There Will Be No Radio Fairness Doctrine

PresidentBillClintonMay282003Disk2074Former President Bill Clinton can now be added to the list of big name Democrats that have eluded to or outright mentioned the Fairness Doctrine in radio-media.

I will boldly speak out turn and say now that there shall not a return to the arcane legislation of the Fairness Doctrine where an opposing opinion must be made time for after any political opinion is expressed.

Though John Kerry, Bill Clinton and other figures speak of a need for media regulation I think the issue was already addressed by President Obama when he requested that conservatives stray away from partisanship like that of The Radio Comedian Rush Limbaugh.

This is the clear stance of this administration that partisanship is any form is counter productive in politics. The partisanship found on FOX Network airwaves and conservative-talk radio was challenged thusly by the Executive Branch. I see no moves from this office toward this matter beyond what we have already witnessed.

This issue simply doesn’t rate high enough on the presidential ‘to do list.’ The outcries from the far right wing that this inane legislation from days gone by are paranoid delusions created to fabricate the image of ’persecuted’ conservatives.

The right to Freedom of Speech has always challenged Americans in terms of what they will accept in terms of their politics and their news media. Those like myself who have educated themselves on some aspects of modern media know about the Radio Fair and Equal Rule.

In the Fair and Equal Rule a political campaign that receives airtime must have due consideration and / or equal airtime.

I foresee no threat to the talk radio medium spreading further into FM, satellite and internet formats.

Though I also would not predict any ‘explosions’ of talk radio, but rather just a gradual integration. The Politic-Talk Medium will always remain, no matter what paranoid conservative pundits say.

Advertisements

Loyal Opposition No More

1.republican-party
For many years I have felt that for all our disagreements between liberal and conservative individuals in the U.S., there was a shared position by both sides. A loyal opposition to the opposition, if you will.
For the time being, as since the election of Democratic President Barack Obama, I believe the majority of the conservatives of America have thrown down this national system of civil loyalty in politics in place of a pure obstructionist agenda.
The Party of “No!” is not conservative, nor liberal, it is pure nihilism in place of understanding.
I have not heard any amount of logical rebuttal to an Obama Policy or policy proposal, except in very rare cases.
I find I cannot listen to the standard bearers of GOP right-wing radio these days. Like most people I have my “hang-ups.”
Dismissive attitudes, a complete lack of humility and screaming people down end up on my list.
Every time I have been listening to conservative talk radio, or GOP responses, since the election of Barack Obama I am disgusted by the complete lack of integrity and grace in politics. Every word a smear, every point a spin.
Reducing everything down to simply “look at who is doing the name-calling” is not the issue. Though it is important thing to avoid name-calling as much as possible.
Not sticking to the facts about our democratic representatives and our recent national historical facts is unpatriotic.
I wish it were not so, and no group can claim to innocent of some form of vitriol in these times. But if something I say amounts to “name-calling” then I’m afraid it must be so. But understand I don’t say such things in a state of glee as we see from others screaming rational people down.
I find it offensive that in a matter of weeks all our politics have reduced to childishness and fear-mongering about the government.
Instead of having an actual political dialogue they insist on presenting “vague-facts” along with connect-the-dots logic, which is simply dirty pool politics.

This Machine Kills Fascists: Woody Guthrie

519632_caebcf94081Ain’t got no guitar. Not no more. Some fellow done run off with it. But this here laptop done be my guitar.

And I aims to kill me some fascists. Got this here on the dime of Uncle Sam.

Fellow named George W. Bush gave little old me a check and here we are.

Do believe I have heard a talker or two call Mr. Bush a fascist. That I do recall hearin’ of this man.

But ain’t no fascist alive that let’s his power slip. Not no how, no way.

Them two fellers Obama and Bush did a just dandy job and handin’ over the reigns of Lady Liberty from one to another.

Here in the good ol’ US of A we still have a fondness of old fashioned democracy. Letting the folks decide.

—————————————————————————

Woody Guthrie was a singer and songwriter who came of age in Oklahoma as the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression all but destroyed the homes and lives of many of those around him. A natural wordsmith who loved music, Guthrie turned the stories he saw all around him into songs — some funny, some deadly serious, and nearly all dealing with his vision of a better and more just America. Guthrie roamed the country much of his life, performing with the left-wing Almanac Singers, writing a column for the Daily Worker, publishing a wildly entertaining autobiography called Bound for Glory, working as merchant seaman, and raising a family in between. A handful of the 3,000 songs Guthrie wrote have become standards (most notably “This Land Is Your Land,” “Pastures of Plenty,” “Deportees,” and “Grand Coulee Dam”), and it’s all but impossible to imagine the work of Bob Dylan or the rebirth of folk music in the ’50s and ’60s without his guiding influence. Woody Guthrie: This Machine Kills Fascists is a documentary which offers an honest and unblinking look at Guthrie’s life and career, featuring interviews with friends, fans, and historians who offer insight into his music and the man behind it. Mark Deming,   — All Movie Guide

Media-Watchdog? Come Again?

