Just picked him out today.
Bull mastiff(male) 2 weeks old.
Posted on 11/16/2008 11:57:23 PM PST by ebiskit
So if your station doesn’t spew Obama’s nonsense 24/7, you will be taken off the air? Our new tin horn dictator thinks he can actually make this happen? LOL!
This will not increase radio traffic to "progressive" radio stations, rather it would have an effect of turning many in the media against him. "First they came for the Conservatives..."
BUMP
I'm ready.
Churches are part of “the local community”. Often a leading part. So does that mean under localism that radio stations are in effect obliged to broadcast church services?
Just checking.
They will be caught off guard.
We won't. We were the ones who could see straight through it from the start.
I don't think it has really set in just how serious this is going to get and how quick. The SCOTUS judges he pick will give us thrills for the next 30 years. He already has several executive orders written up for the first week. One of which will reinstate the drilling ban offshore. The loss in congress was terrible, but he can do irreversible damage with the stroke of a pen.
>>By hook or crook, BOHICA the censorship of free speech and our to right to peaceably assemble.<<
The Obama BOHICA Chronicles, Chapter 1.
The “localism” approach is great. All we have to do is call out the most famous quotation from that hero of Democrat politics, Fromer Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill:
“ALL politics is local.”
In the past year here I have seen here a number of references to Saul Alinsky. Some years ago a read he was a community organizer who used such creative protest ideas as suggesting the people who wanted an effective sit-in should eat beans and have a fart-in. I thought it was hilarious at the time. Can anyone tell me more about this guy.
>>Now, with the ink barely dry on this November’s ballots, Obama has begun a war against conservative talk radio. Obama is on record as saying he does not plan an exhumation of the now-dead “Fairness Doctrine”. Instead, Obama’s attack on free speech will be far less understood by the general public and accordingly, far more dangerous.<<
This issue is a concern but this article is poor.
It says that Obama is doing this but doesn’t cite any evidence. Everything it mentions is from before the election but the article is in present tense claiming it is happening now.
It is traditional for media to have and cite a source, even an anonymous one.
The Senate needs to draw a line in the sand: free speech, not localism.
The problem they present us with is that actually what conservatives object to in "the MSM" is not nearly so much what they say - frustrating as that so regularly is - as what they do not say.What was wrong with the recent coverage of the election? The attacks on Sarah Palin were, and still are, frustrating in their lack of balance and perspective. And for every one of those attacks, there was a more valid and more damaging point to be made against Barak Obama which Associated Press journalism would not touch with a ten foot pole.
Many FReepers fall into the trap of demanding only that "the MSM" "just give us the facts." But the problem is that no matter how accurate reporting might be,
Half the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin FranklinThe ability of Associated Press journalism to perpetrate half truths is powerfully associated with their ability to constantly insinuate the con that "journalism is objective." Journalism is, inherently, very far from being objective. Journalism has a business interest - to attract an audience. The product it has on offer is ephemeral - information which is not yet available from anyone else. At least not locally to the audience. And obviously the internet undercuts that model, as does the fact which FReepers often observe - that "news" stories often fester and percolate and suddenly erupt in Big Journalism long after FReepers have already read about it and discussed it.Associated Press journalism has a powerful interest in monopolizing the national public discourse. And, if Steve Boris is to be believed, the Associated Press was held by SCOTUS to be a monopoly in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act back in 1945. It is the Associated Press which is the origin of the claim that journalism is objective. The original basis of that claim was that the member newspapers of the AP were famously independent and argumentative, and didn't agree on much of anything. But whatever grain of truth might have existed in support of that argument in the late Nineteenth Century, that is far from representative of modern reality. Every newspaper has to promote the con that journalism is objective, in order to assure its audience that it can trust reports which come from reporters who are not in the employ of that particular newspaper. That is a tremendously powerful homogenizing force, so that today there is not a dime's worth of difference between the perspective of the reporters from any of the different members of the AP. The business model of the AP makes that inevitable.
The newspapers of the founding era were more similar to today's opinion journals than to modern newspapers. The newspapers of the founding era typically were weeklies rather than dailies. Not only were they long on opinion, they were short on news not available to the public from other sources. They were published by people who made no bones about their politics, any more than a Rush Limbaugh does. Should Rush Limbaugh be apologetic because he does not claim objectivity? Only if you accept the claim that AP journalism is in fact objective. But if you accept that claim and base censorship laws upon that claim, you should be able to prove the claim. And because half the truth can be a lie and nobody can tell the entire truth, proving that claim is impossible. That would be the case even if that claim were true. But it is IMHO far easier to argue that the claim is false.
The only trouble about making the argument is that it is difficult to get a hearing for your argument. The FCC has a long history of promoting "objective" journalism as being the public benefit of broadcasting. We need a case before SCOTUS which would stop the FCC from promoting the confidence swindle known as "objective journalism." And we need it yesterday.
Such a case should be crafted to bring down "Campaign Finance Reform" as well, since the "objectivity" of journalism is a planted axiom, not only in McCain-Feingold but in all prior laws of the sort.
Just picked him out today.
Bull mastiff(male) 2 weeks old.
I agree that this idea is nonsense.
Freedom of speech is not determined by group think.
I would suspect that most liberal would fear this encroachment.
This child is in for a rude awakening.
LET FREEDOM PING
BRING IT ON
It will make satilite, internet streaming, and podcasting all the more popular.
Just be ready, when he gets REALLY big, he’ll still think he’s a li’l puppy and want to jump in your lap. :)
He is very cute, surprised you could get one before 8 weeks, probably special arrangement? Mastiffs are loving and adorable friends. Thanks for sharing and congratulations!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.