Only for the Left?

560.jpg KSFO-560AM
  An Internet smear campaign, by an anonymous blogger, urging advertisers to drop their ads from KSFO will be addressed January 12, 2007 at 12 noon-to-as long as it takes. (KSFO is even preempting Dr. Laura)  Freedom of speech is it only for the Left?

I invite you to listen and participate in this sure to provoke broadcast.
 CBS-5 gives their ‘short a penny’ 2¢ for what it is worth.

20 Comments so far

  1. Chester (unregistered) on January 12th, 2007 @ 12:02 am

    “Smear campaign”? This is the dictionary definition of “smear”:

    “a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization”

    That blogger did *not* make an unsubstantiated charge or accusation against KSFO’s hosts. What he did was let everyone know what those hosts said on their broadcasts. He used *recordings* of their actual broadcasts. And the advertisers’ reactions were based on those hosts’ actual, recorded words.

    And so what that blogger did was make completely *substantiated* charges and accusations.

    And so it is *you* who is, in fact, waging the smear campaign, because it is your charges and your accusations that are without substantiation.

    You really need to give more thought to your words before you make posts like this. This post of yours makes you seem like someone who hides the truth in order to “prove” their personal opinions. And even at best, it’s an example of very sloppy logic.


  2. Chester (unregistered) on January 12th, 2007 @ 12:08 am

    Oh, and there’s the “is freedom of speech only for the left” fallacious argument of yours.

    Nobody is infringing on the freedom of speech of those hosts or KSFO. Go read the Constitution again before you try to make arguments about its contents.

    For that matter, please take a look at these web pages on Logical Fallacies. I’m not even being snarky about this — I really think you would benefit:

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy


  3. joann Landers (unregistered) on January 12th, 2007 @ 12:10 am

    I was hoping that you were still awake. I Double Dog Dare Ya to tune in to the show tomorrow.


  4. Asa (unregistered) on January 12th, 2007 @ 8:46 am

    What the hell? Making advertisers aware of what they are paying to support is hardly a “smear campaign.” There’s no “freedom of speech” or First Amendment issue here at all. KSFO has infinitely more resources than this single blogger, and for them to now cloak themselves in the mantle of civil liberties when so many of their hosts would like nothing more than to strip us of ours is disgusting.


  5. Chester (unregistered) on January 12th, 2007 @ 9:56 am

    Not only that, but by trying to have Spocko’s site taken down and revoking his editorial right to use audio clips, it’s KSFO/ABC who is limiting “freedom of speech,” if anyone.

    But the facts, it would seem, are not of interest to Joann.

    And, Joann: why in the world would I want to listen to today’s broadcast? I’m much more interested in whether or not you’re going to leave your post the way it is, portraying KSFO as the victim of a baseless “smear campaign,” when the truth is quite the opposite.


  6. joann Landers (unregistered) on January 12th, 2007 @ 12:02 pm

    The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation of the United States’ Federal Communications Commission which required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in an honest, equal and balanced manner. It has since been repealed by the FCC and aspects of it have been questioned by courts.

    The Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than an attempt to silence the right- wing through intimidation.

    Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, and the hosts of KSFO have programs that are received well by the public. Which means they have much influence over the public, and are money makers.

    The success of these scholarly thinkers is just too much for the left to tolerate. They can broadcast their rhetoric on the failed Air America Radio and other progressive radio but, if no one is giving them and their advertisers, a listen what can they do but to try and tear down the competition. Spocko is nothing more than their shill.

    I believe lefties ultimate goal, because they are unable to compete with true fairness, is an attempt at a reworked so called government enforced Fairness Doctrine. The likes of the effervescent Al Franken seem to need all the help they can get.

    From the KSFO site: Both friends and critics of the station are invited to participate. Members of the news media and the blogging community will be encouraged to participate, as well. The in-studio line is 808-5600.

    Chester, give fairness a try tune in.


