Douglas Turner of the Buffalo News wants conservative radio talkers silenced. He calls them "virulent," "violent" and "coarse" and hopes that starting January 1 the "work of flushing" them will begin. Turner fills his little anti-free speech screed with claims and a few examples of how rotten he thinks righty talkers are and how they need to be shut down, yet can't seem to find a single cross word to say about the "coarseness" of lefty talkers. In other words, it is plain that "coarseness" or "one-sided" radio isn't really a concern of his. Only eliminating the free speech of the right is his goal not any leveling of the playing field.
Naturally, his is filled with prosaic generalizations. Turner assumes that all conservative talk show hosts "were fond" of addressing Obama as "Hussein," his middle name. Yet, Turner offers no list of those that did. He says righty talkers are "violent" but does not offer a single example to prove the allegation. It also seems that Turner can't understand why radio hosts that call themselves conservative would be "one-sided." Curiously, he didn't excoriate Alan Colmes, Randi Rhodes, or Al Franken for being "one-sided." (I know... Imagine that, huh?)
His "violent" claim has me wondering, though. (Bold mine)
As station ownership became more consolidated, talk radio became more virulent, if not violent, and one-sided.
He makes this "violent" claim but offers not one single example. Who was "violent"? What radio host urged listeners to violence? This is quite a charge and it would be nice if Turner would provide an example instead of throwing such a bomb without proving his wild-eyed claim.
Turner goes on to talk about how fewer station owners there are as if media consolidation has something to do with the fact that fewer minorities own stations. He bemoans that women and minority owned radio stations have fallen in number since 1996 when Clinton relaxed certain requirements for how many stations a single entity may own. Turner also seems to hint that the inaptly named Fairness Doctrine that was ended by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s is also a culprit.
But, one wonders if Turner imagines that a successful radio station is something that the federal government is supposed to insure via government legislation instead of by the successful business practices of the station owners? Is a radio station for minorities a new Constitutional right as far as Turner is concerned? It sure looks that way by his piece.
Turner also seems to think that "truth" is a "commodity" that can be doled out by government largess through licensing rules.
The basic service that a broadcast licensee owes a community is truth. As the election neared, that commodity was in short supply.
The question is, Mr. Turner, whose "truth" are you claiming is "owed" a community? Yours? The Democrat Party's?
Turner spends the next few paragraphs giving examples of what he imagines are the evil, uncivil, and "violent" things that righty talkers have said on the air. He calls these examples "the fetid puddle of falsehoods and coarseness that talk radio has become."
But not once did he mention the even worse "coarseness" of the many lefty talkers that filled the airwaves from coast-to-coast all during the last 8 years. Apparently, no left leaning talkers are "coarse" as far as Turner is concerned.
Just as a reminder, here are just a very few examples of the hate spewing from lefty radio talkers:
- Randi Rhodes Calls Hillary 'Big F---ing Whore'
- Randi Rhodes Compares Katrina Evacuation to the Holocaust!
- Mike Malloy Calls Conservatives 'Neo-Nazis'
- Al Franken Says Rove, Libby Bush Should be Executed
- Alan Colmes: Americans are Xenophobes
- Ed Schultz Calls McCain 'Warmonger'
... and that is just a short list. There are plenty more where that came from.
Lastly, Turner showed his disdain for the U.S. Constitution and seemed to infer that it is just an obstacle for his free speech-banning compatriots to overcome with backdoor legislation.
"There are constitutional issues related to imposing equal time," Turner blandly said, "So the Democratic route seems to be to roll-back media consolidation."
Gosh darn that darned ol' Constitution thingie that causes problems for him "imposing" speech requirements on the nation! If ONLY he could get rid of that stinkin' piece of old paper. Well, he now has a president that agrees with him on the need to quash the political speech of his enemies. Let's see where it goes from here.
(Photo credit: Buffalonews.com)



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Pravda Lives
November 11, 2008 - 06:48 ET by sawing battathis policy is insanity.
Last i checked this was America. Free speech was protected - not just when an 'artist' wants to use Federal money to put a cross in a jar of urine.
