Liberal Radio Host wants Socialism for Radio
Mar 26th, 2010 by Tennessee Walker
Liberal Radio host Ed Schultz, a guy most people have never heard of, due to the fact that he has no listenership, admits that he wants socialism for Radio under the guise of the misnamed “Fairness Doctrine”
Like most Liberals, Schultz blames his personal failure in the Radio business on forces outside of himself, so therefore he wants government intervention.
Schultz’s rant includes his typical gross misstatements of the truth. At the 50 second mark of the video linked, Schultz makes this false statement about Rush Limbaugh.
“Maybe I’ll get on 600 stations or however many you own.”
Now the fact is Limbaugh doesn’t own 600 stations. To do the best of my knowledge he doesn’t own any. I would say Schultz is lying here but it is quite possible that Schultz is so ignorant about the business, that he is attempting to make a living in, that he just doesn’t know the difference between being a syndicated purveyor of content on a station owned by someone else and an owner of a station. Of course ignorance is just one of the many reasons for Schultz not having listenership.
But since Schultz can’t cut it in the free market place he has a typical liberal solution. Have Congress make people listen to him.
At the 1:20 point of the video Schultz says:
“Maybe we have reached the point where Congress needs to equal it out. Equal out the audience.”
There you have it folks. Since liberals can’t get an audience, congress needs to pass legislation forcing people to listen to idiots like Schultz. Liberals like Schultz want to control who you listen to and you need to give up your liberty so Schultz can get an audience above his current pathetic numbers. This is what liberals mean by “fairness”.
Liberal Radio host Ed Schultz, a guy most people have never heard of, due to the fact that he has no listenership, admits that he wants socialism for Radio under the guise of the misnamed “Fairness Doctrine”
And so it is only fitting that Schultz should be called out by a guy even FEWER people have heard of. When the Titanic went down there were probably two beetles fighting over crumbs down in the hold.
By the way, for most of those radio stations Rush is their major revenue stream so “own” is a perfectly appropriate colloquial way to describe Rush’s relationship with those stations.
“And so it is only fitting that Schultz should be called out by a guy even FEWER people have heard of.”
You are hilarious, You call out all kinds of people who are better known than you. Since you consider it a crime, how about no more comments about people are better known than you.
Your ‘colloquial’ way of defining ownership by contribution towards ownership is a new one. By your measure, the neighborhood drunk who spends his waking hours in a particular bar is therefore the owner of that bar. No wonder liberals want a government takeover of everything!!!!
Oh I love anon’s thinking. Does that mean I own most of the women’s clothing shops in Salisbury Mall because I buy a lot of clothes there:)
“Own” in the sense of “dominate.” A perfectly valid use.
Oh I love anon’s thinking. Does that mean I own most of the women’s clothing shops in Salisbury Mall because I buy a lot of clothes there:)
What guys do in Salisbury, stays in Salisbury (wink).
Notify Webster’s Dictionary: “Dominate” now means “own.”
Notify Webster’s Dictionary: “Own” now means “Dominate.”
Don’t bother; they are way ahead of you:
“What guys do in Salisbury, stays in Salisbury” (wink).
Obviously, anon you have not met cookie. cookie is no guy.
“Date: before 12th century
transitive verb
1 a : to have or hold as property : possess
b : to have power or mastery ”
See anon you know as little about the radio business as the unsuccessful Ed Schultz. Limbaugh can get fired any day by his affiliates and the lame liberal PSA’s on the syndicated stations on which he is carried can’t be stopped by Limbaugh.
While Limbaugh has considerable influence within his audience he can’t force a station to run his program. Even Ed Schultz in his leftist demented brain knows this. In his rant Ed says if he owned a station he would never let Rush on. I guess you believe Ed is wrong. It is also obvious by the rest of Schultz’s rant, Schultz means own in the sense of have or hold as property.
It is true that Rush cannot force the stations to accept the giant bags of money from advertisers. So I guess he does not have complete dominance over them.
Shocking. A leftist wants to use government to force something on the public it doesn’t want? (In this case his obnoxious radio blather.)
“It is true that Rush cannot force the stations to accept the giant bags of money from advertisers. So I guess he does not have complete dominance over them.”
Ed Schultz says he would not let Rush on any station if he owned one. But hey Ed admits he wants more socialism. I gotta give the guy credit for honesty.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by DelawarePolitics.net. DelawarePolitics.net said: Liberal Radio Host wants Socialism for Radio: Radio Socialist Schultz Liberal Radio host Ed Schultz, a guy most pe… http://bit.ly/cOUit4 [...]