This is the only reason I call myself a Media-Watchdog, one of the last of the breed.

These are just some of my saved email contacts from my personal email account.

crooksandliars@gmail.com
feedback@realclearpolitics.com
mail@journalism.org
yourcomments@foxnews.com
info@ap.org
pres@kqed.org
scoop@huffingtonpost.com
tips@hotair.com
press@thedailybeast.com

Just a sample, there‘s more. (Hot Air is highly partisan, by the by.)

Just making a point. And hoping you’ll input your own thoughts to these addresses.

Whatever good public emailing your my real name and address attached has, you can bet I did it.

And will do it again.

Most likely, standing while typing one-handed just like this. (Someone take a picture, I look journalistic!)

This post is just to dispel any confusion out there in terms of who exactly the real media-watchdogs of America exactly are.

That would be me, Eric Lightborn. The Non-Profit Student Blogger. And that’s pretty much it.

 

Eric Lightborn
http://americapress.wordpress.com
March 22nd 2009

Anarchism Versus Populism

Ever reviled, accursed, ne’er understood,
Thou art the grisly terror of our age.
“Wreck of all order,” cry the multitude,
“Art thou, and war and murder’s endless rage.”
O, let them cry. To them that ne’er have striven.
The truth that lies behind a word to find,
To them the word’s right meaning was not given.
They shall continue blind among the blind.
But thou, O word, so clear, so strong, so pure.
Thou sayest all which I for goal have taken.
I give thee to the future! Thine secure.
When each at least unto himself shall waken.
Comes it in sunshine? In the tempest’s thrill?
I cannot tell — but it the earth shall see!
I am an Anarchist! Wherefore I will.
Not rule, and also ruled I will not be!

                       – John Henry Mackay

I draw your attention simply to the first nine lines of this quote, and have included it in it’s entirety for a full perspective.

I believe we have suffered this current Global / American Recession in a large part to the economic strategy of ‘greed is good’ and more specifically the enactment of Anarcho-Capitalism in our banking, mortgage and credits markets the United States of America.

A lack of sound order and a lack of logical policies, will only ultimately lead to a lack of accountability from authority.

A populist does not reject authority, or rule, outright. Rather a populist is prone to ask:

“By right to do govern? Whom do you serve?”

While I will express a degree of fondness for Pure Anarchism in which all property is outright theft … I find the whole ideology unworkable and only expressly attainable in small, sustainable, isolated communities. Much like Marxism is all looks good for an intellectual discussion and quid-pro-quo debating but in a real world setting the whole underlying concepts quickly become revealed as nothing but an ideologist’s dream work.

America of 2009 needs real solutions and not simply an outpouring of sentiment to ’make AIG pay you back’ but rather a hopeful outpouring of people willing to listen. People willing to engage.

The Presidency of Barack Obama is a stepping stone in a much larger and much longer road.

We must begin to demand the highest standards of our leaders on both Wall Street and Capitol Hill.

It is not not wrong to want justice. It is not wrong to want fairness. It is not wrong to question authority.

I am a Populist! Wherefore I will.
Not to rule, but to question the value of our rulers to us.

Talkin’ Alan Colmes & Radio Broadcasting

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know nobody cares about Alan and his radio show. If you remember he got a lot of press and did an appearance on Colbert after leaving the syndicated cable TV show Hannity & Colmes which holds the record for the longest running seasons of any cable news broadcast.

12 years some of us watched Sean and Alan (they are friends in real life to debunk that whole myth) duel it out on our televisions.

12 years of seeing an intelligent and thought-out man make his sound point; then be shouted down, cut off or done the finger by the people running the show behind the live feed.

No, I’m not board operator. I had a Public Access television program briefly as a youth and am not technology illiterate. I talked with my operators frequently. I am a host by nature, I can’t help it. Would you like me to design an interview for you? Pick a figure I’d know in politics.

I know only part of what it means to have a “reputation” in the public and we only did a rare few open-lines on a few shows, but that was more than enough of a taste what real broadcasting must be like.

My voice is extremely recognizable so I don’t call in much to shows on the radio. This writer’s pseudonym “Lightborn” I blog with is actually all over my bank records and college transcripts. I am like most these days where a monkey with an internet connection could find out everything about me through social networking sites and all that noise.

I’m not really into anything but thought-provoking discussion on the internet or radio. But I’ll dance if the steps are not too complicated.

Being a subject of public scorn, or praise, on a large scale is not an experience I personally enjoyed.

I’d go out to get something at the store and:

“Hey! You’re that guy from the TV!”

At first it was flattering but not for long. Soon it became an equal share of “fag boy” and “love your show” which took a toll on me. Seeing as how I wasn’t getting paid and no other people existed other than board operators who wanted to re-vamp the program, I left. (Funny note: They still play the old tapes sometimes. I am going down there and ripping them out of the recorders! So embarrassing!)

What most fail to recognize about any person you, and I, happen to toss around the name of in media / government discussions are real people with real feelings.

