-wing bullshit just doesn't sell?

Quote :

"Air America has struggled financially since its inception. Documents filed with the bankruptcy court show that the company lost $9.1 million in 2004, $19.6 million in 2005 and $13.1 million so far in 2006."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15249280/

"Hey, we suck but let's blame Bush and the mean old conservatives--that's the ticket!"

6/26/2007 3:43:25 AM

Quote :

"did some of you ever consider that maybe left-wing bullshit just doesn't sell?"

No, not really. Just like I don't believe Micheal Savage's garbage about liberalism being a mental disorder. But he puts it on in an entertaining way that gets people to listen. Unfortunately his form of bigotry and ethnic hatred are still appealing enough for people to listen.

If I want to be informed I listen to Brad&Britt or NPR. If I want entertainment then I listen to Boortz, Savage or Colmes.

6/26/2007 6:01:25 AM

Quote :

"Air America has struggled financially since its inception. Documents filed with the bankruptcy court show that the company lost $9.1 million in 2004, $19.6 million in 2005 and $13.1 million so far in 2006."

6/26/2007 3:09:58 PM

I think it's more because liberals don't generally care to take their cues from ignorant jackasses on the radio, like the people who listen to conservative radio for information do.

6/26/2007 3:13:39 PM

so you take your cues from ignorant jackasses on tv

6/26/2007 3:14:46 PM

Quote :

"I think it's more because liberals don't generally care to take their cues from ignorant jackasses on the radio can't sell their message, so now they want to muzzle the opposition through legislation. like the people who listen to conservative radio for information do."

moron

Fixed.



[Edited on June 26, 2007 at 3:34 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2007 3:33:52 PM

boldy
linky
snarky
:rolly:

...

yet another gem from hooksawburyboy.

6/26/2007 5:24:54 PM

Quote :

"...liberals don't generally care to take their cues from ignorant jackasses on the radio, like the people who listen to conservative radio for information do. "

OK let's go with the assumption that liberals are especially enlightened people who don't need a talk show host telling them what to think or how to fill out a butterfly ballot.

If conservative zombies want to get their cues from right-wing radio...what business is it of yours?

"But the public owns the airwaves!!"

OK now you are back to Teddy Kennedy, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi deciding what is fair and what you are allowed to watch. Basically state-run media, comrades.

6/26/2007 5:40:26 PM

I wasn't commenting on the topic of this thread (I haven't read it), just that one post.

I don't care who listens to what.

6/26/2007 5:43:16 PM

^^^^ So liberals control all mainstream media outlets (NPR, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WP, etc...)

yet...

we can't sell our message.



Good going on that one, chief.

6/26/2007 7:07:52 PM

^^^^ And what did you offer, joe_shithead? Nothing--as usual. Please die.

^^^ But that's the thing: Liberals think that their beliefs make them smarter and better than others that don't share those beliefs.

^ The networks you listed have become entrenched over the years. If they had to start up today, many of them would never make it. In addition, the entrenched left-wing ideology of the MSM is the main reason that Fox News and conservative talk radio are kicking their asses up and down Ratings Street every day, Gilligan.

[Edited on June 27, 2007 at 1:57 AM. Reason : .]

6/27/2007 1:45:39 AM

Quote :

"hooksawburyboy : the main reason that Fox News and conservative talk radio are kicking their asses up and down Ratings Street every day, Gilligan."

is that right, Skipper? lets go look at the numbers to see what people are watching, shall we?

Quote :

" Weekly Average Ratings for Week of Jun 11 - Jun 17 ABC World News : 7.7 million viewers 5.3 rating NBC Nightly News : 7.3 million viewers 5.1 rating ... Oprah Winfrey Show : 6.3 million viewers 4.9 rating Entertainment Tonight : 6.6 million viewers 4.7 rating Judge Judy : 5.8 million viewers 4.4 rating Dr. Phil Show : 5.4 million viewers 4.25 rating ... CBS Evening News : 5.9 million viewers 4.1 rating ... ... ... Fox News (all primetime) : 1.4 million viewers 1.1 rating -- http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/06/26/ap3859031.html -- http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,272|||syndicated,00.html -- http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/cable_ranker_week_of_june_11_61293.asp "

yup. FNC sure is "kicking ass up and down ratings street"

obligatory






[Edited on June 27, 2007 at 3:26 AM. Reason : links]

6/27/2007 3:18:29 AM

The Scoreboard: Monday, June 25
25-54 demographic: (LS)

Total day: FNC: 300 | CNN: 160 | MSNBC: 97 | HLN: 134 | CNBC: 61

Prime: FNC: 493 | CNN: 269 | MSNBC: 233 | HLN: 239 | CNBC: 93

5p: 6p: 7p: 8p: 9p: 10p: 11p:


