I remember about a year ago a woman representing Americans for Prosperity repeatedly denied any connection to the Koch organization. Callers challenged her several times and the host let it slide. I think they are doing a little better now.
An aside, on CSPAN radio last evening, Ted Cruz’s pontificating on the Senate floor as he quoted Cicero was broadcast at length. In my opinion, it is one thing to for CSPAN to present a record of the Senate speeches, but the lengthy highlighting of his ranting subjectively served to give a boost of credence to his self serving pompousity.
I’m one of those political obsessives who watches C-SPAN’s Washington Journal regularly, streaming it on my computer. I probably heard each of these comments at the time. The show is the best window I know into the nation’s political soul. Unwashed opinion from all walks of life.
The North Carolina guy was a regular. Sounds like a country club Republican. It’s funny to hear the arrogant and angry right-wingers, who are used to having their witless talking points confirmed by the host.
It’s not hard to hear the deep hurt within the African-American community over the disrespect shown President Obama.
I’ll defend Washington Journal’s format. Their hosts are very disciplined to deflect personal comments and rhetorical questions. The show is all about the callers, and the hosts do their best to stay out of the way or ask for clarification.
I would agree that the show’s selection of material includes all too much right-wing publications. Every time they reference the Washington Times, they should point out that the late Rev. Sun Myung Moon spent billions of dollars on the Times to broadcast his foreign, right-wing views.
One of my rare disappointments in WJ was the host’s shallow treatment of the issue of inequality a few months ago. He seemed to be annoyed at the whole topic.
What are you talking about? Haters hate. Doesn’t mean I hate haters, I could, in fact be compassionate towards them, seeing their sad dysfunctional lives filled with anger and bile.
I agree, why do we even have to listen every day to first term polititcians? How often have we been subjected to Cruz or Rand when it would have been better citizen education to learn from a lesser heard senator who has read the bills & studied them over time.
Why are we subjected to the showmanship of a representive rather than the scholarship of another?
Assuming that the author is one of those who believe that only “whites” [sic] can be racist, since I regularly hear blatant “racist” statements from self-identified “black” callers to Washington Journal. To cite just one example (out of hundreds), a “black” caller earlier this year said that the solution to racism was to “kill all white people” (and he didn’t appear to be kidding, since Brawner followed up with a rather startled question to clarify & the caller elaborated on why killing whites was necessary). This was probably the worst example, but hearing disparaging general comments about “whites” is a regular feature of Wash. Journal…conveniently ignored by this author, of course, since it doesn’t fit the narrative. Evidently he buys into the lame argument that only whites can be racist since “they have the power…and only the ruling class can be racist” (common sentiment expressed by liberals who want to excuse bad behavior from their ilk).
How would you describe homosexuals who deliberately provoke business owners whose views are clearly known in advance by wanting to force the owners to take part in activities which they find abhorrent…say, caterers or photographers being forced to be present at “gay” [sic] weddings? You should classify those homosexuals as “haters.”
No. Once a individual has decided to provide services to the public they have to provide services to all human beings and are not allowed to indulge their own prejudices against blacks or gays or Catholics. If they are too ‘sensitive’ to their own emotions to do so without regard to how they make other people feel, they need to take up a more secluded line of work.
Sorry about that, but your point is a virtual retreat from reality and the social effects that racist poison (and every other type of wingnut meme) has on the public in the USA. Venting is one thing. Striding boldly into these areas of bigotry (please bear in mind that bigotry is not only about race) is a completely different thing.
In case you aren’t aware of it, Civics classes across the USA have their impressionable 9-12 grade classes (anywhere in between) listen to C-SPAN, DURING CLASS TIME as an exercise in hearing various points of view, a First Amendment right! However, the US Supreme Court has consistently ruled, for over 200 years, that obscenity is not protected speech under the First Amendment. The type of hate speech that enunciated here finds itself repeatedly pronounced in Court as equivalent to obscenity. These folks don’t deserve an airing any more than someone calling in about the joys of pedophilia or the wondrous pleasures of scatology.
Actually, the people most responsible for the tearing of the country asunder with hate speech (obscenity is what it is called in the legal lexicon) are the FCC board members. When the “Fairness Doctrine,” with its corresponding “Equal Time” requirement, was in effect, it constrained the vocabulary of talk radio to a much more civil level of discourse. When the FCC abolished the “Fairness Doctrine,” the horses were out of the gate and running at full-speed. If you yearn for a return to civil discourse on the public’s airwaves (remember, the airwaves are a public domain and thus exempt from the First Amendment restrictions, except to the extent that they provide for views all across the political spectrum), insist that the FCC re-impose the Fairness Doctrine.
Which validates my point that the only way to re-institute civil discourse in the privilege of using the PUBLIC AIRWAYS requires the re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine and its Equal Time provisions. The use of the PUBLIC’S AIRWAVES has been determined by the US Supreme Court as being exempt from the requirements of the First Amendment to the extent that the Airwaves are the property of the US people as a whole and thus, Congress can impose licensing on the use of the Airwaves. As part of that right to license the use of the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, is the corresponding right to deny a license for the use of Public Airwaves. The same principle applies to network cable providers who must use the PUBLIC AIRWAVES to transmit and receive their signal onto the receivers of the cable companies. Furthermore, pointless incendiary political speech receives no First Amendment protection, just as obscenity receives no First Amendment protection. So, there are ways to tame the Wild West of the current landscape of radio and television, the people have to rise up and demand that their legislators re-impose the Fairness Doctrine.