Let's not forget the KGO
November 11, 2008 - 08:54 ET by TailgunnerLet's not forget the KGO lunatic radio host who quite explicitly called for the death of Joe the Plumber:
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2008/11/obama-supporter-kgo-libtalker-calls-for.html
NOLI PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
I Had to Grow Up Reading Articles by These Ignorant Thugs
November 11, 2008 - 16:29 ET by Capt.AmericaHey Doug,
I am so glad I moved from Buffalo and only occasionally read the left wing piece of crap, the Buffalo News. Doug, when are you going to retire? It is you and other left wing "writers" of the biased Buffalo News who have helped to keep Buffalo in the dump for so long. Congrats!!
I can't believe you can spit out ignorant articles like "Virulent Talk Radio May be a Loser, To" that call for the quieting of talk radio but have no problem writing what you do, reading what the NYT, LAT, Washington Post, and the little Buffalo News have to say among many others. You have no problem not quieting MSNBC but are calling for the censoring of talk radio the only part of the media that the Left Wing doesn't monopolize.
Hang it up, you are an embarrassment to any one with half a brain. You have written for the Buffalo News, supported weak and corrupt liberals and have helped to bring down a once great city. Take that with you to your grave and rest in peace.
I Had to Grow Up Reading Articles by These Ignorant Thugs
November 11, 2008 - 16:29 ET by Capt.AmericaHey Doug,
I am so glad I moved from Buffalo and only occasionally read the left wing piece of crap, the Buffalo News. Doug, when are you going to retire? It is you and other left wing "writers" of the biased Buffalo News who have helped to keep Buffalo in the dump for so long. Congrats!!
I can't believe you can spit out ignorant articles like "Virulent Talk Radio May be a Loser, To" that call for the quieting of talk radio but have no problem writing what you do, reading what the NYT, LAT, Washington Post, and the little Buffalo News have to say among many others. You have no problem not quieting MSNBC but are calling for the censoring of talk radio the only part of the media that the Left Wing doesn't monopolize.
Hang it up, you are an embarrassment to any one with half a brain. You have written for the Buffalo News, supported weak and corrupt liberals and have helped to bring down a once great city. Take that with you to your grave and rest in peace.
First government silenced talk radio...
November 12, 2008 - 00:52 ET by OneLoyalAmerican...then government silenced _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ and finally _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
This is very shameful Mr. Turner. You're supposed to be our vigilant guard dog of freedom; instead you've become a lazy, political lap dog.
Sellout.
Turner assumes that all
November 11, 2008 - 07:36 ET by motherbeltTurner assumes that all conservative talk show hosts "were fond" of
addressing Obama as "Hussein," his middle name. Yet, Turner offers no
list of those that did.
Well, here's one, Warner:
Barack Hussein Obama did not win because of the color of his skin.
OH, wait! That's not a talk show host; it's Time Magazine's Nancy Gibb, gushing over him!
I guess now that he's been elected, it's OK to use all three names.
If right-wingers were trying to frighten us with the name, are lefties now shoving it in our faces?
Inauguration
November 11, 2008 - 09:21 ET by ArminiusAnd won't the Messiah be sworn in as Barack Hussein Obama, just as James Earl Carter, Ronald Wilson Reagan, and William Jefferson Clinton were sworn in?
BHO
November 11, 2008 - 09:34 ET by Red JeepSo is it OK to refer to the messiah as BHO now, like JFK, LBJ etc.? BHO sounds like a train's initials. Ride the BHO and get free diaper changes with every ride!
NPR
November 11, 2008 - 07:43 ET by DingbatWell, any "fairness doctrine" would apply to NPR would it not? (sarcasm off).
You know
November 11, 2008 - 07:43 ET by BobAnthonyBuffalo and Philly have a lot in common with most if not all Northeast cities--FASCIST LEFTIST S***HOLES! Other than Buffalo's ABC station WKBW-TV returning to their Eyewitness News roots, THERE AIN'T THAT MUCH TO SEE IN BUFFALO! Russert doesn't count either.
I guess this commentator is a shill for the UNfairness Doctrine, supported by a fascist communist New York rep and of course Sucky Chucky Schumer.
For the record, I am NOT RECOGNIZING BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA ODINGA AS
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! I would like to become part of a
secession front!
all speech is created equal...
