According to Michael Rowe on The Huffington Post, the radio show Rob, Arnie & Dawn in the Morning on KRXQ 98.55 in Sacramento has garnered much controversy over insensitive remarks regarding transgender children, as well as other sexually abusive comments over the years that even the most ardent free-speech supporter would cringe at. As a result, according to Rowe, ten major chains pulled advertising from the radio station. The companies include: Chipotle restaurants, the Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, SONIC, Verizon, the Carl’s Jr. restaurant chain, Wells Fargo, Nissan, AT&T, and McDonalds.
This incident, combined with various other incidents over the last six years, prove that the Fairness Doctrine and localism regulations are not necessary to combat “inappropriate” content on TV, radio, etc. For example, in 2003, ESPN commentator Rush Limbaugh tendered his resignation in the wake of controversial remarks on Donovan McNabb. There was no government regulation for him to do so – however, there were grassroots protests and outcries from presidential candidates, sports figures and civil rights organizations.
In 2007, Don Imus was embroiled in a controversy over comments regarding the Rutgers University basketball team. Again, the government did not step in and take him off the air- however, CBS wasted no time in releasing him from his contract, and his morning show on MSNBC was immediately canceled. Imus eventually made it back onto the air (he is on 105.9 in the D.C. area), but the outcry from sports figures, politicians, average citizens and advertisers forced CBS to fire him.
Finally, more recently, Jay Severin in Boston was suspended from Boston’s WTKK-FM for very insensitive remarks about Mexican immigrants and his thinking that they brought the swine flu to America (he returned to the air just a few days ago). Having listened to Severin a few times, I found him a bit aggressive, though possessing an overall accuracy when discussing a political situation or viewpoint, but never too over-the-top. It appears, however, that this particular set of comments created such an outcry that he was suspended for a full month. Once again, the government was not involved.
In all of the above circumstances, politically incorrect, insensitive or hurtful comments were made. From a partisan angle, they make Republicans look terrible (as James Kirchick pointed out on this site about Severin). However, free speech is not limited to which political party or special interest group is mildly or otherwise offended by various private citizens exercising their First Amendment rights (otherwise Democrats could have prevented Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Martha Burke and Code Pink from speaking out over the last few years). It is, and always should be, limited by what people want to listen to. If Rob, Arnie and Dawn make sexually explicit comments about transgender children and incestual relationships, I do not want to hear them complaining when liberals, conservatives and moderates alike abandon them. Free speech cuts both ways, fellas – the listeners have the final say.
24 responses so far
1 ottovbvs // Jun 10, 2009 at 6:47 am
Apparently regulation in the form of say the fairness doctrine to prevent hate speech on radio is NOT required but regulation to prevent Janet Jackson bearing a nipple IS. Yep that’s entirely logical.
2 goethean // Jun 10, 2009 at 10:12 am
Republicans are perfectly happy being represented by Michael Savage’s constant Hitler-like rantings about how liberals are all communist girly men scumbags and should all be killed. That tells you all you need to know about the health of conservatism in America today.
3 sinz54 // Jun 10, 2009 at 10:40 am
Mr. Siggins & ottovbvs: The Fairness Doctrine had nothing whatsoever to do with “hate speech.” It had to do with requiring TV and radio to present “contrasting views.” Today, the FCC can still ding a broadcaster for hate speech or indecency, without the Fairness Doctrine.
But it’s inconsistent of some conservatives, like Brent Bozell Jr. (Media Research Center), to oppose the Fairness Doctrine because it would restrict the freedom of broadcasters to broadcast as they see fit–while at the same time lobbying the FCC to restore “Family Hour” on TV (which would restrict the freedom of broadcasters to broadcast as they see fit).
4 Brutus1776 // Jun 10, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Mr. Savage represents very few people with his tactless commentary and boisterous hatred. Goethean, reducto ad Hitlerum my friend. Of course, not to mention over-generalizations. I find that such broad generalizations are necessary for many because it negates the need to meticulously understand the issues, and balance out the right/wrong, just/unjust. Well, why even converse when Conservatives are all Right Wing Savage-ites anyway?
Not to mention, I have always found it despicable when people call other peope of Jewish faith anything that correlates to someone who slaughtered 12 million people. A lame argument.
Sinz54, I thought “Family Hour” and “Family Guy” were one in the same?
5 goethean // Jun 10, 2009 at 12:31 pm
> Goethean, reducto ad Hitlerum
Have you listened to Savage recently? I can’t think of a more accurate analogy. And describing a hate-monger like Savage as “tactless” isn’t exactly a scathing denunciation. As far as I’m concerned, Savage’s rants are perfectly isomorphic (similar in form) to Hitler’s crazed, hateful speeches.