Just so you understand how it works. Who says what on radio has more to do with who owns the station than anything else. In the case of Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Beck, Mr. Hannity, I believe they are paid by Clear Channel subsidiary Premier Radio. CC owns the lions share of radio in the USA. Clear Channel was purchased by Bain Capital a company founded by Mitt Romney. The current CEO of Clear Channel is a former Israeli with dual citizenship. There are no liberal commentators on Clear Channel. Just as their are no liberals on Fox. You will not be hearing much dissent to Israeli policy on Clear Channel. Like all broadcasters right and left CC has an agenda.
A side note: After awarding Mr. Limbaugh the most lucrative contract in talk radio history they laid of 1800 employees to cut costs. But hey, what could be a more fitting way to come up with millions for the top dog conservative in the Nation?
When you listen to what music is played on radio, we may think that is the “most popular”, but in reality it’s actually the music they pick to “make” the most popular. Sort of a chicken and egg scenario. That’s why record companies pay payola. It’s not how good you are, it who you know. Limbaugh is great entertainment no doubt, but Clear Channel could replace him with Schultz tomorrow and hype Schultz into the number one spot. After all, turn your am radio dial – CC is the only game in town.
That is all well and good, but don’t make it sound like Fox or talk radio is some expression of free markets. The owners have agendas. MSNBC has an agenda to be the liberal answer to Fox. Fox is founded as the Republican Party network. That is why a Republican media guru is the founding chairman of Fox News. All good. Nothing to do with what people want. More like what people get.
It was not alway like this. Just as we deregulated banks we did the same in many respects for media. To avoid totalitarian Orwell monopoly control of media in the USA the FCC used to limit how many and how much one corporation could own. That was changed. Now instead of thousands of radio talk hosts the nation listens to just a dozen of syndicated voices. Personally I think that is bad for the national mental health.
As a Republican I think it is nuts that a talk radio entertainer is the de facto leader of our Party. That is new. This is a symptom of Orwellian times. Sadly, they don’t care if it kills us at the polls, as long as the advertising dollars keep rolling in. There is money to be made being right wing. To hell with America.
And you fall for it. You get sucked in. Like falling for professional wrestling. Chest pumping blowhards tossing chairs and spitting insults are now the political superstar celebrities of the GOP. El Rushbo is against health insurance for everybody. Long live El Rushbo.
All the Fairness Doctrine ever said was mainly: If you have a license to broadcast nationwide during elections – if you provide time for one political party you must provide equal time to the other.
Would you really want to live in a USA where clever business people from one party or the other managed to buy up all the TV and radio stations and put them to use for one party propaganda? This is something we need to watch. The airwaves are “public”. We all own them.
New? Who were leading voices of the GOP in the early days? Horace Greenly, W. Lloyd Garrison, Fredrick Douglas–Newspaper men. Didn’t one become the party nominee against FDR? Didn’t Jesse Helms the TV commentator end up taking over the GOP in NC, get elected to the Senate and become the de facto Kingmaker who helped Reagan become the leader De Jure of the party?
Yeah well you have a point. But having Rush Limbaugh as the de facto leader of the GOP does not sit well with me. I like Ike.
[...] admits that he wants socialism for Radio under the guise of the misnamed Fairness Doctrine …Read More… Cancel [...]
By the way, for most of those radio stations Rush is their major revenue stream so “own” is a perfectly appropriate colloquial way to describe Rush’s relationship with those stations.…anon, anon, anon…
You are so full of crap. He doesn’t OWN the stations- period.
Shultz enjoys the same popularity as ‘Air America.’ His obsession with Limbaugh is fueled by that ubiquitous trait shared by most leftists; jealousy.
“Yeah well you have a point. But having Rush Limbaugh as the de facto leader of the GOP does not sit well with me. I like Ike.”
I like Ike as well. Let’s see Ike was:
1. Pro Life.
2. Pro National Defense
3. Favored reduced spending
4. Favored lower taxes
5. Kept alliances firm with other Democracies such as Great Britain (unlike Obama)
Yes I would definitely vote for Ike and work for him. Ike’s policies would definitely put him right up there with Ronald Reagan who I also would support.
Stephen Ambrose had made the case that Ike is the most underrated president of the 20th century and I agree. Moderate Republicans who claim him as one of their own don’t help his case.