November 11, 2008 - 07:58 ET by jazzact13...but some speech is more equal than others.
(coming up next--the burning of conservative books)
"Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true."
Chesterton, Orthodoxy
The basic service that a
November 11, 2008 - 08:03 ET by SeashellThe basic service that a broadcast licensee owes a community is truth. As the election neared, that commodity was in short supply.
Uh, if this was true for radio, would it not apply to broadcast television? That commodity was not only in short supply, it did't exist!
Fairness Doctrine and Network News
November 11, 2008 - 08:07 ET by kiwikitWill someone tell me whether this new restriction will include demanding that the nets be 'fair and balanced?' Can we demand that Thomas Sowell respond to the Obama Messiah messages? If not, the bill should be called 'final shut down of truth'; it certainly has nothing to do with 'fairness.' Adding conservative pundits to the networks might even increase their viewership; they could even approach Rush Limbaugh!
The Fairness Doctrine only
November 11, 2008 - 08:26 ET by motherbeltThe Fairness Doctrine only apply to opinion shows; not news.
Which is why they like it so much.
Television news has become
November 11, 2008 - 09:52 ET by winston smithTelevision news has become opinion. It's been that way for years. Just watch the 2, 4, 7 evening news. Why do we know that Rather, Brokaw, Schieffer, Couric, Jennings, 60 Minutes reporters, et al are all liberals? Because of the opinions they give and the news stories they create, without even rare exception, are all liberaly biased. How about 60 Minutes include some stories by reporters such as Byron York, Stephen Hayes or John Stossel for a change? 60 Minutes has been wall-to-wall left politics for the last 40 years. Will it ever become 'fair and balanced'?
Only when the mighty dollar
November 11, 2008 - 10:01 ET by SeashellOnly when the mighty dollar is involved. When people stop watching and networks lose sponsors, then and only then will we see change.
I remember
November 12, 2008 - 01:00 ET by katainkentwhen I was very young each opinion piece was prefaced with "opinion" and a little legal blurb about "the views expressed.." etc. Today's 'news' under the same examination would require a 24/7 ticker on the bottom of the screen carrying that message.
member of the Conservative Independant Witness Protection Program since Nov. 5, 2008
TV has less audience than radio.
November 11, 2008 - 08:24 ET by Red JeepI don’t think many realize that conservative talk radio has an audience bigger than most TV shows! Whoever thought that would happen? Rush Limbaugh’s 20 million listeners dwarfs Meet the Press’s 3 to 4 million viewers a week.
Well Rush is on 5 days a
November 11, 2008 - 08:28 ET by motherbeltWell Rush is on 5 days a week. MTP only once.
But they certainly realize his influence; which is why they want to dilute it or even eliminate it.
Obamunism
November 11, 2008 - 08:55 ET by 10ksnookerCannot survue where the press is free and actually supports the notion of reporting on and talking about the news. No junta can, not even Obamunism.
OK
November 11, 2008 - 08:59 ET by general companyBut, first they must. If they dont, then what?
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Ready to Rebel!!
November 11, 2008 - 09:17 ET by BiasedGirlI'll admit I've been wanting to Tie myself to something in protest for awhile....I think the attempt to silence Free Speech through the UN-Fairness Doctrine, might just be the trigger.
http://www.withbias.net
Left-wing talk radio
November 11, 2008 - 09:19 ET by Arminius"But not once did he mention the even worse "coarseness" of the many lefty talkers that filled the airwaves from coast-to-coast all during the last 8 years. Apparently, no left leaning talkers are "coarse" as far as Turner is concerned."
If you Google the conservatives Turner listed along with what they supposedly said, you'll find that Turner got his information from Media Matters or its first state affiliate, Colorado Media Matters. Obviously, Turner is either on Media Matters' mailing list or is a visitor to the group's site. Of course, Media Matters does not take on left-wingers.
It won't be long before the Turners of ther country start advocating for the return of the Sedition Act. Of course, they won't explicitly call it a "sedition" act. They'll come up with Orwellian names. Remember, President Adams locked up Rep. Matthew Lyon for several months because Lyon, accurately, criticized Adams for taking on the airs of a monarch. The president-elect has taken on the airs of a messiah. How can criticism of such a great man be allowed?