FNC Gibson: Hume: Shep: O'Reilly: H&C: Greta: O'Reilly:
282 294 319 559 460 461 475


CNN Blitzer: Dobbs: Blitzer: Zahn: King: Cooper: Cooper:
136 186 197 201 322 283 186


MSNBC Hardball: Tucker: Hardball: Countdo.: Special: Special: Investig.:
109 89 148 207 179 312 121


HLN HLN: Prime: Beck: Grace: Beck: Grace: Showbiz:
51 137 145 320 133 264 146

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/

Will you please name Rush or Hannity's liberal radio equivalent? Die, joe_shithead.

[Edited on June 27, 2007 at 3:35 AM. Reason : .]

6/27/2007 3:29:23 AM

yes, you can cut and paste from the links i provided, but can you understand any of it?

i swear, you're like the monkey at the keyboard. if we could get 10,000 more of you and line you all up, we might get a bit of Shakespeare after a number of years. as it is all we get currently from you is convoluted bullshit.

now what was your point here, besides cutting and pasting random bits?

oh, yeah: yes you're right, liberals don't have a Rush Limbaugh. because liberals don't want a Limbaugh equivalent. Because we don't NEED a Rush Limbaugh equivalent.

You see, we dont need some fat-assed pill popping brain aneurysm candidate sputtering and frothing at a microphone trying to brainwash us into being party line toeing "dittoheads".

because, you see, us liberals are generally able to take various sources of information, filter out the noise, and synthesize pertinent facts and ideas all on our very own.

but thanks anyhow. it was a nice thought, and im glad you care.

6/27/2007 4:01:34 AM

The Scoreboard: Monday, June 25
25-54 demographic: (LS)

Total day: FNC: 300 | CNN: 160 | MSNBC: 97 | HLN: 134 | CNBC: 61

Prime: FNC: 493 | CNN: 269 | MSNBC: 233 | HLN: 239 | CNBC: 93

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/

Quote :

"oh, yeah: yes you're right, liberals don't have a Rush Limbaugh. because liberals don't want a Limbaugh equivalent. Because we don't NEED a Rush Limbaugh equivalent."

joe_shithead

Quote :

"Air America has struggled financially since its inception. Documents filed with the bankruptcy court show that the company lost $9.1 million in 2004, $19.6 million in 2005 and $13.1 million so far in 2006."

Quote :

"Air America owes Franken $360,750, according to the court documents. Franken was traveling and unavailable to comment on the filing on Friday but would do so Monday, Horn said."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15249280/

You lose again, joe_shithead--and you seem to be foaming at the mouth. Maybe we should give joe_shithead time to gather his thoughts and try again.

[Edited on June 27, 2007 at 4:48 PM. Reason : .]

6/27/2007 4:46:54 PM

1. Why are you only showing 24-hour news channels?

2. The supposedly liberal CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC combined beat FOX.

3. I'm extremely proud to be a liberal every time I'm reminded that liberal apologist pundits failed so badly. Thank you.

6/27/2007 5:01:38 PM

Quote :

"I'm extremely proud to be a liberal every time I'm reminded that liberal apologist pundits failed so badly. "

Interesting statement..but I'm confused. What do you mean by this?

6/27/2007 10:55:12 PM

Perhaps that true liberals are generally more educated, thus less likely to be swayed by punditry.

Plus we're too busy listening to NPR

[Edited on June 27, 2007 at 10:58 PM. Reason : .]

6/27/2007 10:57:35 PM

Al Franken is a clown. kind of like Hooksaw, except that hooksaw isn't funny.

so, I'm sorry hooksawburyboy, that liberals don't put Franken up on a pedestal and revere him, like all your flunky dittoheads do to Rush Limbaugh. the idea of a having a "liberal spokesman" to worship is against the fundamental precepts of liberalism.

whoever came up with the idea of Air America is a fool, and deserves to lose whatever job they had when they came up with the idea. I'm proud that Liberals have better things to do with their lives and braincells than sit transfixed listening to some blowhard zealot rant and rave.


now, your stats you post, apparently you dont understand how it works. if you include network and cable news, you have about 4% of the viewing population that watches Fox News. the rest watch Network News or other Cable News channels.

since FNC is the only news channel produced by retards for retards, of course it makes sense that all the retards (about 4-5% of the viewing population) flock to their one and only channel.

now go pat yourself on the back some more.

6/27/2007 10:57:58 PM

I like News 14. You can email your fake snow closings and Tracey Early is hot

6/27/2007 11:10:15 PM