Schadenfreude

Posted July 3rd, 2008 at 04:39 AM by IlliniPundit
in

Yesterday, as Rush Limbaugh is announcing his eight-year, $400 million contract extension, the LA Times is announcing that it was cutting 250 jobs because of declining advertising revenue.

I think we need more Fairness Doctrine.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Local Voter's picture
On July 3rd, 2008 at 09:05 AM, Local Voter said:

If a Fairness Doctrine was again tried Rush would probably use all of his 400 million to fight it.

The LA Times except Today should have seen this coming.

On July 3rd, 2008 at 09:20 AM, xian said:

Are you really happy that Rush Limbaugh is doing better than the L.A. Times?!?!?

That's not a victory for conservatives, it's a victory for incivility in discourse, right?

IlliniPundit's picture
On July 3rd, 2008 at 09:26 AM, IlliniPundit said:

"Are you really happy that Rush Limbaugh is doing better than the L.A. Times?!?!?

That's not a victory for conservatives, it's a victory for incivility in discourse, right?"

Only if you consider the LA Times to somehow be more civil in their discourse than Rush Limbaugh.  Just because the LA Times is only crtitical of Republicans does not make them civil.

redstatewannabe's picture
On July 3rd, 2008 at 09:59 AM, redstatewannabe said:

Rush actually engages in discourse, unlike newspapers.  He also has some of the most civil discussions anywhere.  Compare what happens on his show to the shouting matches on cable news shows or other talk radio shows.

Arvid's picture
On July 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Arvid said:

Rush actually engages in discourse, unlike newspapers.  He also has some of the most civil discussions anywhere.

You need to expand your horizons if this is what you believe.

-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm

On July 3rd, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Run4cvrlib said:

I assume IP is kidding about the fairness doctrine since this could be a real possibility with a democratic congress trying to pass a bill and a possible Obama Presidency to make it a reality. While it might sound good to shut Rush and those conservative pastors up. Obama can't stay President forever and the next Republican president can fill the FCC with people that can determine the speech they like. I really think I like the way we do it now, free speech is always more better, no matter how bad I speak, write; oh whatever.

IlliniPundit's picture
On July 3rd, 2008 at 10:54 AM, IlliniPundit said:

"I assume IP is kidding about the fairness doctrine since this could be a real possibility with a democratic congress trying to pass a bill and a possible Obama Presidency to make it a reality."

Yes.  IMO, the Democrats are unable to compete with Limbaugh, so they're hoping to regulate him out of business.  They'll probably blame his windfall profits.

On July 3rd, 2008 at 11:32 AM, No name given (not verified) said:

A lot of entertainers make that kind of money. A-Rod, Tiger Woods, Snoop Dog. Critical thinkers don't make that kind of dough, not George Will, not William Kristol, not any of them.

Limbaugh a critical thinker, or entertainer? You figure it out.

On July 3rd, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

A lot of entertainers make that kind of money. A-Rod, Tiger Woods, Snoop Dog. Critical thinkers don't make that kind of dough, not George Will, not William Kristol, not any of them.

Limbaugh a critical thinker, or entertainer? You figure it out.

Limbaugh makes more than critical thinkers like Will and Kristol, ergo Limbaugh is not a critical thinker.  Wow, there's some good critical thinking.

On July 3rd, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Narc said:

Only if you consider the LA Times to somehow be more civil in their discourse than Rush Limbaugh.

I'll admit that I don't read the LA Times, so I don't really know what their editorial policies are. But I'd be honestly surprised to find out that the paper called McCain's daughter a dog, refers to pro-lifers as Nazis, mocks Republicans suffering from Parkinson's disease, claimed that McCain has Hamas's support, called Condalezza Rice a bitch, or made threats against a reporter's children.

You want civil discourse? Watch C-SPAN. You want mindless reinforcement that Republicans are inerrant and that Democrats worship the devil? Watch Limbaugh.

On July 3rd, 2008 at 12:53 PM, xian said:

Yeah, this is some crazy partisan stuff. I'm kind of surprised. I see value in Michael Moore's work and he's certainly tamer than Limbaugh in terms of direct hate speech. But I would never try to imply that Moore demonstrates better journalistic standards than actual journalists (whether they be at a major newspaper or a tiny blog).

redstatewannabe's picture
On July 3rd, 2008 at 01:18 PM, redstatewannabe said:

do you guys just read Media Matters, or actually listen to the show?

 

On July 3rd, 2008 at 02:28 PM, Run4cvrlib said:

Narc-You mean Rush I thought at first you were talking about Durbin when you brought up Nazis, maybe in reference to our troops.

On July 3rd, 2008 at 02:35 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

"Yeah, this is some crazy partisan stuff. I'm kind of surprised. I see value in Michael Moore's work and he's certainly tamer than Limbaugh in terms of direct hate speech. But I would never try to imply that Moore demonstrates better journalistic standards than actual journalists (whether they be at a major newspaper or a tiny blog)."

