Durbin and Pelosi are free to start up a radio station if they choose and make it as diverse as they wish. This is BS, these Socialists want it all, and they want it now. I am sure they consider the print media and television media already diverse and fair? It is just the radio that needs to be diverse. I have come to despise the words, ‘diversity’ and ‘diverse’.
"Diversity? That word in this context reminds me of the line from the movie "The Blues Brothers," where the bar owner's wife answers the question "what sort of music do you play here?" with "Both Kinds! Country AND Western!"
Chris Stigall, the conservative morning host on AM710, KCMO in Kansas City, was doing a sub for Michael Savage in the last week or so, and he got a call that was someone complaining about just that... Chris filled him in on the radio business. Then he told the guy that radio stations all over the country are looking for filler shows, mostly on the weekends. All he needs to go is find someone to sponsor him, and radio stations would LOVE to have him on. All he needs to do is find some people who think like him, and get them to pony up some money, and he'll be on the air. Because, no matter what the leftists tell you, as far as the vast majority of radio station owners are concerned, it's NOT about ideology: It's about making money. If it would make money, the radio stations would be airing shows about hunting pink gorillas! The only people who really make it about ideology are either religious broadcasters (who the left also wants to shut down) and the left itself, who can't actually run shows that actually make money, which is why they're especially prevalent on NPR and local tax payer (force) funded radio stations.
I guess the guy just doesn't approve of the fact that he would actually have to PAY to get his views on the air, or find someone that will. Gee, isn't that what Rush's sponsors have been doing for all these years?
Mark
Durbin and Pelosi are free to start up a radio station if they choose and make it as diverse as they wish . . . I have come to despise the words, ‘diversity’ and ‘diverse’.
That is because of the Newspeak meanings which Big Journalism has attached to so many words, not just "diversity."According to William Safire, the meaning of the word "liberal" was changed (essentially inverted) during the 1920s; no such a coup as that could be perpetrated without the collusion of Big Journalism.
"The press" in the sense in which Associated Press Journalism means the term is exclusive rather than inclusive; their insinuation is that Associated Press journalism has freedom of the press because only the AP defines and defends the public interest. In reality, of course, "the freedom . . . of the press" is the right of the people to use technology to promote our ideas. The right of freedom of the press was implied in the Constitution before the Bill of Rights was added (the Federalists opposed the addition of the Bill of Rights because they feared that it would be used a ceiling and not a floor on the rights of the people - which is precisely the system of the opponents of our freedom to listen to Rush if we wanna. The idea that the phrase "the freedom . . . of the press" had any unique application to the Associated Press is risible because the AP was founded two generations after the ratification of the First Amendment.
The definition of "objective" as being synonymous with journalism is Newspeak, as is the use of "liberal" or "progressive" to define exactly the attitudes which a journalist would call "objective" in another journalist.