6 ottovbvs // Jun 10, 2009 at 1:22 pm
sinz54
10:40 AM
……You get it wrong again. Twice. I was making a comparison between the opposition to what is essentially regulation of one sort (the fairness doctrine….or wouldn’t you call the requirement for this a regulation) and the demand for it in other cases. It’s totally illogical as I pointed out. There’s also a de facto link with hate speech in that it’s reimposition would fairly obviously have the practical effect of forcing radio and tv stations to tone down the hate quotient.
7 Brutus1776 // Jun 10, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Actually, that I was hoping to prove my point with myself as the anecdote. I don’t listen to Michael Savage. Surely that should cull some respect for the Conservatives on this board. We aren’t all hatemongers;-)
8 ottovbvs // Jun 10, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Brutus1776
wrote 0 minutes ago
……Never heard the guy on radio although I’ve seen a couple of clips on the net. Of course all conservatives don’t listen to or support his nonsense, but there are a surprising number of imitators and of course at the end of the day Savage is himself an imitator of the great fat man in the sky who has continually over the years gone over the civility line with his abuse of blacks, hispanics, liberals and even saying old Michael Fox’s illness was made up. It doesn’t get much more slimy than that.
9 ChristianMiller // Jun 10, 2009 at 1:57 pm
ottovbvs”Savage is himself an imitator of the great fat man in the sky who has continually over the years gone over the civility line with his abuse of blacks, hispanics, liberals and even saying old Michael Fox’s illness was made up.”
You just went over the civility line with that comment, smearing someone unjustly, and the bit about Michael J Fox is an outright lie.
It’s a lie – you either are aware that it is, or it is more ignorant ranting on your part.
10 goethean // Jun 10, 2009 at 2:31 pm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=limbaugh+fox+parkinson%27s&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off
Happy reading, aptly-named Franco (did that go over the line too, sensitive one?)
11 Dr. Tesla // Jun 10, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I just wanted to point out that there is NOTHING on this website about David Letterman “joke” about Palin looking like a slut and her daughter getting knocked up by a baseball player on the Yankees.
If Rush or Levin or a conservative talk show host had said that, wouldn’t Frum and his bucket boys on this site be all over that like white on rice?
You betcha.
12 ChristianMiller // Jun 10, 2009 at 4:16 pm
goethean
“saying old Michael Fox’s illness was made up”
This is a lie = nothing in you google search refuters this.
13 ChristianMiller // Jun 10, 2009 at 4:21 pm
A lie is a lie. False statement. Lie. Not true. False. See?
And I am aptly named? What is that supposed to imply, you bigot. Here is another leftist trying to smear anyone who he disagrees with.
Call me Generalissimo from now on, you might as well. And I’ll call you Adolf, how’s that?
14 Dr. Tesla // Jun 10, 2009 at 4:23 pm
LImbaugh merely read from Fox’s own book where Fox admitted that he did not take his medications prior to talking to Congress so the effects of his disease would be more apparent and thus arouse sympathy. That is what Rush criticized Fox for…..not taking his meds on purpose for political theatre. Fox doesn’t get a free pass simply because he has brain disease…if you enter the political arena as he did, you are fair game for criticism.
15 GoramFirefly // Jun 11, 2009 at 3:42 am
“Limbaugh called Fox’s shaking “shameless.”
“This is really shameless, folks. This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting, one of the two,” Limbaugh said.
“He is an actor, after all,” Rush said later.
“He is exaggerating the effects of the disease,” Limbaugh told listeners. “He’s moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act.”
“This is the only time I’ve ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has,” Limbaugh said. “He can barely control himself.”"
http://www.4029tv.com/politics/10152936/detail.html
And, as usua,l Limbaugh does not know what he is talking about.
“While there are no medications that can stop Parkinson disease from progressing, many good medical treatments are available for its symptoms. Fox takes the drug Sinemet (levodopa-carbidopa). It controls some of the milder symptoms, including, “the constant rigidity of his hips, tremors in one or both hands, and a ‘tapping’ feeling in his feet.” Mr. Fox reportedly has also had brain surgery (on the thalamus) to try to relieve his tremors.”
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7579
“Levodopa side effects include confusion, delusions and hallucinations, as well as involuntary movements called dyskinesia. These resolve with dose reduction, but sometimes at the expense of reduced parkinsonism control.”
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/parkinsons-disease/DS00295/DSECTION=treatments-and-drugs
Again Limbaugh said, “Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting, one of the two,”.
Fox’s involuntary moments are just that, involuntary. They are a side effect of his medication.
To say that Fox was “acting” or “did not take his medication” or “was exaggerating” was to say an untruth. A false statement. Therefore, it was a lie.
Granted, Limbaugh did not say, that Micheal J. Fox was “making up” his illness. But what he did say was just as bad, if not worse.
