John Kerry: Give Equal Time? Depends on Whether I Agree With the Viewpoint

In the first clip, of course, he is referring to Tea Party people who didn’t want to increase the debt ceiling. But in the second, the context is a bit different.

Ed Schultz: Use Government to “Equal Out” Talk Radio Audience

Leftist Blogger Laments that Milwaukee Conservative Voices are “Unfettered”

Via Dad29:

It seems local leftist blogger Michael J. Mathias laments the fact that local conservative pundits are allowed -- and this is an outrage -- free speech. He begins by calling Bill Kristol “bloodthirsty,” and then turns to local people:

Locally, we have our own bellicose nutcases, and they are allowed to work, pretty much, unfettered.

That’s right. He thinks it’s an outrage that local conservatives get to freely express themselves.

Just what sort of “fetters” would he impose on them? He doesn’t say, but the history of the leftist blogophere in Wisconsin makes it clear.

If people like Mathias could, they would get them fired, and indeed they were proud in having a role in getting Jessica McBride fired from WTMJ.

They tried to get Charlie Sykes’ blog censored over a parody of the smug “Coexist” bumper sticker.

They will try to use campaign finance laws to shut up conservatives.

Failing that, they want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine to force conservatives off the air.

If none of this works, in a classic instance of the frustration/aggression syndrome they will attack conservative bloggers and talk radio people. And they will especially attack women conservatives in the most misogynist terms.

We are old enough to remember what liberals were like before “progressive” politics took a huge turn in the 60s. Before the late 60s, liberals prided themselves in being tolerant. In their hearts of hearts, they were no more tolerant than other people, but the preached tolerance, and they -- quite fortunately -- felt bound by their own rhetoric.

Since then, liberals and leftists have more and more come to embrace a series of rationales for shutting people up. They more and more have felt free to express raw hatred of those who disagree with them. Again, it’s the frustration/aggression syndrome. As young people in the 60s or early 70s, they felt that history was moving their way. But it hasn’t, leaving them bitter and frustrated.

Liberals Make it Clear: We Want to Keep Conservatives Off the Airwaves

This is from Whallah!, a blog essentially dedicated to cyber stalking conservative female blogger Jessica McBride.

The liberal blogger doesn’t want the rules of the Federal Communications Commission changed. Why not? If they are, there might be even more conservative voices on the air!

One Wisconsin Now has come out with a petition drive directed to the head of the FCC, Kevin Martin. The goal of this drive is to prevent Martin, a hand-picked Bush loyalist, is trying to ramrod through some rules that would allow the Big Media to become even bigger. If you don’t understand what this means, please watch this video. . . .

Now that if that disturbs you as much as it did to me, please click on this link and fill out their online petition to Mr. Martin. If that video wasn’t enough to scare the bejeebers out of you, Milwaukee Rising has another video to show what this means. You can also sign the petition for that site as well. Signing this petition might be the only thing that prevents even more of Sykes, Belling, et al. and even the return of McBride to the airwaves.

Of course, conservatives dominate talk radio only because there is a demand for conservative talk. If the public didn’t want to listen to it, it would disappear.

Usually, liberals who want conservative talk radio shut up will try to produce some pseudo-principled argument. We need more “diversity” on the airways, etc.

But this particular blogger has messed up.

He has let slip how he really feels.

He wants to keep conservative voices off the air. That’s really what it’s about.

Live Blogging: Charlie Sykes at the Marquette Law School

Mike Gousha does the introduction, mentioning that Sykes has written six books.

Gousha mentions that Sykes also has a talk radio show, and writes a newspaper column. Sykes replies that it all fits together -- when you start thinking about things, you can talk about it, and write about it too. Particularly, talking about it requires conciseness.

Gousha is questioning Sykes about the book. Sykes notes that some of his “rules” have been around for years, first published in a Sykes column, and passed around the Internet (often attributed to Bill Gates.)

(One of his rules is “be good to nerds, since you may end up working for one.” Sykes says that since Gates is the most famous nerd in the world, it seems natural to attribute them to him.)

Sykes discusses the concept of “bubble wrapping.” Eventually, people have to face the real world, and they are not prepared for it.

Gousha mentions Michael Barone’s concept of a “soft America” and a “hard America.” Sykes embraces the concept.

Gousha: how do you perceive your role as a talk radio host, mentioning several things.

Sykes: “all of the above.” Sykes admits to wanting to be entertaining. “What is the alternative” he asks, “being boring?”

Gousha: Now much “clout” do you think you carry? Gousha quotes Bill Kraus. Kraus says Sykes not only defines Republicans but “runs the admissions department.”

Sykes says that Krauss overlooks the fact that people actually listen to him, and agree with him.
Sykes says he’s a conservative, not a Republican. “We have an allegiance to certain ideas.” But some Republicans think Sykes should be “on the team.” Sykes says he holds Republicans to their expressed ideas.

Polarization

Sykes says there is increased polarization in American society. There are few conservative Democrats.

Gousha asks Sykes if talk radio is part of the reason for polarization.

Sykes points out that there are many more voices now than before.

