Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Is the Tyranny of Right-Wing Radio Coming to an End?

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted June 20, 2008.


The notion that the days of right-wing dominance of the airwaves may well be numbered is rapidly becoming a reality.
bookssizedshockjocksfinalrev04web12089724031
shock jocks
Advertisement

Conservative fears of an impending Democratic attack on talk radio - dubbed the "Hush Rush" effort in an homage to top-rated radio talker Rush Limbaugh -- continue to escalate, despite ample evidence that such an assault is unlikely to occur when (as is likely) Democrats sweep back into power in the forthcoming elections in November.

As noted recently on the "Focus on the Family action" website citizenlink.com, conservative fears of a supposed return to the Federal Communications Commission's long-defunct Fairness Doctrine remain unabated. In a post entitled "Take Action: Ask Congress to Protect Talk Radio," Managing Editor Jennifer Mesko recently wrote, "Democrats have threatened to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine which would force conservative stations to broadcast liberal viewpoints."

In response, says Mesko, "Radio broadcasters and some members of Congress are calling on Democrats to celebrate July Fourth -- dubbed "Radio Independence Day" -- by pledging to protect the airwaves from censorship."

As previously reported, "Leading hard-right conservatives, led by their talk radio 'shock jock' shock troops, have been worrying aloud about the supposed return of the long-defunct Fairness Doctrine ever since their stunning success last year in defeating bi-partisan immigration reform."

Although most informed observers believe the right's existential angst is unfounded, it is nonetheless real -- and has spurred former broadcaster and current congressman Mike Pence, R-Ind., to introduce the Broadcaster Freedom Act (H.R. 2905), which would prohibit the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. "Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control of political views on the commercial and religious airwaves of America, and it must be opposed," Pence told Family News in Focus, while calling on Congress to support the Broadcaster Freedom Act before July Fourth. Shock jock Laura Ingraham joined Pence, saying, "This is nothing more than an attempt to have government regulate one of the most effective forms of political discussion today."

Of course, only a year ago more than three hundred members of Congress -- including 113 Democrats -- supported a moratorium on the Fairness Doctrine!

Meanwhile, other conservatives, such as Jim Boulet Jr., executive director of English First and organizer of the website KeepRushontheAir.com are claiming that the cunning (if Republican-controlled) FCC -- employing a little known tactic Boulet terms "legislation by stealth" -- may instead "reinstate the Fairness Doctrine via something called 'localism.'"

In a National Review Online post headlined "FCC Tries to Hush Rush," Boulet assails the "tyranny of 'cultural diversity' while citing "a little-noticed item in the Federal Register" he claims will soon hand the FCC "the power to drive Rush Limbaugh off the air."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: fcc, fairness doctrine, radio independence day

Filmmaker and journalist Rory O'Connor is the author of "Shock Jocks: Hate Speech and Talk Radio" (AlterNet Books, 2008). O'Connor also writes the Media Is A Plural blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Oh, we can only hope
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jun 20, 2008 12:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When a feeble-minded, failed "B" movie actor by the name of Ronald Reagan deregulated the FCC a generation ago, it set the stage for the era of disinformation and propaganda that followed. In an earlier age, our parents and grandparents went to the polls with a fairly good idea as to the important issues this once-great nation might have been facing at any particular point in time. That is no longer the case. The American electorare has been so dumbed down in recent years, in 2000 a huge segment of them actually believed that sending a half-witted frat boy named George W. Bush to the White House was a good idea. They would repeat the mistake four years later. Brilliant Americans.

What the airwaves are in desperate need of is enlightenment. Limbaugh, Hannity and the pile of human shit that passes these days as America's "opinion makers" need to be thrown into history's garbage can.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
Tim Russert 1950-2008

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What are they afraid of? Posted by: Smackback
» RE: What are they afraid of? Posted by: JSquercia
» As always Tom... Posted by: bobtr900
Oh boy, liberals are pissed off!
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Jun 20, 2008 1:15 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democrats are scared shitless of Bush and Fox News, so impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors is "off the table." But rejoice dear citizens....by god we just might see the feckless rise and take on the radio shock jocks. Oh boy, oh boy, my faith in constitutional governance and relevance is restored. Excuse me while I pass some gas, this bullshit generates nothing but indigestion!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» scared? Posted by: j downs
» Where to start? Posted by: photon's feather
complacent already?
Posted by: cunning rabbit on Jun 20, 2008 3:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh boy, this is like planning victory celebrations in 1940....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Left afraid of competition?
Posted by: carbon-based on Jun 20, 2008 3:52 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not sure what country the author live in but a quick check will reveal a majority of media is left wing and many far left.. NBC - all it's groups are the worst), Newsweek, NYT, CNN, NPR and the list can go on and on.

Right wing has, Fox news ( who at least makes an attempt to put liberal views in it's programming), US News and World Report?

