Sue: Given that the purpose of right wing "talk radio" is to misinform, does it really come as a surprise that their response to a well-written article would come in the form of a red herring?

Ernest, I guess it goes with the territory, doesn't it? Still, you'd think the stations would want the facts.

How sad that Radio Ink magazine can only regurgutate the tired old misinfo & alarmist talking points to downplay Sue Wilson's well- thought caampaign to pressure the FCC to do its job and expect licensed talk radio ststions to better serve the public interest.

Dear Aunt Sally aka Sue Wilson, the misrepresentation actually comes from you. You misrepresent the constitution namely the "first amendment". The first amendment was designed to keep the government from regulating speech not dictate what is appropriate speech in the name of what you deem fair. You also misrepresent the FCC rules as it pertains to Equal Opportunities, but then Sue you knew this didn't you.
http://peoplesrepubmadis...een-of-strawman-is-back/

Of course Sue cites, Red Lion ignoring the fact that the bulk of Red Lion was overturned in the FCC vs The League of Women Voters.

"Yes. Even though the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate the broadcast medium, “since broadcasters are engaged in a vital and independent form of communicative activity,” Congress must use the First Amendment to “inform and give shape” to its regulation. Justice Brennan argued that no legitimate government interest was served by the law which broadly banned all editorializing, a form of speech which “lies at the heart of First Amendment protection.”"

The entire audio of the oral arguments can be heard here.
http://tinyurl.com/lloh3td

Marshall Keith said @ 4:

Dear Aunt Sally aka Sue Wilson, the misrepresentation actually comes from you. You misrepresent the constitution namely the "first amendment". The first amendment was designed to keep the government from regulating speech not dictate what is appropriate speech in the name of what you deem fair.

Calling people names is always a very convincing technique. Nonetheless, as to the substance of your claim, why are you making up arguments that she didn't make? And, therefore, why are you calling her argument a "straw man"? Is that the "I'm rubber and you're glue" defense?

When did Sue argue that the FCC should "dictate what is appropriate speech"?

And why do you hate the fact that our (very limited) public airwaves belong to we, the people? And why are you so angry that corporations which enjoy massive taxpayer subsidized government largesse in the form of free licenses agree to perform in the public interest in exchange for it?

To Marshall - what is your understanding of requirements for an FCC-licensed station that engages in electioneering on air?

As users of the limited public-owned airwaves, I thought they have to serve the public interest over their own interest, meaning they have a to make reasonable efforts to allow an open clash of ideas in order to allow listeners to make informed decisions.

Otherwise, what would prevent listeners from being subject to corporate whims, to charismatic leaders, to snake oil salesmen or propagandists? If I announced that I banged your mom, should she have any recourse to say it's not true?

After you have answered the policy question above, can you answer separately WHY you think WTMJ simply does not put some of these libs on the air in order to expose them and show the audience that Charlie Sykes has the better argument>

It would satisfy the Zapple controversy at the same time, demonstrating that WTMJ hosts are fine debaters and not cowardly pansies. But you seem to support the idea of letting these pundits broadcast in a tightly controlled bubble, and suppress the greater community from sharing their perspective, even if only to refute misinformation.

We all know a former WTMJ staffer blew the whistle, admitting the station would not let sitting Sen. Feingold refute claims made on air!

Is that the proper moral stance? Is that the proper intellectual stance? Is this how we want to teach our children to communicate and resolve disputes?

I once called Sykes live on the air during the OWS controversy and I began to eat his lunch, before he hustled me off the air. He was calling OWS names and avoiding the main point - that Wall St. colludes with the government to fleece the consumer and avoid accountability for the 2008 crisis.

Sykes was not mentioning that there were tens of thousands of orderly protesters there, including a professional and diverse make up. I pointed out that he was deceitfully concentrating on a minority of anarchists, homeless and druggies to paint a false picture. He lowered my volume and cut me off mid sentence.

So WTMJ listeners had little ability to decide for themselves, what was OWS truly about? What did their actual published statements say? The listeners could only learn if they tune to another station, but when they do, they are not permitted back on to WTMJ to correct ongoing deception. The same goes for the wars, fiscal policy, gun control, labor battles, the healthcare debate, the latest scandals and of course, the elections.

Thanks for engaging here, but you aren't convincing anyone that WTMJ is complying with FCC rules because you aren't talking about the legal and moral requirement that stations serve the public interest, you aren't addressing the on-air electioneering, and aren't addressing the qualifications of the bonafide news exemption. I await your reply.

@ Gus, You obviously didn't read my blogpost. Your complaint that I didn't address the qualifications of the bonafide news exemption was clearly addressed. That exemption only pertains to the amount of time the candidates themselves are on the air. It does not include the time that the talk show hosts themselves editorialize. I have been a broadcaster from the early 80s on and am well versed in FCC rules and regulations. Your red herring "If I announced that I banged your mom, should she have any recourse to say it's not true?" That would be grounds for a liable suit. Of course again it would be the candidate that would be harmed by such liable and since it was them that was harmed, they would have to file suit. Of course only a leftist or leftist talk show host would come up with such vulgarity as Teabaggers or suggesting that our Lieutenant Governor pulled a train in order to get the job.
http://youtu.be/bp-DFsUvYn0

Marshall Keith @ 8 said:

Of course only a leftist or leftist talk show host would come up with such vulgarity as Teabaggers

First known use...

(If you have troubling reading the attribution on the bottom, it's from those "leftists" at FreeRepublic.com.)

But, whatevs. Clearly, you have a partisan relationship with the truth and rule of law and stuff.