Gousha asks about Michael Savage, who calls members of the Supreme Court “vermin.” Sykes sees Savage as out of bounds.

The Mainstream Media

Gousha, playing the devil’s advocate, asks whether Sykes, when he was on the staff of Milwaukee Journal, was pressured to bias stories.

Sykes replies that reporters are not conscious of bias. They swim in a liberal sea, and don’t see their own bias.

Leftist View of Media

Gousha repeats the leftist claim that the media are run by rich capitalists, and thus have a conservative bias. Sykes replies that the culture in the newsroom is what drives bias.

The people who see the media as conservative, says Sykes, are Ed Garvey leftists, and people like Kevin Barrett (9/11 conspiracy theorist).

Sykes then wonders why the media don’t reflect the attitudes of the audience. In southeast Wisconsin, it’s about equally “red” and “blue.” Talk radio only succeeded because there was an “opening” because of the lack of conservative views.

Is Sykes “Burned Out” Talking About Politics?

Gousha says that he detects that Sykes, on the radio, sometimes just doesn’t want to talk about politics. Sykes admits this is true. Says that sometimes he would rather talk about his root canal than about politics.

How Did Sykes Become a Conservative?

Sykes dad was a liberal, and campaigned for 1968 anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy. But the anti-war movement turned anti-American. Sykes ran into politically correct intolerance, and noticed that the Civil Rights movement, which had opposed racial discrimination, started to favor it.

Sykes also, as a reporter for the Milwaukee Journal, noticed that the liberal social programs that were supposed to solve social problems didn’t work.

Sykes and Education

Gousha mentions Sykes’ books on academia: The Hollow Men and Profscam. These were based on an article written by his father, which was a sort of confession about academia, and the nonsense that sometimes passes for research.

Where education is concerned, these things run in cycles, Sykes says. Sputnick, for example, caused people to put stress on math and science.

“Barbelling”

Sykes mentions “barbelling,” the fact that there are many very bright and capable students, but at the other end are students who are struggling and failing.

Questions

Liberal asks: how do we improve the schools if we are not willing to spend on them? Sykes notes that we have pumped millions into the Milwaukee schools, and gotten nothing.

Sykes also notes we have great schools in Milwaukee, both public and private. But he asks, what are the barriers to spreading this success? Giving the teacher’s union more money so they can pad their benefits doesn’t help.

Another question: What about the parents? Sykes says that the problem is “huge.” Talks about how parents pamper their kids. When Sykes was a kid, if the teacher called home, he knew he was in trouble. Now, teachers can’t count on parents to support the school.

Madison student asks taking sugar out of school, including a ban on bringing cakes in to a party or event.

Sykes says it is related the the “bubble wrapping” concept. Points out that some North Carolina schools are raising money to put a canopy over the playground so that kids don’t have to play in the sun. What did people do when Charlie was a kid and they didn’t want to be in the sun? They went and stood in the shade of a tree.

Fairness Doctrine

Sykes is asked about it, and says he has an article coming out in The Wisconsin Interest on the subject. Democrats want to bring it back, but even if they could succeed, it would not really silence diverse voices.

How did it used to work: the FCC were the speech police, and the effect was that broadcasting became “brain dead.”

But the law has evolved over the years. Sykes thinks the courts would not now accept a new Fairness Doctrine.

Sykes fully expects Democrats to continue pushing it, and it would be “one of the most naked plays by people in political office to harass and suppress free expression.”

Gousha asks, why not more liberal talk radio?

Sykes says that, in the market place, this would be like a station alternating country and rap music. It just doesn’t work in the market place.

Sykes says that talk radio succeeded because of the overwhelmingly liberal bias in the media. There was a “huge market that was hungry” to hear conservative idea expressed. Likewise, Air America failed because there really is no shortage of liberal/left ideas.

Different Varieties of Conservative

A questioner asks Sykes where there are not tensions within conservative thought, particularly about the issue of community. Is it all complete individualism for conservatives?

Sykes cheerfully acknowledges that there are different flavors of conservative, from the Ayn Rand “care only about yourself” kind to the much more community-oriented faith community.

Call Screening

Question (and accusation): do conservative talk shows have call screeners who filter out liberal views. To the contrary, says Sykes. Liberals get preference. Disagreeing callers are “gold.”

An audience member says that Sykes TV show is best when it has opposing views. Sykes responds that the TV show is inherently balanced.

Sykes also says that the ratings pressure is much less on Sunday morning.

How Do You Avoid Burnout?

Sympathetic questioner asks how Sykes avoids burnout.

Sykes has said he will be on the air through the 2008 election, but he makes it clear he has not committed to retiring in 2008.

More on Bubble Wrapping

In response to a question, Sykes says it’s the Baby Boomer parents. “We are the first generation to obsess on whether our kids think we are cool or not.” He says his dad would never have cared about that.

A questioner suggests that bubble wrapping is good. Invokes the need to protect children. Sykes: “it would be kind of nice if we could delay the loss of innocence.”

But he goes on: in the U.K. a lot of kids were being killed as pedestrians. The reason: kids had had no experience in actually walking across the street by themselves.

