Are Liberals Hypocrites?

Actually, when are they not?

Comments

[scarshapedstar]

Question. Would the advertisers have heard this speech if Spocko didn't send it to them? Wasn't he doing them a favor? Most stations spend money every day on contests and such to try and ensure that more people listen to them. And after all, the advertisers could have decided that they liked what they heard and bought even more ads. Nobody forced them to agree with Spocko. Just like nobody forced them to pay any money in the first place.

(Now, if I were a wingnut, here's where I would go on a pedantic rant about how The Left wants a society in which everyone is forced to pay money - it's called COMMUNISM!)

[Legalize]

I actually think the fairness doctrine is an absurd concept. The idea of manufacturing, or subsidizing equal time just doesn't wash with the First Amendment, nor the free market of ideas. Hate radio and hate blog sites on the right are profitable because they appeal to an audience in the market to hear infnatile ramblings, conspiracy theories, and revenge fantasy, and paranoid musings. That is their business; that is their right as mindless consumers. I will always support the right of Rush "the junkie" Limbaugh to peddle whatever inanities he likes. I don't have to like it, but I love the fact that he is permitted to make a buffoon of himself on a daily basis, just like I love that Michael Moore is also permitted to do so.

With the expansion of the interent and hundreds of cable stations, the fairness doctrine is a moot point. We can all go to whatever source we like for information. If I want to watch Olbermann, I can watch him; If I want the the latest analysis of the goose-stepping right to balance that out, I can switch over to O'Reilly or Hannity or Glenn Beck.

[Dan Riehl]

Advertisers should advertise where the numbers of viewers or listeners are. They should stay out of taking positions like this. You really don't see how bankrupt the position is, do you? Think of it this way, the Left wants "corporations" to regulate speech in America?

Okay, fine. Just be careful of what you wish for. You may yet get it. If you understood fascism, the last thing you'd want to do is empower corporations to, in essence, regulate speech.

[Legalize]

If you understood "fascism" you also wouldn't want to put the Executive branch in the sole position of (a) determining what is the law, (b) to whom the law applies, (c) or how "loyalty" is defined, solely in the name of militarism, and nationalism. And yet ...

[scarshapedstar]

However, at the same time, these folks are trying to stop KSFO from making the statements present in those clips.

I don't see any indication that this is the case. If these folks want, nobody will stop them from running the station on donations or out of their own pocket. They don't have a God-given or Constitutional right to advertising dollars, though, especially if - as seems to be the case - the advertisers have decided that they don't want to do business with the kind of people who listen to KSFO and like what they hear.

[Purple Avenger]

Would the advertisers have heard this speech if Spocko didn't send it to them?

Unless they're complete morons, yes.

If you're paying for a spot, wouldn't you like to verify that it was actually broadcast, and broadcast completely without interruption? I would.

[scarshapedstar]

Really? You think everyone who buys a radio spot pays someone to sit and listen to the station, all day, every day? For a contract that lasts months? We're talking Bank of America and Mastercard here, not some local car dealer with a weekend sale. They're not listening to AM radio crackpots. In fact, most national advertisers have never even dealt with the station. They give their money to Disney.

[Capitalist Infidel]

Of course far left wing fanatical kooks want to shut down Conservative voices.

Although this could have some promise:

"If Rush shoots his mouth off, he must give equal access to our side,” Hinchey said. “The American public will begin to get both sides or all sides of an issue. That is basic – fundamental to a democracy.

Let's take this to the next level. For every Matthews we have a Hume. For every Olbermann we have a Hume. For every Stephanopoulous we have a Hume. For every Russert we have a Hume. For every Brian Williams we have a Hume. For every Couric we have a Hume. For every Blitzer we have a Hume. For every Woodruff we have a Hume. For every Andrea Mitchell we have a Hume. For every Charles Gibson we have a Hume. For every Anderson we have a Hume. And that's just for some tv news. Now how about for major news papers? Dowd=Mowbry. Rich=Lowry. Krugman=Kudlow, and so on and so on....

[juandos]

Are Liberals Hypocrites?

Does the sun rise in the east and settle in the west?...LOL!