This is what passes as a thoughtful comment from the critical thinkers around here.  The fact that Xian doesn't realize his comments are troll baiting doesn't excuse them.

On July 3rd, 2008 at 02:56 PM, xian said:

Ah more personal attacks and caricatures of evil liberals. Rush would be proud!

IlliniPundit's picture
On July 3rd, 2008 at 03:14 PM, IlliniPundit said:

"Ah more personal attacks and caricatures of evil liberals."

...said the admirer of Michael Moore.

John Bambenek's picture
On July 3rd, 2008 at 03:14 PM, John Bambenek said:

xian-

Weren't you the one calling me unpatriotic because I disagreed with you on oil the other day?  Oh wait, it's never a personal attack when it comes from the left... it's enlightened discourse.

--
j
Part-Time Pundit

On July 3rd, 2008 at 03:31 PM, Narc said:

Weren't you the one calling me unpatriotic because I disagreed with you on oil the other day?

I just read skimmed through that whole thread, and couldn't find any such thing. Could you be more specific in your accusation?

On July 3rd, 2008 at 04:13 PM, xian said:

...said the admirer of Michael Moore.

Did you read what I posted? This is exactly what I mean. I said that I see what is wrong with Moore and you somehow turn that into me "admiring" him. I would only say I admire Moore next to Limbaugh--at least Moore does some research and investigation.

But I don't admire him--what does admiring Rush or Moore do for American democratic discourse? You've undone months of critical, thoughtful discourse with a couple posts of pure partisanism.

This willingness to just make stuff up about the "opponents" is deeply unfortunate. I thought we all loved the country.

 

IlliniPundit's picture
On July 3rd, 2008 at 04:22 PM, IlliniPundit said:

"Did you read what I posted? This is exactly what I mean. I said that I see what is wrong with Moore and you somehow turn that into me "admiring" him. I would only say I admire Moore next to Limbaugh--at least Moore does some research and investigation."

Then I misunderstood what you meant by "I see value in Micheal Moore's work..." Such as Fahrenheit 9/11?

"But I don't admire him--what does admiring Rush or Moore do for American democratic discourse?"

It does neither.  Where did I say I'm an admirer of Rush?  I just think it's funny that the LA Times is bleeding like crazy while Rush can build a vault and swim in his money, at a time when the Democrats are talking about passing speech controls on broadcasters.

"You've undone months of critical, thoughtful discourse with a couple posts of pure partisanism."

Yes - because my criticisms of both of our woefully inadequate Presidential candidates is purely partisan when I dare to make such criticisms of Obama, or when I draw pleasure from the market failures of left-wing polemicists posing as "journalists."

On July 3rd, 2008 at 04:35 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

This willingness to just make stuff up about the "opponents" is deeply unfortunate. I thought we all loved the country.

are you questioning someone's love for the country?  It sure sounds like that, but I know that you would never ever ever do something like that.

On July 3rd, 2008 at 05:08 PM, Brandon (not verified) said:

The revival of the Fairness Doctrine is typical of the Left's ability to see history further back than the 90's.

With the advent and popularity of FM radio technology in the mid to late 70's, AM stations started to lose market share as FM stations started broadcasting music due to "better sound quality". Add to the fact that FM didn't suffer from some of the issues AM has, for example - lightening crackle, odd footprint changes due to atmospheric conditions, and powerline static to name a few. So to stay in the game and regain advertising dollars, the stations had to change formats.

Although the idea of Talk Radio had been around for many years, it was smart entrepeuners that began putting together what we now refer to Talk Radio. And Conservative talk found a niche, a huge market base, and rebuilt AM radio.

Now that Conservative talk dominates most every Talk format station in the country and smashes the numbers of Liberal talk stations in most every market, the left wants to lay claim to what the right built. The left leaning movements throughout history have done this exact same thing.

 

With the conclusion of my little history lesson, I want to ask one question - Will the Fairness Doctrine be applied to NPR, PBS, Local Access, WEFT, the low powered UCIMC station or Air America in an equally heavy handed manor or will it just be for media outlets that actually make money??

BTW....Rush is an entertainer. He gladly acknowledges that fact, as well as the fact that if you listen to him for news you're pretty much a fool.

Brandon

On July 3rd, 2008 at 07:16 PM, xian said:

Sure. I question the love of people from any end of the political spectrum who would rather win political polemics than collaborate to address the problems of the country.

Many of the proponents of the Fairness Doctrine (I'm not one of them) on the left were in favor of the Fairness Doctrine even when the Republicans weren't in control. I agree with them that extremist talk radio of any kind does not promote a marketplace of ideas. But I don't think some ham-fist "fairness" is going to fix that problem.

I'm not interested in the Fairness Doctrine. I think that the liscenses should be revoked and we should either give them out in a lottery system or just make it a free for all.

This giving away of public resources so private individuals can make money off of them is not a good business model.