Turner speaks for most
November 11, 2008 - 09:23 ET by winston smithTurner speaks for most modern "progressives" these days. Free speech is just great when you denigrate the country, desecrate the flag, trash religion and the faithful, espouse the homosexual agenda in public schools, disrupt speeches by conservatives on college campuses, and hang the vice presidential candidate in effigy. Just don't attempt to criticize or espouse a differing of opinion --- or else the "progressives" will attempt to eliminate your freedom of speech.
Liberal/Left freedom of speech: vital; necessary
Conservative/Right freedom of speech: invalid; prohibited
"Violence" will be the ramming rod
November 11, 2008 - 09:43 ET by Arminius"Violence" will be the ramming rod used to bring down conservative talk radio. Bill Clinton tried this against Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives in 1995 after the bombing of ther Murrah Building. The left tried it again after the bogus "Kill him" story concerning McCain-Palin rallies.
Interestingly, a Kansas University professor, Robert Rowland, has referred to both events:
http://www.unabombers.com/News/95-05-10-KCS.htm
http://mobile.ljworld.com/news/2008/oct/13/professor_dissects_campaign_rhetoric/
If there is some major act of "anti-government" violence during the next two years, I fully expect the Democrats to team up with people like Rowland in an effort to silence conservative talk radio.
As Rowland noted in 1995, "People on talk radio may not be saying, 'Go out and throw bombs.' But there is a tendency for human beings to take the seeds of an idea and run with it."
Expect Obama and his myrmidons to argue that Limbaugh, Hannity, et. al., planted those seeds.
I wonder
November 11, 2008 - 10:20 ET by Copperhead RidgeI wonder who was responsible for the "seeds of an idea" that Bill Ayres ran with?
The left are the ones that resort to violence. Timothy McVeigh may have been a right winger, but he used the tools of the left to perpetrate his heinous crime. McVeigh was the exception. It was conservative principles that made sure he was executed, too.
It's the left that uses bombs and burns buildings on college campuses. It's part of their history, not ours. They use assassination. They use anarchy. They are the ones who agitate people into violent acts.
People like Limbaugh and Hannity and other talk radio hosts make Washington (aka Obamagrad) nervous because they remind people on a daily basis that the power of government flows from them. Our servants in Washington want us to believe that they have the power and that they parcel it out to the people. They forget the first danged sentence of the Constitution, " We the people..."
It's obvious that the Obamunists have forgotten that first sentence. They think Obama has been sent to Washington to rule. Why have Americans become so willing to have a ruler rather than a leader?
Why do I worry? I worry because so many Obamunists I talk to look upon him as some sort of Sun God from which all power and all light flows. That's why I keep saying that I worry less about Barack Obama and more about his followers.
I've long thought that people who wrap themselves in political campaigns are a little strange -- on both sides. I've never seen anything like this Obama boot licking.
As an American
November 11, 2008 - 09:54 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltOne has the right to free speech as guaranteed by the Constitution, but there is no right or guarantee that you be given a forum to be heard. If the marketplace determines that no one wants to listen to your point of view (Air America), then you are S.O.L. and no law exists to remedy your dilemma.
Although I expect that Congress will soon take up that issue.
And that particular act, if Congress follows through with re-instating the "Fairness Doctrine" might just be the seed that blossoms into another Conservative revolt during the next mid-term election, as we saw in 1994. People are much more aware of the issue now, and shutting down Rush, Sean and Glenn would not go unanswered.
Text of an email I sent Mr. Turner
November 11, 2008 - 10:23 ET by R D HelmDear sir:
It is unfortunate that you in the MSM, who once billed yourselves as the "watchdog of the people" have, over the last four decades, so turned your back on your original mission of just reporting the news that alternative sources of information are even necessary. Had you "journalists" just done your jobs, instead of becoming shills for the Democrat Party, talk radio, along with the other alternative media now gaining prominence, would not even be necessary.
The main reason the MSM is on its way out (and that trend will continue, Fairness Doctrine or not) is because the American people have slowly come to the realization that they have not been getting the whole story, and what they were getting was being slanted in a particular direction. In recent years they have further come to realize that not only is the information they are receiving being delivered with a built-in bias, but in more than a few cases, they are just flat-out being lied to.