Lets face it - rightwing media is in response to the dominance of leftwing dominance of media for many decades.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: One more time for the clueless Posted by: ericthefool
» RE: Since when? Posted by: peacefullaim
» RE: Left afraid of competition? Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Left afraid of competition? Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Carbon?? You still trollin?? Posted by: carcinoid112
» RE: Me no speaky english bery good Posted by: cwilsondrum
» What a crock! Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Left afraid of competition? Posted by: carbon-based
» Carbon-Bias? What's corporate bias? Posted by: Aposterioriperception
» Bezukhov Posted by: bobtr900
» RE: Left afraid of competition? Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: Left afraid of competition? Posted by: blademan1969
You are so damned wrong, you must be a Bush employee
Posted by: Ellie1 on Jun 20, 2008 4:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
or you are just stupid. Studies have shown that most media is controlled by right wing conglomerates who force such Bushit jerks as O'Lielly and Limpbaugh onto the public airwaves. George W. Bushit appointed right wing controll of NPR to even slant their views. YOU are controlling the media-you and your right wing a-holes, which is why the msm has lost its credibility. Now go put Fox back on and continue to rot what is left of the peanut sized brain you once had.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Right on Ellie1 Posted by: yale
When you own everything and you have nothing to loose!
Posted by: williameon on Jun 20, 2008 4:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What do you do with all that wealth?
How do you control the information?
Buy the media.
Fill it with Propaganda that
Conditions and programs
Create the Illusion that the
Poor Ignorant people run the Government
Instead of Rich Corporations.
Now keep them in the DARK for as long as possible.
Steal everything they own and believe in
And replace it with
BU__! SH__!
Get them to watch Reality T.V. instead
Half of the country drowning in
Excrement.
Install a phony shallow Dictator
King George II

Wake up call
Central casting is calling
Looking for more
VIC-Tims!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wingnuts are free to take their hate-speech to cable
Posted by: Ydotheyhateus on Jun 20, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but as long as they are using public airwaves that belongs to you and me, we need to have balanced view on our airwaves i.e. reality based news and analysis, and not the neoliberal hogwash fantasy that is peddled today as news by the wingnut hosts.

In a unanimous ruling in '69, SCOTUS held that fairness doctrine is constitutional, and this ruling has not been challenged:

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not sure I "get it" . . .
Posted by: daveinchi on Jun 20, 2008 6:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . am I supposed to be happy that the talk of reviving the Fairness Doctrine isn't really going anywhere? Or happy that Right wingers are freaking out?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BRING BACK THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE
Posted by: leafsong1 on Jun 20, 2008 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and restrictions on the number of media outlets one corporation can own. Our populace has become compartmentalized. It is not enough to be lectured by pundits and commentators; in order to be educated about the issues, Americans must hear DEBATE. Even Alternet is a culprit in the division of the nation into mutually unintelligible camps. Bring back the Republican talking points; I want to argue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Common mistake. Posted by: ABetterFuture
It will only come to an end when you stop listening to it and get a life !
Posted by: maxpayne on Jun 20, 2008 7:09 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And why not build your own counter stations? Just because Air America didn't succeed doesn't mean you have to stop and hope that rightwing talk radio falls flat. It doesn't work that way. Rightwing talk radio didn't succeed overnight. Back in the 1980s and even the 1990s, they had a lot of changing and revising to do. Look, it's gonna take a decade and it ain't gonna be cheap but if you want to get your message out there, take some time off the tubes just like the cons did in the mid 1960s and even the 1970s although I will say that Nixon's fall merely delayed their worst of intentions.

In any case, stop giving money to their advertisers and stop listening to their crap and build your own network(s), think tanks, dedicated focus groups, etc ... for a change instead of waiting for your enemy to fall.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Weak vs. Strong Liberal Posted by: Aposterioriperception
Well, Randi and Schulz
Posted by: Stellaa on Jun 20, 2008 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now during the primary, the so called left talk radio, proved that they are just as disgusting as the right. Air America has become unbearable. They used the tactics of the right throughout the primary, even people like Rachel Maddow lost all credibility. They use the medium from the point of constant demonization. Off with all their heads.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can't believe a so-called "progressive" wants more government say-so in these things
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Jun 20, 2008 7:24 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Fairness doctrine is a short-sighted and knee-jerk reaction to a problem caued by supply and demand more so than anything else.

Media conglomerates should be broken up and I wouldn't call the playing field "level" right now. Forcing stations to play content that, lets be honest here, people don't really listen to won't fix anything. Air America bombed and it actually had some decent production value. It was promoted and put out in front of millions of people, liberal and conservative alike, who rejected it. It went bankrupt. You are living in a fantasy land if you think that people will magically start listening to Bobby Kennedy on Ring of Fire because it is government-mandated programming. Ad revenue will drop, funding for the programming will dwindle and the quality of the programming, conservative, liberal and apolitical alike, will drop.