16 ChristianMiller // Jun 11, 2009 at 7:01 am
GoramFirefly,
“Granted, Limbaugh did not say, that Micheal J. Fox was “making up” his illness.”
Precisely my point. So why was it put that way? It IS lying to put it that way, isn’t it?
Now let’s get some more context and analysis. Michael J Fox, regardless of his disease or aliments was perpetrating a fraud on voters. He entered the political arena as an advocate and was less than genuine in his portrayal of the issue itself.
On top of that Michael J Fox is on record admitting that he deliberately refrained from taking his medication when testifying before Congress to reveal his true symptoms. That is theater. And after all, Michael J Fox is an actor who has knowledge of the power of theater.
Interestingly the only time we are allowed to see Fox’s symptoms is when he is making a political commercial – one that is highly misleading and blatantly partisan, or when he testifies in front of congress on behalf of his agenda. Every other public appearance he’s fine, not shaking and under control. So this is not allowed to be mentioned when Fox is making a partisan plea that is fundamentally misleading on it’s face?
“As an anti-Amendment 2 website picks apart the issue:
To clone or not to clone? Thats the question.
But it’s not the question Missourians will be asked in November when they vote on Amendment 2. The question they will see in the voting booth is different from the actual language of the Constitutional Amendment.
When you see Amendment 2 at your polling place, you will be asked to decide whether to “ban human cloning or attempted cloning.” Sounds good so far, right? Who’s in favor of human cloning anyway?
But the 2,100-word Constitutional Amendment which you won’t see on election day actually creates legal protection for human cloning. Hard to believe? It’s true. Amendment 2 only outlaws reproductive cloning, which no one in Missouri (or anywhere else on earth) is doing.
Meanwhile, it protects anyone who wants to clone human beings for science experiments. Amendment 2 glosses over the issue of lab-created human life with complicated phrases like “Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer.” But cloning is cloning, and Amendment 2 would put this ethically questionable practice beyond the reach of state law. “
17 ChristianMiller // Jun 11, 2009 at 7:05 am
Rush’s E-mail to Katie Couric
October 26, 2006
Thanks, Katie, I’ll try to make it simple:
I believe Democrats have a long history of using victims of various things as POLITICAL spokespeople because they believe they are untouchable, infallible. They are immune from criticism. But when anyone enters the POLITICAL arena of ideas they forfeit the right to be unchallenged on their participation and message.
I have not met Mr. Fox, do not know him. I have admired his work in film and TV and his appearances on Letterman were howlers. I have nothing personal against him. But I believe his implication that only Democrats want to cure disease(s) is irresponsible (as I believed about John Edwards assuring voters Christopher Reeve would walk if only John Kerry were elected). I think this is ultimately cruel and gives people who suffer these terrible afflictions false hope.
As of now there is NO EVIDENCE that embryonic stem cells even hold promise, while other approaches, such as adult stem cells, already have yielded results. Michael’s TV spots mislead and misinform on this. (You might ask him about the gene therapy research at a Chicago hospital which has produced encouraging results on Parkinson’s patients. A VIRUS is inserted in the gene, which is then inserted in the brain. The Michael J. Fox Foundations has committed $1.9 million to further research on this.)
I did NOT mock or make fun of Mr. Fox. I have seen him many times on TV but never have I seen him as he appears in the ads. I read from his own book that he will not take his medications before certain appearances (Senate, 1999) in order to illustrate the ravages of Parkinson’s, which I understand and applaud. So the concept of manipulating meds has been stated by Mr. Fox, which is what caused me to question his appearance in his ads.
He is stumping for Democrats, in the political arena, and is therefore open to analysis and criticism as we all are. His suffering is NOT fair game and I am sorry if people drew that conclusion about my comments, but I believe this happens precisely because NO criticism of victims is ever allowed, at all, which as I say is the Democrat strategy in putting them forward.
18 ChristianMiller // Jun 11, 2009 at 7:10 am
Rush Limbaugh transcript: “It is absurd and ridiculous for them to make this charge that I would make fun of somebody in this circumstance.
So the story is that I’m just out of control here, and the fact of the matter is that it is the Drive-By Media is acting disgracefully. It is they who have reached a new low. It is they who are totally uninterested in anything of the truth. You know, I know how I was treated — I know what was said about me — when I lost my hearing. I know the applause that I was greeted with. I know how happy people were when they thought it was the end of my career. I remember all of this, and I’ve not mentioned it up until this week because it is what it is. I don’t whine or complain about these things because this is the league in which I play. This is politics. This is the arena of ideas. I don’t expect these people to like me. I don’t expect them to give me a “fair shake” like they give the terrorists, like CNN gives the terrorists. I don’t expect a fair shake from CNN. I don’t expect a fair shake from MSNBC. I don’t expect a fair shake from any other broadcast networks. So it’s all about expectations. When we don’t expect something and then it doesn’t happen, you’re not surprised, but I remember when I announced that I was addicted to prescription pain pills. There was happiness about that. There was glee, and television shows were convened to discuss if this meant the end of my career. They were hoping and praying that it did.