Talk radio is far from perfect, but neither is the MSM. You cry and moan over certain statements made by some of the radio hosts, yet you are conspicuously silent when members of the MSM imply that George W. Bush is a dictator. You complain that Barrack Obama is being compared to Adolf Hitler, even in the face of his campaign employing Chicago-style intimidation tactics to prevent his detractors from airing commercials that point out some decidedly uncomfortable facts about the Democrat candidate.
I wonder, had this been the McCain campaign engaging in this behavior, would you media "watchdogs" have given it the same pass you gave the Obama campaign?
Somehow I seriously doubt it.
Given the "fetid puddle of falsehoods" and blatant omissions that appear in the various outlets of the Main Stream Media (MSM) on what is seemingly becoming an hourly basis, and that have been more than adequately documented here, among other places, I wonder if you would go along with the idea of having a government agent oversee the writings of the reporters and editorial writers (as if there were any difference between the two anymore) in your place of employment?
I further wonder if you would go along with the idea of having government agents present when Katie Couric, Brian Williams, or any other newsreader goes on the air and presents their decidedly biased "news" reports.
Sounds unconscionable, doesn't it? Not exactly.
You see, Mr. Turner, what you are advocating for talk radio could easily be turned around and used against the MSM someday down the road. In fact, I have already written my congressman and both of my state senators to the effect that, if the Democrats and their allies in the liberal-dominated MSM continue to insist upon silencing dissent, and lets face it, that is really what you and your colleagues are after here, then the "Fairness Doctrine" should be expanded to cover both the print and broadcast media as well.
I doubt very seriously, now that the MSM cat is out of the bag, that the millions of Americans who have become fans of the talk radio medium, are going to just stand idly by and allow the left to use the police powers of government to silence the one medium they have come to rely on for the information that the MSM refuses to deliver to them.
You may not agree with what Neal Boortz, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others have to say, but keep in mind there are at least 55 million Americans who disagree with you and the rest of the MSM. Probably far more, given some of the polls I saw concerning media bias during this long campaign
If you are truly an advocate for free speech and the free exchange of ideas, how can you advocate government involving itself in any of those processes?
Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Turner, because you just might get it.
-Dave
Did this country just elect Obama/Biden, or was it Soros/Ayers?
Good one!
November 11, 2008 - 10:39 ET by Warner Todd HustonGood one, RD. I like it.
Excellent letter, Dave
November 11, 2008 - 11:12 ET by ArminiusI wonder if Mr. Turner has ever comppalined about the numerous liberals who have compared Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld to Hitler.
Not to worry..
November 11, 2008 - 10:47 ET by ScrapironPeople like Turner will be the first to feel the iron hand of Hussein O's censors. Print what he tells you or disappear. Its evident the lefties don't/won't travel to places like Cuba and Venazuela, North Korea and Iran and then tell the truth. If the did they would be like CNN in Iraq (traitors to their country) during the leadup to the war, bow to the master Saddam and print what he told them to print. The Lame Stream Media only print/broadcast what they are told already or there would print two sides to every story.
Lame Stream Media outlets never fail to print/broadcast 'stolen national security secrets' on the front page. Especially those which will result in the death of American soldiers. Need proof? check the NYSlimes front page(s) over the past 8 years. Traitors to the core.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
Nice Toupee Turner
November 11, 2008 - 11:45 ET by Dan LaHoodlittle square black mustache and you're a dead ringer.
Anyone who has ever heard Santayana's famous quote about History repeating itself is condemned to repeat it.
The Buffalo News is owned by
November 11, 2008 - 13:48 ET by Tim the EnchanterThe Buffalo News is owned by Warren Buffet. Any surprise there? I won't have their filthy rag in my house- not even for Scotty, my African Grey parrot, to s*** on.
My opinion of those who
November 11, 2008 - 14:27 ET by andophiroxiaMy opinion of those who want to silence talk radio with b@st@rdizing the Constitution and stepping on it is that they are weak-minded fools. They cannot win on the debate on their own ideas so they have to resort to troglodite tactics in order to shut people up.
The sad thing is that when you have a firm and angry opposition, that doesn't go your way. There will be other ways to get the information.
“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” ~ Winston Churchill