The Fairness doctrine will backfire big-time. Anyone who supports is has tunnel-vision. There are more than two sides to political issues. Should equal time be given to the Communist party, the Libertarian party, the Green Party and all other political entities who have a wide range of political viewpoints?

Supporters of the Fairness doctrine are only thinking about shutting down Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the likes who aren't doing anything illegal and have every right to say the things they say. Supporters of the Fairness doctrine aren't really interested in an informed populace. If they were they would put out a program that people wanted to listen to, be competitive in the market and let the consumers choose for themselves. Instead they want government to bully radio stations into playing something that very few people will choose to dial in to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Again... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Whats the problem Posted by: carbon-based
Restricting the free speech of others?
Posted by: corazon on Jun 20, 2008 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
thats totally UN-American. I listen to Rush just for the laughs and misinformation. Hannity is a JOKE. If you gave a neaderthal a microphone that would be Hannity. And really, what does the FCC have any business regulating speech anyways? Is this what Libs want, free speech for a select few? I believe that speech should be unregulated whether on Speakers Corner or over the air waves. These guys are preaching to their brain washed choirs. The Federal Government is about protecting its own interests, not yours. That means its corporate sponsers. Broadcast fees are just another way to keep the Fed machine humming and is bureucrates fat and happy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow are they ever pushing this guy's book.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jun 20, 2008 8:33 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More power to them. Maybe he's a big donator.

Meantime, it's a regurgitation of the same old clap-trap. "I don't likee duh Rush, please use government lawyers backed by government tanks to makee him shaddup!!!!!"

What happened to liberals who could stomach the fact that it's ok to disagree with them in a free and liberal society? Oh, wait. We aren't talking about liberalism; we're talking about in-your-face progrAssivism:

"We'll make those who have different opinions shutup, in the name of opposing tyranny!!!"

It would be funny if they didn't take themselves (and our freedoms) so seriously, or so cavalierly. Fancy themselves better tyrants? No thanks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Turn Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Turn Posted by: leafsong1
» Removing options? Nice crusade. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Sigh. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Sigh is right. Posted by: leafsong1
Please Log On To Colorofchange.org
Posted by: desidid on Jun 20, 2008 9:44 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and sign the petition urging Fox to stop misrepresenting Mrs. Obama.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This can't happen soon enough fo me
Posted by: bettyn on Jun 20, 2008 10:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More Keith Olbermanns, Rachel Maddows, Al Frankens (Let's put him in Congress, Minnesota!), and Phil Donahues. Less Rush,Beck, Coulter, Malkin,Ingraham Savage,BillO, and the whole Faux crew.

What a wonderful day that would be. Bring back "equal time"!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Olbermann who???? Posted by: carbon-based
» Disinformation..... WHY? Posted by: Aposterioriperception
Nobody HAS to listen
Posted by: throck on Jun 20, 2008 10:42 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A radio is only heard when it is on, and then only plays what the operator tunes in. I don't like either Rush or Franken. Both want to take freedoms that I value. Alternet seems to want to abandon the First Amendment and dictate what I hear and see. That sounds a lot like what Rush wants to do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nobody HAS to listen... Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Nobody HAS to listen Posted by: carbon-based
going by their own impulses?
Posted by: luzmejor on Jun 20, 2008 12:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right wingers have never believed in cooperation or equality of citizens. I think they must be born pugilists.

Naturally they would believe that if their hated liberals had any say in government that they would act exactly like rabid conservatives do and attempt to destroy the opposing party.

Of course, it doesn't make sense, but when did a "rabid "conservative" ever make sense?

McCain is speaking as though the Iraqis were the ones that started the invasion of Iraq now!

I am not surprised that he graduated 894th in his class of 899 or that he was a wrestler his teammates called McNasty!
It is a shame he was so wounded in North Korea, but we don't owe him the presidency because of that. We also do not need to mute our criticism for the facts about his character deficiencies, especially if we care at all about the future of our nation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Redux....
Posted by: dbatterman on Jun 20, 2008 12:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, wasn't this the same basic article that was up about a week ago?
Second, again, people seem to miss the point that the Fairness Doctrine is not really being revived. The best way to get ratings is to screech that "THE MAN" is trying to shut you down. Easy rebellion.
Thirdly, I love the trolls who have come here just for these articles. Their commentary consists of nothing but regurgitating exactly the same things that they hear on talk radio. Everybody else here seems to have varied opinions. But the O'Reilly fans, the Hannity-ites, the Dittoheads...all they can do is repeat their idols' talking points like the mindless lemmings they are. It's almost too easy...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Radio Independence
Posted by: Joe on Jun 20, 2008 1:19 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
will be gained when the FCC is demolished. the only time anything is not fair as far as this site is concerned is when democrats are not in the driving seat of beating people over the head with their beliefs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Spoken like a true neocon Posted by: photon's feather
We aren't going to need the Fairness Doctrine.
Posted by: Longdream on Jun 20, 2008 5:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right-wing shit-shovelers are all het up, but not because of any impending regulation.