  7. tg (unregistered) on January 12th, 2007 @ 12:18 pm

    Okay… Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, and the hosts of KSFO are now what passes as “scholarly thinkers”?

    We truly are doomed…


  8. SFGary (unregistered) on January 12th, 2007 @ 12:21 pm

    Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage are scholarly thinkers? That’s a joke, right?

    Joann, you disappoint me. Are you actually disputing the fact that the program the blogger recorded and is redistributing it to the advertisers, AS IS, is not accurate?

    BofA and Mastercard are hardly leftist companies and they felt it was hate speech and pulled their ads. What will it take to convince you?


  9. Asa (unregistered) on January 12th, 2007 @ 12:44 pm

    WTF does the Fairness Doctrine have to do with the Spocko issue? Clever rhetorical ploy – if you’re not winning an argument, start talking about something else.

    And Michael Savage is a “scholarly thinker”? It’s all becoming clear to me now.


  10. Chester (unregistered) on January 12th, 2007 @ 12:54 pm

    Joann: before you start going off on new unsubstantiated accusations about how the Left is targeting Rightist radio personalities, you should first either defend or disown your original delusional and unsubstantiated accusation that KSFO was smeared.

    You were wrong in the first place and you can’t plug up the holes in your arguments by throwing up new hole-ridden arguments. Well, you can *try*, but that’s a Red Herring sort of strategy that ought to be beneath you.

    I don’t need to try out fairness as I am fair. You, however, should try fairness on for size…along with coherence, honesty, and logic.


  11. Poormojo (unregistered) on January 12th, 2007 @ 3:07 pm

    If I’ve read the story right: this blogger taped the show on KSFO then sent the audio files to the advertisers to show them what they were supporting with their money.

    The advertisers didn’t like what they heard and pulled their funding.

    Now the folks behind KSFO are attacking the blogger on copyright issues for recording the shows. Is this right?

    Where does freedom of speech or the fairness doctrine come in? This is a simple case of advertisers pulling money from an offensive program after some bad publicity.


  12. dln (unregistered) on January 12th, 2007 @ 3:58 pm

    Joann, how exactly is freedom of speech even an issue here? And what does it relate to “the left” as you mention?

    Turn your TV off, my friend. It’s lying to you.


  13. Poormojo (unregistered) on January 12th, 2007 @ 4:09 pm

    Found more Here.


  14. Chester (unregistered) on January 12th, 2007 @ 7:35 pm

    Remember when Joann got outraged about how there were some SJCC antiwar protestors shouting about killing President Bush?:

    http://sf.metblogs.com/archives/2006/11/morally_wrong_1.phtml

    Joann’s words:
    “We discussed how it is commendable to question our President and Congress, but to call for acts of murder are deplorable. What should she have done? Call the police, or inform the school administration? I was not sure.”

    But, apparently, when the speakers are not antiwar protestors but conservative talk-show hosts and the target is not President Bush but Congresswoman Pelosi and a NYT editor, then it’s suddenly okay with Joann to not only talk about murder, but to gleefully describe it in a graphic manner.

    Joann: your local color pieces are usually pretty entertaining and offer a unique viewpoint. But your political pieces are very poorly thought-out, engage in intellectually-dishonest rhetoric, and as I’ve just explained, deeply hypocritical.

    I really wish you’d stick to non-political topics. And it’s not as if you’re winning anyone over to your side of the political spectrum.


  15. joann Landers (unregistered) on January 12th, 2007 @ 9:27 pm

    Yep, you are right might as well throw in the towel. An attempt at silencing conservative opinion should not viewed as messing with free speech. Trying to get the conservative talk show hosts of KSFO fired should not to be looked at as dirty tricks. Playing abbreviated radio clips that misrepresent their comments should be accepted. Yes, ‘hate speech’ is a bad bad thing, so conservatives need to get over expressing the hate felt when our national security is threatened. Liberal talk shows are failures therefor every radio program should change their format permitting those sympathizing with the terrorists an equal opportunity to get their message out.=”Fairness Doctrine”

    Air America’s Randi Rhodes’ show contained not one but two specific assassination threats toward President Bush. Her comedy skit featuring an apparent gunshot warning to President Bush. She has apologized, so we can’t fault the gal. The “mainstream” media gave Rhodes a pass, so we can’t fault the gal, can we? After all what came out of her mouth would never be called hate!

