Limbaughs Ridiculous Recession Statement Begs for Fairness Doctrine

[stevenleser]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Limbaughs-Ridiculous-Reces-by-Steven-Leser-081222-972.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Steven Leser


One of the great fears of right wing media is that the incoming Obama administration will reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. For those of you not familiar with it, the Fairness Doctrine was an FCC policy that required any radio or television broadcaster with an FCC license to present public issues in an honest and balanced manner. The Museum of Broadcast Communications has a good piece on the Fairness Doctrine here http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm .


It is ironic that with the existing fear over the re-establishment of the doctrine, conservative personalities like Rush Limbaugh continue to do as much as they can to demonstrate how badly it is needed. Limbaugh, in fact, only started to achieve any sort of prominence in 1988; the year after the fairness doctrine was ended by the Reagan administration.


Limbaugh’s specialty has been taking what is a bad situation for Republicans and twisting it to make it seem like it is the fault of one or more Democrats. The truth is inconsequential to Limbaugh in making these arguments. This is why the repeal of the fairness doctrine was so crucial to his assent. Any marginally competent opposition on the same show would easily demonstrate how Limbaugh’s pronouncements often have no basis in fact or reality.


Conservative America, who tunes in to hear what Limbaugh has to say about the issues, is treated to the most dishonest and vicious propaganda in American history. If you want to assess blame for the polarization of America and the warped views of the conservative electorate, Rush Limbaugh is one of the people that deserves a large portion of the blame. His false statements don’t just claim that Democrats are wrong on the issues; he demonizes Democrats and seeks to make his supporters believe that Democrats are evil.


One of the most recent of Limbaugh’s outrages was his claim that the current recession is the fault of Barack Obama. For those of you who have not heard this before, yes, you read it correctly and it is not a typo on my part. Limbaugh blames the recession on someone who is not even in office yet and wipes out any responsibility from Bush and the Republican administration. You can read all about what Limbaugh had to say here http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110608/content/01125107.guest.html .


The Limbaugh “Obama Recession” show was aired on November 6. Five weeks later, on December 11, the agency that determines whether we are in a recession or not and when one began, the National Bureau of Economic Research’s Business Cycle Dating Committee, released a finding that showed that the Recession began in December 2007. You can read their findings here http://www.nber.org/cycles/dec2008.html . If you rewind to December 2007, not only was Obama not the President-elect yet, he wasn’t even the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. The news reports of the time all suggested that Hillary Clinton was the inevitable Democratic nominee.


Even if you narrow your focus of Limbaugh’s statements to his suggestion that the Dow Jones industrial average lost around 700 points right after the election, it has been back up about the same amount, then down again and then up again. This is all pretty much in line with what it had been doing since mid September. Incidentally, McCain was still viewed as polling evenly with Obama until the end of September. There is no correlation between the Dow or the economy and Obama.


Limbaugh, of course, knows this. His whole piece on the “Obama recession” was made up out of thin air, but in the post fairness doctrine world, no one is there on his show to challenge his wild allegations. Nevertheless, immediately after Limbaugh did his piece on the so-called “Obama Recession” conservatives started repeating the mantra all over the web and on other conservative talk shows. As this piece on Media Matters points out. http://mediamatters.org/items/200811070011?f=h_latest Sean Hannity and Dick Morris immediately picked up on Limbaugh’s comments and passed them on. Hannity repeated the suggestion a few days later as pointed out in a subsequent Media Matters report http://mediamatters.org/items/200811120011 . Google shows nearly 50,000 hits on the term in quotes.


This recession is a serious issue that demands and deserves that the media discuss it in a serious and honest manner. The right wing media cabal doesn’t care. They are only concerned with scoring political points no matter the gravity of the situation, no matter that a huge percentage of the country is suffering greatly in this recession.


While I spend a lot of time outlining one particular instance of a conservative commentator’s dishonesty, there are hundreds of thousands of similar statements on a wide variety of issues since the end of the fairness doctrine twenty years ago. It is more glaring in this instance because an impartial official agency happened to come out with a finding that makes it apparent that Limbaugh’s statement (and those who have since parroted it) had no basis in fact. Everyone should consider what the impact has been of hundreds of conservative journalists spewing all of these lies for twenty years. It is time to end this and reinstate the fairness doctrine.