So yes, it’s true. The very people who are demanding total compassion, demanding silence, demanding utter respect for their chosen victims are the same people who are as mean and cruel as they think those of us on the right are — and they do it and they think they’re doing it in an heroic fashion.
19 ChristianMiller // Jun 11, 2009 at 7:12 am
Limbaugh transcript: Katie Couric sent me an e-mail yesterday before she sat down with Mr. Fox and said, “Could you just send me something that represents a statement of what you said?” Gladly. So it’s five or six paragraphs. I sent it over there, and she used one line from it.
She was not obligated to use it all, don’t misunderstand. I just want you to see what I sent her, and what was not used, what obviously did not strike her as important to say or use in her questioning in the interview of Michael J. Fox. I have received numerous e-mails today from friends who are just outraged over the continuing use of the video that the Drive-By Media, particularly cable channels, use. But Katie used it, too, and she didn’t tell me she was going to do that, otherwise I would have explained that and put that in context. But she ought to know anyway. These people, we’ve been talking about this all week. They don’t want to know what’s actually said on this program. They want to be able to make it up and characterize it in their own way.
The thing that continues to be used is the video on Monday in which I, right after I had viewed the ad that Michael J. Fox did for Claire McCaskill, began to describe it, and in the process of describing it, I began to illustrate what I had seen. I almost find myself doing it here. It is a natural tendency. We’ve got a camera in here, and I try to illustrate for people when I have the ability, when people are watching this program as well on the Dittocam. That has been taken. Some networks have sped it up to try to enhance the spastic-like nature of it. They are all saying that I was “mocking, making fun of. How low will Limbaugh go now and next? This is unconscionable.”
20 ChristianMiller // Jun 11, 2009 at 7:18 am
RUSH: Somebody just reminded me about Robin Williams. Not long ago he was on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and my name came up and he started making fun of me and my addiction to prescription pain medication and having visited rehabilitation and talked about what an SOB I was and so forth — and a week later, he announces he is going into rehab himself for his “concerns” about he “started drinking again.” He wants to “nip it in the bud,” and then asked for privacy! The media (as they do with liberals) says, “Oh, we wish him the best. Oh, how courageous! Aw, it’s just too bad. We wish him the best,” blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I mention this to you as I was reminded about it just to illustrate the things that are out there, and I know this. I know that there’s really no way of changing it.
21 sinz54 // Jun 11, 2009 at 7:43 am
ottovbvs: You’re wrong again. The Fairness Doctrine requires that opposing viewpoints should have a chance to be presented. It does NOT ban any particular viewpoint from being expressed. To do that would violate the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that we have pretty much the right to say anything we want that does not call for violence or create a panic.
Even other left-wingers other than you understand that:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm
Levin, Tancredo, Limbaugh, have every Constitutional right to say anything within those lines. The only judge of whether they get air time are the radio stations that employ them. I’m sorry if people at YOUR end of the political spectrum want them banned.
The only issue is whether those radio stations would be required to provide folks like you with time slots to reply to those talk-show hosts.
22 sinz54 // Jun 11, 2009 at 7:50 am
Dr. Tesla sez: “I just wanted to point out that there is NOTHING on this website about David Letterman ‘joke’ about Palin”
Well, now THAT is one good thing about the Fairness Doctrine: You and I would have a chance to reply to Letterman–on network TV.
The Left so dominates CBS/NBC/ABC, that they forget that when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect in the 1960s, folks used it to reply to things that were said on TV. Talk radio wasn’t a big issue back then.
And we would have a lot to say. If the Fairness Doctrine went into effect, we conservatives would be on CBS/NBC/ABC almost every night.
23 goethean // Jun 11, 2009 at 7:53 am
Franco pastes in Rush Limbaugh’s monologues and thinks that they explain Limbaugh’s actions perfectly to the outside, reality-based world. This guy doesn’t have an idealogical cocoon, he’s got an impermeable shell. Franco is the Faberg Egg of ideologues.
Poor baby Rush…the popular kids in Hollywood don’t like him! Maybe its because his candidate destroyed the country and Rush made boffo bucks in the process.
24 ChristianMiller // Jun 11, 2009 at 8:22 am
“Poor baby Rush…the popular kids in Hollywood don’t like him!”
This is typical of left wing ideologues. Always, always cry like a baby when they or their friends are attacked, and then when it is pointed out that they themselves attack -often unfairly, they resort to mocking their opponents as “whiners” of some sort.
It is amazing… they are so predictable.
You must log in to post a comment.