Remove Rush Limbaugh from Armed Forces Radio?

[Bumbles]

Originally posted by wvrevy

well, now, that's mature..........

truth hurts, doesn't it hon?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
If that's true, then I would have thought that NPR would have been off the air years ago, as well as PBS.

Yes, becaue those are EXACTLY the same as Rush Limbaugh

 

[Galahad]

not without some misguided idiocy from the other side of the aisle

As stated above; they broadcast NPR. That more than qualifies.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
I'm not sure why the I don't think it's much of a secret that much of the media has varying degrees of liberal bias.

It's a myth perpetrated by those too gullible to look into the facts themselves.

Could you please give me an example of this massive "liberal bias" ? It shouldn't be hard since it's so prevalent.

Originally posted by bumbless
truth hurts, doesn't it hon?

Not nearly so much as seeing the ignorance of "everybody knows..." become so commonplace, no

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by wvrevy
It's a myth perpetrated by those too gullible to look into the facts themselves.

Could you please give me an example of this massive "liberal bias" ? It shouldn't be hard since it's so prevalent.




Not nearly so much as seeing the ignorance of "everybody knows..." become so commonplace, no [/B]

Turn on your TV!

 

[Bumbles]

hey, I got something besides a

I was getting ready to offer you some Visine or something....

And yes, we're all way too gullible to look into facts ourselves. Yup, you got me. Wow, you are so wise.

If you think there is not a liberal bias to the media, it is you who is gullible

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
Turn on your TV!

That's not an example, but thanks for playing

C'mon...If there's such a massive liberal media conspiracy out there, then surely you can cite SOME example of it.....

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Yes, becaue those are EXACTLY the same as Rush Limbaugh

Are you having eye problems today? Yours seem to keep I'd have that checked if I were you.

But back to the topic at hand...they don't have to be exactly the same. You said:

As such, it IS unlawful to broadcast only the view supported by those currently in power.

1) I highly doubt that it is unlawful, but if you have facts that say otherwise, I'll gladly retract my statement.

2) NPR is a liberal media outlet paid for by the government. How is that any different that what Rush Limbaugh does, other than the viewpoint?

3) So long as Rush Limbaugh is not the only viewpoint being presented, and he isn't, then how can it be unfair?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Bumbles
hey, I got something besides a

I was getting ready to offer you some Visine or something....

And yes, we're all way too gullible to look into facts ourselves. Yup, you got me. Wow, you are so wise.

If you think there is not a liberal bias to the media, it is you who is gullible

Like I said...put up or shut up.....Lot's of media outlets online....C'mon, let's see some examples.....It's easy to sit there and make "smart" aleck comments, let's see you back it up with something more than "wit"

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by wvrevy
C'mon...If there's such a massive liberal media conspiracy out there, then surely you can cite SOME example of it.....

They can't because there is no proof.

Oh wait, I can see them all scurrying to Google now...

 

[caitycaity]

I wouldn't consider a decision by the DoD to not broadcast Rush on AFR as censorship. In this case, the DoD, while obviously a government agency, would be acting in the capacity of an "owner" of a radio station, just like Clear Channel, and as such would be making a programming decision. If the government were to say that Rush couldn't broadcast at all, then that would be censorship. But I don't think that the DoD refusing to carry his show would be censorship.

ITA.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Are you having eye problems today? Yours seem to keep I'd have that checked if I were you.

Actually, I just got back from the eye doc...Maybe that's why I keep seeing ridiculous statements on this thread...

Originally posted by AirForceRocks

But back to the topic at hand...they don't have to be exactly the same. You said:

1) I highly doubt that it is unlawful, but if you have facts that say otherwise, I'll gladly retract my statement.

2) NPR is a liberal media outlet paid for by the government. How is that any different that what Rush Limbaugh does, other than the viewpoint?

3) So long as Rush Limbaugh is not the only viewpoint being presented, and he isn't, then how can it be unfair?

1 - It's the same principle that forces the networks to show an "opposition response" when the president makes a speech. I don't know, for a fact, that it will apply the same way, but I suspect that's the argument that is being made, and I'd agree with that (would feel the same way if it was Al Franken's program being broadcast, btw)

2 - As for the content of NPR, I can't vouch for or deny what they have on some of their programs. I do know that they have considerably more programming than simply political commentary, but I do not know what is carried on the AFR (nor, I would hazard to guess, do you). Just the fact that you (and others) keep screaming "NPR" doesn't mean anything. CNN is accused of having this massive bias as well, but I've yet to see anyone actually site a provable example of that bias.

3 - So long as there is a balance, you're right.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Are you having eye problems today? Yours seem to keep I'd have that checked if I were you.

?

It could be nystagmus; sometimes a sign of brain damage.

 

[DawnCt1]

I think when they look at the programming as whole, with the intent of being "fair and balanced", they will probably have to add all three hours of Rush Limbaugh include the Sean Hannity show too.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
I think when they look at the programming as whole, with the intent of being "fair and balanced", they will probably have to add all three hours of Rush Limbaugh include the Sean Hannity show too.

blahblahblahblahmoroniccommentmoroniccomment......

Still no examples, huh ?

 

[Bumbles]

see, at this point, wvrevy, I've lost all hopes of having a rational discussion with you because unless you live in a hippy commune with no outside sources of information coming in, there's no way you can honestly say there isn't a liberal slant to the media.

You honestly believe the current media is fair and balanced?

Well, pass me some of what you're smoking then

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
I think when they look at the programming as whole, with the intent of being "fair and balanced", they will probably have to add all three hours of Rush Limbaugh include the Sean Hannity show too.

I'm curious, what makes you think that? Have you ever heard AFR? Where are you drawing this point of view from?

It certainly couldn't be an emotional response stemming from your dislike of liberal ideas, could it?

 

[caitycaity]

here bumbles, you can have some of mine.

i don't think the media is completely fair and balances, but i don't think it's as uber-liberal as some people make it out to be either. i think it is about as fair and balanced as we will ever get, and it's close enough for me.

 

[AirForceRocks]

1 - It's the same principle that forces the networks to show an "opposition response" when the president makes a speech.

Networks aren't forced to show an opposition response, they choose to.

They can't because there is no proof.

Sure there is - look at yesterday's news coming from the 9/11 commission.

Headlines and news teasers blaring about "Commission Kills Bush Claim of Iraq/al-Qaeda Ties"

For those that took the time to actually read what the commission said, it was obvious that this wasn't true. Yes, the 9/11 commission said that Iraq did not help al-Qaeda plan 9/11, but I've not found anything in the commission report released thus far that says there was never ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

As I said, the liberal bias in the media varies, but I don't think that anyone, even liberals, could keep a straight face while denying that most mainstream media outlets have a liberal bias. I've personally found MSNBC to be the least liberally biased, and CBS to be the most liberally biased.

 

[Galahad]

But what good would it do to cite examples in this case. Each example that could be cited you could simply say one of two things:

1) Of course that seems bias to you, you're a right-wing wacko.

or

2) That's not biased, that's just reporting what is true. Why can't you conservatives get that through your head?

The same would be true of a coservative challenged you to tell them what was so bad about Fox News. It's a fool's arguement.

I'm not a Rush listener, but if he is being removed for idealogical reasons and other programing that is idealogical is not being removed, and it is being done so by the government, it is indeed censorship.