    My final answer.


  16. dln (unregistered) on January 13th, 2007 @ 12:03 am

    “so conservatives need to get over expressing the hate felt when our national security is threatened.”

    You are misplacing your anger.

    Conservatives need to start feeling some anger over how national security has been compromised over the past 8 (or 20 depending on how you look at it) years due to incompetence, corruption and lack of belief in representative democracy.

    From a strictly defense and foreign policy perspective alone, it is truly appalling.

    If you want solid national defense, you don’t waste it on 15-year old billion dollar projects that were old when they started, fund private commercial armed forces without accountability, replace functioning intelligence system with a bureaucracy packed with yes-men, and most of all you don’t invade other countries for secret reasons and lie to the electorate as well as congresss.

    The imaginary “other side of the political ‘spectrum’” you speak of were not responsible for this erosion of our national security. Your elected government was.

    And when it comes to media, I think libs have some catching up to do when it comes to “hate speech” and propaganda in media, no matter what you might currently think. I see no reason to quote what’s a mere google away, should you choose to seek facts out.

    The REAL problem in american media is lack of raw, unspun, facts and and endless stream of loudmouthed and largely irrelevant opinion. The dismantling of american news began under Reagan, and is now almost gone.

    Left is only a hollow shell of constantly yelling, but ad-sellingly photogenic, heads. And all is run by three corporations with the same political interest. As a source for actual news, american media has become next to useless.

    Be angry about that. Any of the above, really.

    Not because of some stupid sound sample on a radio show. Not even Pat Robertson’s calling for nuclear war and assassinations. And seriously, corporate advertisers don’t need a grassroots movement stand up for them.

    Don’t waste your time and intellect doing other people’s bidding, who have anything but your best interest in mind.


  17. Chester (unregistered) on January 13th, 2007 @ 12:38 am

    Jeez. Even in your “final word,” you’re still unable to address things point-by-point and are still running off on unrelated tangents and working off of assumptions that have already been disproven.


  18. Ned Allen (unregistered) on January 16th, 2007 @ 8:13 pm

    Subject: Contact Michael Savage, one of the leaders of Hate Radio – January 2007

    You may be one of the hundreds of people who’ve called the Savage Nation radio talk show to make a point and been abruptly cut off in mid-conversation. You can continue your thoughts in writing. Contact Michael “Savage” using his real name and address at:

    HOME:
    Dr. Michael A. Weiner
    111 St. Thomas Way
    Tiburon, CA 94920

    THE SOCIETY HE CREATED AND SPONSORS:
    Dr. Michael A. Weiner
    c/o The Paul Revere Society
    150 Shoreline Hwy, Bldge E
    Mill Valley, CA 94941

    WORK:
    Dr. Michael A. Weiner
    c/o KNEW
    340 Townsend St.
    San Francisco, CA 94107

    HIS LAWYER:
    Dr. Michael A. Weiner
    c/o Ian K. Boyd of Harvey Siskind Jacobs LLP
    4 Embarcadero Center, 39th Floor
    San Francisco, CA 94111

    HIS FAMILY’S COMPANY:
    Dr. Michael A. Weiner
    c/o Rockstar, Inc.
    101 Convention Center Drive, Suite 777
    Las Vegas, NV 89109

    HIS FAMILY’S COMPANY:
    Dr. Michael A. Weiner
    c/o Rockstar, Inc.
    P. O. Box 27740
    Las Vegas, NV 89126

    E-MAIL:
    michaelsavage@paulreveresociety.com


  19. anna (unregistered) on January 16th, 2007 @ 8:47 pm

    I’m still having an issue with the “scholars” comment above. How are those guys scholars?