Did you happen to see the latest number for those in the country who think we're on the right track? It's seventeen percent. Only seventeen percent of the people are out there cheering on the tax cuts, waving pennants for the war, and swallowing the bait whole. The other eighty-three percent of us smell the rancid fish.

O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest of the tools who make their money broadcasting Hee Haw for Bigots look at that number and lose bladder control. In a little while, ratings are going to tank. It takes narcissistic Republicans a long time to figure out when it's time to change their tune, so they'll continue to posture and scream, and spit out their aggrieved agenda to nobody for a while.

I hope Scaife and Murdoch lose a fortune before they start divesting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fairness Doctrine
Posted by: Urgelt on Jun 20, 2008 10:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you ask me, the Fairness Doctrine was an effective bulwark against shameless propaganda from anywhere in the political spectrum.

We could do worse than to bring it back. In fact, we have done worse by squelching it.

All you have to do is ask yourself two simple questions.

Is it ok to lie through your teeth to the public? Sure, that's protected speech, with some narrow exceptions (you can't yell "fire" in a theater or urge an assassination, for example).

Is it ok to use public-owned airwaves to do it? That's a matter for our democracy to decide.

The airwaves are a "commons," a public property. It's the right of the people to require government, should they so choose, to regulate that public space to remove nuisances.

I'd call lying propaganda a pretty serious nuisance, wouldn't you? Given free reign, propaganda can cause bad things to happen to democracies. Like destroy them or propel them into foreign aggression.

I have no problem with Rush Limbaugh exercising his Constitutional right to free speech. But when he wants to use *my* airwaves to lie, I get a mite perturbed. I see no reason why I should tolerate a nuisance on my property, and if enough agree with me, we can and should take him off the public airwaves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

thank the talk radio monopoly for this bush disaster
Posted by: trank on Jun 21, 2008 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we don't have red states and blue dog democrats. the last twenty years they have been talk radio states and talk radio dems. we wouldn't be in this bush disaster if reagan hadn't killed the Fairness Doctrine and some old reagan cold warriors hadn't subsidized limbaugh's career.

the coordinated uncontested repetition from the GOP talk radio monopoly does more to determine what is acceptable news than any other single medium. but without searchable transcripts of their shows the media analysts and haven't been able to document the migration of GOP talk radio talking points and lies to the lazy celebrity media circuit. they like taking the prechewed bushit off the talk radio bandwagon (reinforced in faxes and emails) because they know it's already been pounded into the ears of tens of millions by the end of the day or week. doesn't matter how false or absurd it is, they feel like they're on a red velvet GOP bandwagon.

meanwhile progressives completely ignore talk radio because it hurts their ears and they strategize in a vacuum, looking for explanations, and excepting explanations that falsely and tragically attribute Dem failures and GOP gains to social movements instead of the coordinated mass repetition by raving blowhards on the talk radio monopoly that largely determines the political and media flavor of America.

and increasingly, progressive media activists cede the talk radio monopoly to the right thinking they're passing them with the internet. a big mistake. the internet seems progressive since it is still somewhat democratic and reflects real America- it may inform people who search for information but it is not a monster coordinated propaganda outlet reaching 50-70 MIL.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Critical Use of Sources
Posted by: lilithwantsu on Jun 21, 2008 7:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was really looking forward to this book, however, what credibility it had was damaged for me when I saw the author cite a wikipedia article without qualification. Wikipedia should never be used as an authoritative source because the articles are written by whoever has the time or inclination to write one. It hardly lives up to the peer review process most print encyclopedias use. That the author cannot critically evaluate his sources undermines his credibility in my mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Have you ever heard a radio host that let someone speak?
Posted by: ArtemInox on Jun 22, 2008 3:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't. The profession seems to draw the type of insufferable pretentious prick that will do everything to baffle, befuddle, discredit and silence anyone that brings up a valid point countering their own. It's the nature of the beast.

This medium of expression is only worthwhile to the dumbasses that pay any serious attention to it. If it isn't radio, it will be something else. A fairness doctrine in place might make these guys look like what they really are, hopefully have some cumulative effect in getting people to think outside of the little box of right, left, liberal, conservative, democrat, republican.

http://www.addictedtoaggravation.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For those of you who are against the fairness doctrine.
Posted by: Musked on Jun 22, 2008 10:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the movie, Hotel Rwanda, there was a radio DJ that helped fan the flames of genocide by revealing the locations of those hiding from the slaughter. He was only enlightening people . . . right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]