The leftist rag out of Madison called Voices deleted the majority of my posts yesterday. I of course don’t try to hide my bias as I clearly state in my about page “MY BIAS”
Marshall Keith a Libertarian who is fighting the abuse of power by modern day progressives of both parties. Marshall is a lifelong Broadcast Engineer.
Of course the Conservative talk show hosts attacked by MAC are open about their bias. The stations bill them as that and that is what they are selling. Here is just one of the Talk show hosts attacked.
Vicki calls herself a “converted conservative”, which she credits to her upbringing and a conversation with former Congressman Mark Neumann in her early days of reporting. Her conservative ideology has been honed and refined over the years; now, Vicki passionately advocates a conservative point-of-view on social and political issues, as well as matters dealing with pop culture and everyday life.
Read more: http://www.newstalk1130.com/pages/mckenna_biopage.html#ixzz2DjfPiLVJ
As opposed to Voices page.
Madison Voices was launched in 2005 as the Allied-Dunns Marsh Community newsletter. We have since expanded our scope, reach, and coverage. We now publish a 16 page paper each month that is posted on our website (www.madisonvoices.com) and we will use this blog to share content and resources between the print editions. “We are each others most valuable resource”. Please join us and let your voice be heard. (Emphasis mine)
It is their paper and they are free to do as they choose, but the hypocrisy is glaring when it comes to the topic we were discussing. They posted three times in one week a leftist activist group (Media Action Center) attempt to shut down right wing talk radio. They did this on November 20, November 25 and November 26. The actions of MAC are fighting against exactly the rights that this leftist rag are exercising and a right guaranteed by the “First Amendment” right to freedom of speech and the freedom of the press.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The thrust of Sue Wilson’s argument is the People aka the government owns the airwaves. This argument is patently false. The FCC is a regulatory body and even they don’t claim ownership. Yes like almost all businesses in America broadcast radio is regulated. The fact that it is a regulatory body is clearly stated on the FCC’s website.
The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. It was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and operates as an independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress.
It is common knowledge that the majority of the media has a left wing bias, the only place that the right wing dominates is AM talk radio and of course she excludes them from the fight.
Dave F. said
Sue. Go get a life. This country is based on free speech. Except obviously when a slimy liberal doesn’t like it. I don’t see you trying to silence MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and every other obvious liberal pandering news outlet.
Sue Wilson said
Dave, why are you so intent on silencing anything but right-wing views from the airwaves we ALL own? We all don’t own Msnbc or FOX, that’s private enterprise. We DO own CBS and ABC local stations, and if you don’t like what they are doing, prove it and complain to them and the FCC. It’s your right!
Come on Sue can you show ownership of either WTMJ or WISN? Yes they are regulated by the FCC as are both satellite and cable. Even the newswires used by newsprint are regulated by them. All of the Cable stations get their programming via satellite who’s frequencies are far less then terrestrial. How may terrestrial licences are there vs satellite. Can you show ownership of either of the above stations?
All of Fairness Doctrine was found unconstitutional by either the courts or the FCC and was abolished, an offshoot (the Zapple Doctrine) remains. But as I pointed out to Sue, Zapple only applies to time bought on the station and not to the time that the pundits spend editorializing (which is covered by freedom of the press. I posted the following from the renowned FCC attorney.
The abolition of the Fairness Doctrine also allowed broadcasters to editorialize, even endorsing candidates for political office without having to give the opponent of their favored candidate equal time, just like print media can do.(Emphasis mine) Similarly, a station can take a position on a ballot issue, or on another controversial issue of public importance in their communities without having to provide time to those with opposing viewpoints – allowing stations to fully participate in their communities political life. Under the Fairness Doctrine, stations even had to give time to those with viewpoints opposed to parties who bought time on a controversial issue if the opponents could not themselves afford to buy time. The occasional discussion of reviving the Fairness Doctrine ignores these issues. . . . so no decision was released as to whether the Zapple Doctrine had continuing validity after the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine. Presumably, this policy, even if still valid, would not be applied to talk shows, as the statements of talk show hosts, while certainly biased and pointed in one political direction or another, rarely state outright “go vote for candidate X.” (again emphasis mine)
The above arguments were deleted but the one that remained brought ad hominem attacks from both Sue and another poster.
Sue Wilson Reports said…
Let me share some of what’s been said on my blog about this (readers may find the exchange here: http://www.suewilsonreports.com/2012/11/media-action-center-files-legal-action.html ) . . .
In fairness to Sue, she has not censored my comments on her blog, Voices did on theirs. Of course this is still ad-homenem. She can’t show that I am in any way affiliated with Media Trackers and has no bearing on the issues at hand. But hey I am a Libertarian and by extension one of those “evil capitalist” so hey Media Trackers, if you want to send some money my way, well I won’t turn it down.
The funniest ad-hominem attack came from Proud Badger.
Now I know why you post rambling nonsense here about MAC and Ms. Wilson — evidently, you haven’t learned how to organize a train of thought which is why your blog is one massive scroll of rambling.
So how’d that smokin’ ban thing work out fer?
And why do you hate America and the freedoms men and women died for? Freedoms like the right to vote and be represented in a democracy instead of corporate rule?
Don’t you know U.S. history? The American Revolution was to throw the Wal-Mart of its day, East India Tea Company off the back of the colonies because excessive tax breaks and monopoly powers undermined the freedoms of the those living under multinational corporate rule.
Why do you hate Madison, Wisconsin, and the United States of America?
Of course this person shows a leftist revisionist view of history but ignores the fact that we are in fact a “Constitutional Republic” not a “Democracy” and I suggested he/she look at another of my blogposts. I also asked the question does badger hate all corporations or only those he disagreed with and pointed out the fact that MAC was probably a 501c corporation and that Voices was probably a corporation. But then the state of Wisconsin is in fact a corporation.
Unless you get vulger or attack another poster (other then me) I do not censor my blog. But then I don’t pretend to be unbiased and don’t put ” Please join us and let your voice be heard.” on my page.
Being active in the fight against smoking bans, I am use to the ad hominem attacks to divert attention from the topic at hand. And of course it didn’t take long for it to raise it’s ugly head.
If you read about them by Daniel Bice of JSOnline, you can judge their cred yourself: http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/127152603.html
Maybe Marshall and Aue can model what an out-in-the open debate looks like so we can all benefit from both perspectives?