    Rush: He attended Southeast Missouri State University, where he earned a “D” in a speech class.[10] Limbaugh dropped out after two semesters and one summer, according to his mother, he flunked everything, including a modern ballroom dancing class

    Sean: Hannity attended St. Pius X Preparatory Seminary in Uniondale, Long Island, New York, graduating in 1980. He dropped out of New York University to pursue his radio career.[1] He has received honorary doctorates from Liberty University (2005)[2] and Southeastern University of Lakeland, Florida (2006).[3]
    (I have never heard of those 2 last colleges, but I don’t doubt that they exist)

    Michael Savage:
    After high school, Savage attended and earned a bachelors degree from Queens College in education and sociology. He taught high school for several years in New York City. He then earned two masters degrees in ethnobotany and anthropology from the University of Hawaii. He then received a Ph.D. in 1978 from the University of California, Berkeley.[7] According to Savage’s book The Savage Nation and NewsMax’s biography,[1] Savage earned his Ph.D. from UC Berkeley in epidemiology and nutrition sciences, but UC Berkeley records repor

    Mark Levin: Mark Levin holds a B.A. magna cum laude (1977) from Temple University (where he was a member of Phi Beta Kappa) and a J.D. from Temple University Beasley School of Law.

    There’s the scholar! He’s the one who made fun of interracial kids, and later apologized because he has three, right?

    I’m sorry- 3 of the 4 either lied or dropped out of college, and the fourth “scholar” apologized regarding his statements on the show.

    I don’t think anyone is contesting that they have the right to say anything they want, at any time. At the same time, they don’t have an inalienable right to do only, and specifically, for KSFO, because that would take away the right of the sponsors to invest in who they want to invest in. If the scholars have opinions that need expressing, they can write books, stand on soapboxes, and write blogs! Get on community radio! KPFA is member-created, member-funded. In fact, it’s funny that these scholars haven’t gotten member support enough to do a member-fundd radio station like KPFA. Or have they?

    Dr. Laura… physiologist NOT psychologist. I love this quote of hers about being gay is being “an error, in biology”…

    http://www.stopdrlaura.com/img/shortbioerror.wav


  20. joann Landers (unregistered) on January 17th, 2007 @ 11:42 pm

    …In 1949, the FCC established the Fairness Doctrine as a policy which guaranteed (among other things) the presentation of both sides of a controversial issue. This concept is rooted in the early broadcast regulation of the Federal Radio Commission (FRC). Congress declared it part of the Communications Act in 1959 to safeguard the public interest and First Amendment freedoms. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in the case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969). Although the Fairness Doctrine was enacted to promote pluralism, eventually it produced an opposite effect. Concerned that advertising time would be squandered by those who invoked the Fairness Doctrine, broadcasters challenged its constitutionality claiming that it promoted censorship instead of diversity. Declared in violation of the First Amendment, the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, and attempts to provide constitutional protection for the doctrine were vetoed by President Reagan in 1987….

    Amendment I
    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…

    …unless the left cannot accept the fact that liberal talk radio is a failure, and programs such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, etc. are enjoyed by the public.  

    Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D- Ohio), will hold hearings on re-instating the Fairness Doctrine  (a.k.a. the Hush Rush bill) The Democrats say they want to bring more balance to the media. What then do they consider most major newspapers, news magazines and network news programs if not on their side of the scale? The only objective is to silence conservatives on the radio–abridging the freedom of selected speech.

    Imagine the newest Government Bureaucracy–a room filed with headset wearing media cops, hands poised over big red conservative statement buttons.

    Local radio stations, forced by the arbitrary microscope of political acceptability, would be forced to cave and broadcast benign programs such as, “How to Successfully De-flea Your Cat”
     
    Rep. Dennis Kucinich does show some smarts with his support for a federal shield law that would protect journalists such as Josh Wolf, and bloggers from being required to reveal confidential sources or face jail.



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.