Sykes just carried his kid to college, and noticed parents doing things like negotiating with RAs.

Final Question

How about the “standing up for what’s right” slogan. Goes back to the Ament pension scandal. Belling had the slogan “standing up for Milwaukee.” Sykes viewed Belling as “soft” on the issue, and adopted the slogan to express that he was standing up for the right thing. But of course it also means “standing up for the political right,” which Sykes also happily embraces.

Assessment

Much of the talk was vintage Sykes, with Charlie saying again things he was said dozens of times before. But we had not heard Sykes admit that he is close to “burnout” where discussing politics is concerned. He deals with it, he says, by taking long weekends.

His account of his conversion from conservatism to liberalism was also interesting. Sykes came across as congenial, self-effacing and not at all defensive on any issue. It was, if not intellectually groundbreaking, a very pleasant way to spend the lunch hour.

Kudos to the Law School and Mike Gousha for scheduling it as part of a genuinely diverse and interesting series.

[Update]

With amazing rapidity, the Law School has the audio of the entire talk online.

Fairness Doctrine: Liberal Strategy to Muzzle Conservative Talk Radio

From Imprimis, an essay by civil libertarian Nat Hentoff on attempts to revive the “Fairness Doctrine” in broadcasting.

Such attempts, of course, come from liberals. For generations liberals claimed to be the heirs of John Stuart Mill, believing in free speech. But faced with a media landscape where conservatives now have a voice, there has been some “re-thinking.”

The term “Fairness Doctrine” exemplifies what George Orwell called “Newspeak”: it uses language to mask the deleterious effects of its purported meaning. The Fairness Doctrine itself was in effect from 1949 until 1987. It required that radio broadcasts devote a reasonable amount of time to the discussion of controversial issues of public importance, and that the broadcaster do that fairly by offering reasonable opportunity for opposing viewpoints to be heard. If the Federal Communications Commission found a radio station in repeated violation of this Doctrine, it could take away the station’s license — a business form of capital punishment.

[. . .]

I was in radio under the reign of the Fairness Doctrine, at WMEX in Boston in the 1940s and early 50s. We did not have any of the present-day contentious talk radio shows, but we covered politics and politicians. I was often the announcer for the mellifluous appearance of the legendary James Michael Curley (played by Spencer Tracy in The Last Hurrah). And we did offer political opinions on the air. I, for example, did so on my jazz and folk music programs.

Suddenly, Fairness Doctrine letters started coming from the FCC and our station’s front office panicked. Lawyers had to be summoned; tapes of the accused broadcasters had to be examined with extreme care; voluminous responses had to be prepared and sent. After a few of these FCC letters, our boss announced that there would be no more controversy of any sort on WMEX. We had been muzzled.

[. . .]

The Current Debate

On May 9, 2005, in the magazine In These Times, University of Michigan communications professor Susan Douglas made the case for reviving the Fairness Doctrine—and listen carefully to her language: “Ongoing media consolidation, and the censorship and pro-right blather that go with it, are sustained by the silencing of oppositional voices Americans are no longer required to hear.” But who should do the requiring? According to Professor Douglas, the government should, of course. Another question is: Which voices are being silenced, and by whom? The professor neglected to say. Not hers, obviously.

Last year, a book widely praised in certain circles, Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy — at least the title tells you where the authors, Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, are coming from—argued:

It is precisely the proliferation of new media that has fostered a strongly right-wing journalistic presence in talk radio and on cable.... The Federal Communications Commission…surely can justify restoring the simple requirement that news include a fair representation of views on controversial subjects and in important electoral races.

There are still some libertarians on the American left who believe that the First Amendment means what it says, but these others who are calling for this revival of government involvement in broadcast content — and this could well extend to the Internet, as it does today in China — take sides against Oliver Wendell Holmes, who wrote in 1929 in United States v. Schwimmer: “…if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

Those rallying for the return of the Fairness Doctrine believe that politically incorrect speech must be “balanced” by law — which is to say, by government. Thereby they fondly envision the curbing of the speech of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Matt Drudge, Laura Ingraham, Bill O’Reilly and others who they say are “eroding” American democracy. And arguing this, it is as if they think that the speech of the authors of Off Center — or of Al Franken, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, political scientists Barbra Streisand and Whoopi Goldberg, and the bankrollers of MoveOn.Org — are not heard enough today!

Hentoff, like any civil libertarian, realizes that, while “fairness” is a good thing, allowing government to decide what is fair is terribly dangerous.

Further, the “Fairness doctrine” would not touch those parts of the news media where liberals have an advantage. It would not require that the New York Times to hire one conservative columnist for every liberal columnist on staff. It would not require the Journal-Sentinel to run one conservative editorial to balance every liberal editorial they run. It would not require that Time Magazine publish one story with a pro-Bush spin for every story with an anti-Bush spin they run.

It would not require CBS News to tout the questionable aspects of John Kerry’s service record if they portray George Bush as a poor soldier.

The purpose, in other words, is explicitly to shut up conservative voices.

It says so very much about liberalism these days that they feel that, in the free market of ideas, they are at a disadvantage. Thus they feel the need to tilt the playing field to favor themselves.