[BOSSHOG]

1. One of the major goals of right wing radio

is to "educate" their audience about the fairness doctrine. And "educating" the ignorant dunderheads who are too proud to admit their ignorance is a piece of cake for charlatans like limbaugh and hannity. Surely it must get old saying the same thing day in and day out. But one would think not as old as listening to it. One must be quite the pathetic human being to tune in day after day.

Ignorance has got to be the number one conservative value and the ignorance of their audience is the only reason for the success of right wing radio.

- Why do conservative fear the fairness doctrine?
- Why do conservative fear swearing to tell the truth?

C'mon there has got to be a lurker out there to answer my questions. Questions I've asked for years with nary a hint of an answer.

[FormerDittoHead]

37. Which answers do you want?

As THE Former Rush Limbaugh Fan, I can answer these question(s) two ways, the "official" way, or the REAL way. Conservatism, at its core, is basically a lie. If I gave you the "official" reasons, you'd just say they were lies, so I don't know how much the point of answering your questions is, but because there might be a chance you actually don't know the "official" answer(s).

BOSSHOG, the point of this one answer is to emphasis the importance of FRAMING. For those who don't know what that is, check it out.

Also, for others, I do NOT subscribe to the following answers, but like a former cult member, I know the answers, and provide them simply because they were asked for.

>Why do conservative fear the fairness doctrine?

The question is, why do liberals want it so much?

Conservative politics dominate the air wave because THAT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT. People don't want liberal talk radio because if they DID, stations would be playing it. Liberals want the fairness doctrine not to "free" the airwaves. That's what we have NOW. Liberals want government to control the airwaves just like they want government to control our LIVES.

Liberals control government because government IS LIBERAL. The conservative WAY is little to no government, certainly as little government as possible. So from a simple position of principle, conservatives are against the fairness doctrine.

>Why do conservative fear swearing to tell the truth?

I just kept this in so you know I didn't forget it, but I honestly don't know the context of the question - swearing to tell the truth on the radio? They are already bound by laws of slander and defamation, so if you mean something else like a court of law you have to be more specific.

edited spelling

[TheFarseer]

2. Rush and others try to claim

that when it became clear Obama was going to win, that is when the economy and stock market tanked on fears that he would raise cap gains and dividends taxes. This is simply not true. Obama only became a clear favorite after the economy/stock market tanked and people realized that Bush economics had failed. It's like claiming the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because we declared war on them.

[Lint Head]

3. To say Obama is responsible for the coming depression / recession

proves that Limbaugh is a pedophile. Hasn't he denied he is. He is a proven liar. So the opposite has to be true.
America does not want a pedophile on the radio. Or does it?
:dem:
:smoke:

[LiberalFighter]

4. Of course America wants a pedophile on radio. They listen to Limbaugh. So they must!

Limbaugh loves pedophiles too so his listeners must. The only requirement has for pedophiles is that they must be Republicans.

[cabluedem]

6. They need Oxyrush to blame Dems for Rep mistakes. That he is a child-rapist doesn't matter to them.

at all. After all it happens offshore in the Dominican Republic. Adult/child sex there is a commonplace event with American sex tourists . Then he was busted with Viagra in customs coming back here to the US, but don't expect these idiots to connect the dots. Rushbots don't think.

[marshall]

5. What has happened to Air America"

It used to play in my area but I can't find it anymore. Hopefully the Fairness Doctrine will help keep it on the air. My only fear is Limbaugh and Hannity will be able to insinuate themselves onto it.

[rasputin1952]

7. Back in the '60's/'70's it was RW radio and TV personalities that

demanded "equal time", the irony is pressing.


RW TV never really took off, although eventually things like FOX came up the rungs a way. RW radio is the norm these days, rarely, are there countervoices to the RW machine; however, virtually every time a serious Liberal/Progressive gets a voice on any of these forms of media, they rip the RW talking points to shreds, set it on fire and shove it out into the trash, (this is one of the main reasons why L/P's are rarely, if ever guests on some shows. Limbaugh never has "guests" on, except by phone, and then it's someone like Rumsfeld or cheney, there is a reason for this!). On Limbaugh's first TV appearance, he had no control, the audience booed him relentlessly and he was so embarrassed, the next show required men to wear jackets and ties and women to dress "modestly"; the audience was hand picked to ensure a favorable response, and the applause lights were huge...the show bombed shortly thereafter...:D

Now that others are calling for a return to the Fairness Doctrine, the entrenched RW realizes they will be eviscerated, control of the media is power, they know a massive power transfer would occur almost immediately, and that is intolerable in their view, (sure, it was fine when they did it...x( )

The ratings for the current shows are abysmal, regardless of what they crow about. Limbaugh leads, but the #'s are so inflated, no one knows who listens to what anymore.