I recently said to mild shock of some that if I personally met Rush Limbaugh I would sit down and just love to talk broadcasting with him. It’s true. The same is true of Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and many others.

Putting me converse them with the things they all say on air, while it would be entertaining, is actually not a good idea. I have no honest way to tell you or any operator that I wouldn’t swear every other word and say “radical” things rather than sound arguments. The “historical” perspectives and “social sentiments” are like stabs into the heart of a man who defies all these classic political definitions. (Cry me a river, I know.)

That’s the beauty & glory of this wonderful thing we call “blog.” I can just take a second to look at what they said instead of going to ape-town. Then it’s up here if anyone gives a hoot. I try to put out links to all sorts of media and not just my kind of media.

Back to Alan:

Alan Colmes has, in my opinion, the best talk radio show on Fox News Talk. Hands down.

He lets through callers at a higher rate than any other national host I am aware of. Of all opinions, and levels of insanity.

He doesn’t brag about the fact that he has been doing radio since the Vietnam-era and protested that war way back then. Before we could prove that it was started on a lie.

Like he protested the Iraq War. Another war predicated on a lie.

On the radio every night when you weren’t listening. (I podcast him mainly.)

He doesn’t brag about the fact that he was part of the same comedy scene that gave of George Carlin The Great, and many others. (Comedy and radio broadcasting has always been intertwined in American broadcasting.) Yes, he was a comedian first. Now he’s a talk show host with that weird ‘cheesy’ kind of humor.

Alan Colmes refuses to accept the mantle of the “Anti-Limbaugh.”

He beats Rush out in terms of just the raw amount of time working in radio specifically; if we engage in this whole Limbaugh-ism that the longer you talk into the radio the better a broadcaster you become. Yet still he won’t take on this title most likely because he views it as ‘silly’ just as I do to aim any part of what you do just to feed into another’s design. So to speak.

Yet as his liberal critics always say about him:

“He is a total liberal push-over.”

Is simply untrue. He tries to conduct himself in very certain fashion and sometimes … well … on the air he just has had enough Republican-garbage for one night and lets it be known. We all know conservative daily talking-points are nonsense but sometime has got to say it aloud.

Those who still hate him should know his show brings in guest-hosts, full panels and little features like Radio Graffiti where everyone calls in and gets one sentence only.

Lastly, he has read the names of every single causality in the Iraq War right up to this very moment in time. The same is true for the entire American-Vietnamese Conflict. You show me one broadcaster in America with that kind of obvious record of bipartisan media and experience using formats like AM Talk Radio the way they were meant to used. For the people.

Possibly the best hire FOX has ever made, or will ever make. As you can tell I’m a fan. There’s a chatstream community and I only ever speak with the staff via email if your thinking I work for them or something. I am one of many “contributors” to the show. We influence it greatly and often with simple suggestions..

Nope, not employed by any media agency. No real life plans around that.

The popular term to best understand about Eric Lightborn is:

political-junkie

(March 17th 2009)

What’s the Difference Between a Liberal and a Conservative?

We hear this question often in our lives, if we are a political person ourselves.

I recently heard a response to this question that I disagree with but I still believe desires to be heard. I am afraid I cannot offer it as anything but anecdote.

Response: “Think in terms of kind and unkind.”

While this sentiment starts to address the huge gap between these ideologies it only touches the most bare and stereotypical edges of the matter.

It is hard to identify one single clear ‘line in the sand’ on this issue to illustrate and thus it becomes a little troublesome to answer simply.

The truth of the matter is more that historically both liberals and conservatives morph and relocate themselves throughout the political spectrum in all nations. Only certain key values and standards define each group and it is easier to grab one specific location and timeframe than to just say all liberals or conservatives are so.

Modern American liberals are clearly defined against modern American conservatives in terms of their views of separation of church and state.

Modern American liberals are clearly defined against modern American conservatives in terms of their views of the use of military budgets and international policies.

These kind of statements are the only real response to this question and it is obviously verbose to try to answer this question with what sounds like reading a textbook at someone.

It is said sometimes that these groups are defined by the members they attract. I believe this only partly defines the ideology and the group. The common views and desires are the true backbone of every movement.

Some claim the liberal movements to attract the more ‘fringe’ elements of society while conservative attracts a more ‘common’ element of society.

That may have been true in days past but in our world, right now, the conservative movement has attracted the truly fringe elements of our society in the past national campaign and to this day on talk radio and certain websites. Unquestionable willful destruction of non-partisan debate is expressly un-American.

I think my answer to this question is more like an answer one might get from Yoda or some wandering mystic.

“Ask me again when you know which one you are.”

I think if someone is even asking they are just fresh into politics and all political types, even myself, must claw backwards into our memories to a time when we were apolitical and remember that nobody comes out of the womb with a position on taxation rates.

We form all these things we call ‘opinions’ as we go. So cut a break to people who were spacing out on their nation when we needed them the most because we still need them now that they are paying attention.

UPDATE:

I think I was wrong here. The best way to understand what a liberal is and what a conservative is in this day and age is exactly what was said in the first response here: think in terms of kind and unkind.