@ Brad Friedman It was started by leftist, I have no problem with the truth or the constitution. I am a Libertarian who would like nothing more then more Libertarian Media out there. I was against the Patriot act when Bush enacted it and Obama proved why it was an abuse of power. Which is why the federal government should have no say so as to the content of any media outlet. PERIOD. The government can't be trusted to make the media fair! The government can't be trusted period!
Almost all politicians suffer from "libido dominandi".
http://youtu.be/GMkvpnLh5IU

@ Gus Wynn I also would like to add to your comment "As users of the limited public-owned airwaves" The government does not own the Airwaves as you and Sue claim, Radio stations are privately owned businesses that are regulated as most businesses are. I challenge both you and Sue to show ownership papers or what act of congress committed the socialist act of seizing ownership? In the FCC vs the League of Women voters pertained to Public Radio which at the time were for the most part owned by taxpayers and the FCC ruled that the stations ruled that the stations had the right to editorialize and they had control over the content. The equal time rules only apply to the candidates. From the ruling.

"Court upheld the right of access for federal candidates imposed by 312(a)(7) of the Communications Act both because that provision "makes a significant contribution of freedom of expression by enhancing the ability of candidates to present, and the public to receive, information necessary for the effective operation of the democratic process," id., at 396, and because it defined a sufficiently "limited right of `reasonable' access" so that "the discretion of broadcasters to present their views on any issue or to carry any particular type of programming" was not impaired. Id., at 396-397 (emphasis in original). Finally, in Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, supra, the Court affirmed the FCC's refusal to require broadcast licensees to accept all paid political advertisements. Although it was argued that such a requirement would serve the public's First Amendment interest in receiving additional views on public issues, the Court rejected this approach, finding that such a requirement would tend to transform broadcasters into common carriers and would intrude unnecessarily upon the editorial discretion of broadcasters. Id., at 123-125. The FCC's ruling, therefore, helped to advance the important purposes of the Communications Act, grounded in the First Amendment, of preserving the right of broadcasters to exercise "the widest journalistic freedom consistent with [their] public obligations," and of guarding against "the risk of an enlargement [468 U.S. 364, 380] of Government control over the content of broadcast discussion of public issues." Id., at 110, 126. 13 "

Yay! More straw man and unsupported arguments --- and inaccurate ones, again, at that --- from Marshall!

First, in reply to the comment @ 10:

It [the use of the phrase "tea bag"] was started by leftist

Really? What "leftist"? Where and when? Be careful now. Accuracy counts, and you haven't done well on that score so far, even as I showed you the first known citing of a "Tea Bag" sign.

As to your straw man @ 11 that "the federal government should have no say so as to the content of any media outlet," you are, of course, wrong again. They regulate that content every day. Use an obsenity, for example, and you may have to cough up $250k for each such incident. As to the straw man argument that MAC is calling on the goverment to dictate "content", where have they said that? They said that federal law (Zapple Doctrine) requires equal time for candidates and their supporters, when requested. There is nothing, in their complaint, about the government requiring certain "content".

Finally, you claim, without offering a shred of evidence, that "The government does not own the Airwaves". Really? Who does then? If the government (we, the people) do not own them, why do stations agree to license them from us? Seems kinda stupid of them, no?

I'm working on a number of stories at once, on deadline, so don't have time to go plowing through legal rulings for you. But I'm sure, since you've made such a strong point of saying that "the government does not own the Airwaves", you've got even a shred of evidence to back that up, right? Because the quotes from the rulings you cited above certainly do no such thing.

Oh, and P.S., your claim to being a "Libertarian". Just a guess, but you're fairly new to the whole Libertarian thing, right? Maybe since Republicanism went so far South during the Bush Admin perhaps?

@ Brad Friedman the Teabagger references, they started with leftist talk show hosts and comedians, the sign you showed was a response to those vile words. On becoming a Libertarian, nope long before that but Bush just solidified my positions. I have even written several pieces critical of Government Walker who was the subject of the recall that started this. Again Brad I was in Broadcasting when all of these changes took place and have sat through numerous seminars on the topic. As to your strawman claims again it is Sue that is misrepresenting the facts, both about the constitution and the FCC rules. First she claims that the First Amendment allows the Government the right to compel her and her followers the right to equal time to the talk show hosts "editorializing" On the ownership again it is on Sue and her followers to prove ownership, regulation is not ownership, even the Supreme Court makes that distinction. From the same ruling.

"Finally, although the Government's interest in ensuring balanced coverage of public issues is plainly both important and substantial, we have, at the same time, made clear that broadcasters are engaged in a vital and independent form of communicative activity. As a result, the First Amendment must uniform and give shape to the manner in which Congress exercises its regulatory power in this area. Unlike common carriers, broadcasters are "entitled under the First Amendment to exercise `the widest journalistic freedom consistent with their public [duties].'

Man oh man, I leave for a week's vacation, and look what happens.

Marshall, as I have posted on YOUR own website, the public does owned the airwaves. From the FCC's "The Public and Broadcasting":

In exchange for obtaining a valuable license to operate a broadcast station using the public airwaves, each radio and television licensee is required by law to operate its station in the “public interest, convenience and necessity.” This means that it must air programming that is responsive to the needs and problems of its local community of license.

By the way, I also have worked in broadcasting since the 1980's. And I also have libertarian leanings. Business cannot take away first amendment rights of the people. Simple.

Question, Marshall Keith @13: Is the persistent use of corporate propaganda and deception by entities like Fox "News" "consistent with [its] public [duties]?"

You seem not the recognize why the press was protected by the First Amendment.

Here's a primer from New York Times vs. United States (the 1971 "Pentagon Papers" case) [emphasis added]:

The purpose of the First Amendment is not fulfilled when powerful corporate interests abuse the licenses they are granted to operate on "our" public airwaves so as to completely control the message (often a deceptive message) and prevent a fair airing of those who can offer facts that expose that deceptive, corporate-controlled message.