As an aside, the oxycontin scandal didn't help Limbaugh, but the "investigation" went in the wrong direction. "Dr. shopping" was absurd, but why he isn't in jail for purchasing pills by the thousands in plastic bags w/cigar boxes filled w/cash is beyond me. The average person, buying even 5 oxycontin w/o a valid Rx would spend a long time in jail...Limbaugh beat the system, you or I would be languishing in prison for the rest of our lives if we did something akin to what he did.

[Alter Ego]

8. Rush is a fat shitball who loves the sound of his own voice

more than anything else (well, except money...lovely, lovely money). Why anyone here gives a shit about anything he says is beyond me. He's crossed into Coulter-levels of absurdity.

[mikekohr]

10. Limbaugh , by his own words is a BLATANT RACIST and white supremicist

http://www.brotherhooddays.com/HEROES.html#RUSH%20LIMBAUGH:

RUSH LIMBAUGH: (Hosts the most popular radio talk show in America, also regarded as a world class gasbag, pill-popping blowhard, and shameless, self promoting, self absorbed, namedropping sycophant) -In my opinion-
"I don't give a hoot that gave some Indians a disease that they didn't have an immunity against." 17). (Quote from his best selling book, "The Way Things Ought To Be." pg. 45).

"There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any other time in history. Does this sound like a record of genocide?" 17).(Quote from his best selling book, "I Told You So." pg. #68). Rush must be using the "new math" to arrive at this conclusion. Most experts today, feel that in the United States and Canada alone, there were in 1492, approximately 10 to 20 million Native Americans.1). By 1900 there were less than 250,000 Native people left alive, a decline of well over 98%. At the time the "all knowing" Rushkie wrote this book there were approximately 2,300,000 enrolled native people and an additional 1,000,000 other Indian people of various degrees of Native blood. Using a very, very, generous figure of 3,000,000 Native people, there were at the time of this quote at least 15,000,000 fewer Native people alive as compared to 1492, a decline of at least 83%.

"Columbus saved the Indians from themselves."17). (Quote from his radio show.) Left to themselves the Taino People, over a period of thousands of years, formed a peace loving, prosperous civilization that numbered in the millions. After 50 years of Spanish domination they were reduced in number to nearly zero. It is my hope that the United States or any other nation ever again has to face such a "savior."

From the website "International Brotherhood Days" http://www.brotherhooddays.com

mike kohr

[Enthusiast]

9. Believe it not, Limbaugh has

done tremendous harm to this country. Millions have listened to his drivel and taken it to heart. His lies are daily reinforcement for the most racist and bigoted in this country. The very exclamation "Ditto!" is an admission that the listeners are not thinking for themselves. Millions of ignorant listeners believe his "Obama's recession" proclamation. Not only that but Limbaugh's revisionist history will soon claim it is Obama's depression.

[depakid]

11. "now we break for an opposing view from a responsible spokesperson"

That's in essense what was heard- fairly rarely, and as has been pointed out, as often as not- it was used by people on the right -which was why the likes of Jesse Helms and a young congressman from Georgia named Newt Gingrich lined up in support of it in Congress during the 1980's.

Not to complicate the issue- but the Fairness Doctrine was actually a series of adminstrative rules and ajudications at the FCC (some of which got to US District or even Circuit Courts, some of which didn't) that furthered a fundamental set of principles- namely, that no one could blatantly monopolize the public airwaves (as we see today) to the exclusion of other points of view.

Broadcasters couldn't lie (make false statements of fact) repeatedly and with impunity. If one of their hosts lied- then there was a mechanism in place for someone to come on air (usually for a 30 second spot) and set the record straight. If a person was attacked- that person or a representative was entitled to some time for rebuttal.

Moreover, broadcasters had to keep logs- so that, interested parties (or FCC staff) could ensure that they were living up to their obligations.

In todays day and age- they might be reviewed by the folks at Media Matters- or perhaps by Poynter, or any number of outfits who work to hold the American corporate media accountable.

If stations didn't live up to their public interest obligations, they risked (among other things) license non-renewal- and then as now, the licenses were lucrative, so corporations and individuals generally played by the rules.

Sinclair, Clear Channel, Fox, and others wouldn't have acted as irresponsibly as they do these days- and wouldn't have become veritable propaganda organs of one party's ideology or anothers (not just because of the Fairness Doctrine)s) for a number of other reasons, including ownership restrictions).

On a whole, these regulations helped to form a media culture where the sorts of deals that are commonplace in America- lies, vile personal attacks, and "up is down," "black is white" misinforamtion were discouraged in much the same way as financial institutions and individuals like Bernie Madoff were discouraged from committing their frauds.

Contrary to "popular" opinion- the Fairness Doctrine(s) and other reggualtions didn't keep the likes of Rush Limaugh, Sean Hannity- (pick 'em) off of the air- but what it did do was help keep them honest.

[AllentownJake]

40. 1972, 1980, and 1984....

FD's heyday worse time for the party

:shrug:

[stevenleser]

43. Cause-Effect?

Just saying. Not sure FD was the overriding issue in politics for the period. Iran Hostage Crisis? Oil Embargo? Stagflation?

[AllentownJake]

46. My point is we couldn't get our message out

in the 70s and 80s with the FD now we are getting it out just fine. Why mess with the system.

[DailyGrind51]

12. Limbaugh is a drugged-addeled college drop-out!

Anyone who still believes in anything he says is beyond redemption and not worth bothering about!

[Medusa]

26. Millions listen to him every day

and believe every word he says. He's intent on smearing Obama the same way that he smeared Clinton.

[DailyGrind51]

35. Do you really believe that those "millions" are capable of comprehending the truth?

Those people existed in America before Limbaugh and will exist after Limbaugh is gone. "Educable" Americans don't listen to Limbaugh anyway, they have REAL jobs that require their full attention, sans radio.

[robcon]

13. Fairness Doctrine is an abomination to the Constitution.

Freedom of the press is one of the most important rights we have.

Let Limbaugh say whatever the hell he wants.

[depakid]

14. The Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with the press

You can print anything you'd like (just don't try to post them on telephone polls is some states).

[robcon]

17. You think freedom of the "press" only includes printed materials????

You think content on radio, TV, movies and the internet can be regulated???? How about telephone conversations and texting on cellphones?

That's the narrowest interpretation of the first amendment I've ever heard of.

[Kingofalldems]

18. Nobody wants to regulate anything--we have a right to respond

to lies. You just gave a typical Rush response ,please get your facts straight.

[robcon]

19. It's a "Rush response" to argue that Rush can say any nonsense he wants?????

In other words, as I read your response, your only problem with freedom of the press (or freedom of speech) is when the press disagrees with your point of view, then freedom of the press can be withdrawn.

The first amendment either means the press is free or it isn't. The Fairness Doctrine relies on the stupid argument that the airwaves are "owned" by the government, and therefore speech/press can be regulated, despite the constitutional restriction.

[Kingofalldems]

21. The airwaves are owned by we the people

The gov't being our reps. Speech would not be regulated, but WE would be given the chance to respond.

[alwysdrunk]

23. you do have the chance. Start a radio show

Or maybe......a WEBSITE!

[stevenleser]

24. That is not a chance...

the point of the fairness doctrine is that on the same show, or directly afterwards, an alternate view is presented.

Just because people happen to like the personality or voice of a particular media person and thus reward them with listenership or viewership, doesnt mean that person has the right to subject people to one sided views of the world with no basis in fact or reality. That is the end result of your argument.

Thanks, but the popularity of the person isnt what I want to determine who gets to propagandize the airwaves.

[Festivito]

15. What about the freedom of those squelched from responding?

Rush can say what he wants, but as long as there are limited venues in which to respond, which limits those responses, there needs to be fairness.

We have freedom of speech, but not the freedom to stop others from speaking by speaking over those others.

[NashVegas]

22. Unlike Newspapers and the 'net, Publicly Acccessible Airwaves Are Necessarily a Limited Resource

Which we allow the government to regulate because if it didn't, there would be mayhem from different broadcasters competing for a spot of freely accessible bandwidth.

It's because of this that a Fairness Doctrine is needed.

[gravity]

16. Lets not give Rush Limbaugh legitimacy

Of course Rush Limbaugh is going to say some stupid shit about liberals. That is what he suppose to do. No one takes him seriously except people who agree with him anyways.

Credible news sources like The NY Times and CNN are the ones you have to worry about, because they are taken seriously. If they say something like blaming liberals for all the economic problems, then you have the right to be up in arms over it.

[stevenleser]

20. Kicked for the Monday afternoon crowd (n/t)

[ItNerd4life]

25. I take it you hate free speech? The Fairness Doctrine is vile.

People who claim 'it's the public airwaves there's only so many of them' scare the hell out of me.

Congress is public property, there's only so many congressman, should we have equal Democrats and Republicans in Congress?

The people vote with their radios just as they vote at the ballot box.

[stevenleser]

27. See my #24 above, it addresses your flawed argument

thanks

[Fire_brand]

28. Not only would the fairness doctrine be a political blunder...

it's completely unnecessary. We live in an age where the individual can find any sort of perspective he or she want on the issues. The individual has more access this second to more information than he or she could consume in a lifetime, with more information that we can quantify being added everyday. The fairness doctrine is a relic of an era when media choices were fairly limited. Today, media choices are nearly unlimited.

It would be a political blunder because there are very few people that are calling for this to happen, and it would tick off a whole lot of talk-radio listeners, not all of whom are conservative.

[depakid]

30. Yep- everyone has broadand internet access, even in their cars!

Fact is in communite all across America- aside from the internet- there's virtually no choice in programming and ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY for outright lies on the public airwaves (or eeven Cable or satellite, which as monopolies, ought to be subject to similar regulations).

Here's about where things stand:

What has changed since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine? Is there more coverage of controversial issues of public importance? “Since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine we have had much less coverage of issues,” says MAP’s Schwartzman, adding that television news and public affairs programming has decreased locally and nationally. According to a study conducted by MAP and the Benton Foundation, 25 percent of broadcast stations no longer offer any local news or public affairs programming at all (Federal Communications Law Journal, 5/03).

The most extreme change has been in the immense volume of unanswered conservative opinion heard on the airwaves, especially on talk radio. Nationally, virtually all of the leading political talkshow hosts are right-wingers: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Reagan, to name just a few. The same goes for local talkshows. One product of the post-Fairness era is the conservative “Hot Talk” format, featuring one right-wing host after another and little else.

When Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene, Oregon, studied the two commercial talk stations in his town (Eugene Register-Guard, 6/30/02), he found “80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective.” Observing that Eugene (a generally progressive town) was “fairly representative,” Monks concluded: “Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it.”

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm

[AllentownJake]

39. Can you explain the 1972, 1980, and 1984 election

if things were so great for us under the FD?

Because we haven't been beaten that bad since than.

[Fire_brand]

41. Democrats have plenty of outlets to get our message out

Conservatives have talk radio, fine, but Obama has shown how the left can use the internet to mobilize people. Everyone has ample space to get their message out, there's no need to try to achieve "balance" with talk radio.

[AllentownJake]

42. There is a certain obsession with that media

because of battles in the past. Some people aren't thinking forward.

[Omaha Steve]

29. Well done

K&R!

[Monk06]

31. Rush Limbaugh is God's gift to liberals. A fat bigot who hires prostitutes because no

respectable women would be seen dead in his
company. He's a perfect stereotype of the
right wing male and yet he's for real !!!

[Wednesdays]

32. K&R nt

[ddeclue]

33. We don't need the fairness doctrine...

we need to help get progressive programs on more stations - we need more stations and more owners - we need to break up the chain ownership of stations. That's the real solution.

[Jennicut]

36. Clearchannel anyone?

[anonymous171]

45. End media consolidation. nt

[Beacool]

34. No it doesn't!!!!

No matter what crap Limbaugh, or any other RW pundit says on the radio or TV, they have a right to say it. Just like we have the right to switch the station or the channel.

Censuring freedom of speech should go against the grain of anyone who cherishes the democratic process.

:(

[AllentownJake]

38. Rush is irrelevant and the FD will solve nothing

The two biggest democratic electoral defeats in party history were under FD times.

Spend your time fighting for media deconsolidation.

[stevenleser]

44. Cause-Effect?

See my above post of the same title regarding that piece of your response.

I wish I agreed with you and that you were right about Rush and his ilk being irrelevant. It's amazing how soon we forget. It was Rush more than anyone else that fomented what became the monstrous Clinton hatred on the right. It is this hatred that turned a peccadillo into impeachment.

[AllentownJake]

47. Bush's campaign Chair in 88 had already sent

the party in that direction. If it wasn't rush it would have been some other GOP hack.

Clinton left the White House with 60% approval ratings. If he could have run for a third term W wouldn't have stood a chance even with impeachment.