Don't read more into something than there is.
On the other hand that's where the fun often is.
If I described to you the Roman Games would you jump on me for condoning them? Of course you wouldn't. Similarly, when I describe the talk show situation, I'm telling it like I think it is. Doesn't mean I approve, or disapprove.
Yesterday, I intended to check Donahue's replacement, but spent too much time at the library. On the way home I turned on Savage. My only impression is that he didn't say anything - but he said nothing rather nastily. I then discovered he was part of a conservative network - I forget the name.
Prager, Medwin and Hewitt - and certainly others - are on another conservative network. So, you should know things are worse than you think. There are two competing conservative networks on top of Rush Limbaugh's stuff. Maybe he's on a network, too.
The trouble with the "fairness doctrine" is that it places the government in the position of telling people what they must listen to. The reason that conservatives own the talk-show circuit is because more people listen to them than to liberals. Liberals lose audiences for the stations.
As I suppose happened to Donahue's Show, so he had to go.
I didn't argue a case. It was merely a recital of events. I would however argue (once the stiletto is in - give it a twist) that the "fairness doctrine" is simply a nice description of something unfair.
Actually, if you were radical rather than a weak American Liberal (twist, twist, twist) you would demand for the people the ownership of the electromagnetic spectrum - a natural resource that has been granted to individuals - mostly by political favoritism. (One notes that as a federal employee, LBJ couldn't own a TV station. However, Lady Bird could - so she got a piece of paper that she could instantly sell for perhaps $15 million dollars.
However, the Johnsons probably still own the increasingly valuable TV Channel, for it's value is drawn from the surrounding population. More people mean more value. The license would increase in value even though she never used it.
I use radical in the sense of "going to the root" - something we appear to have forgotten how to do. We get tied into examining the effects of basic causes, which not only is a failing endeavor, but it obscures the causes and they are never approached.
Which is why we our economies remain so hopeless, but it does provide an opportunity to quote Thoreau - perhaps his best known piece of wisdom"
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."
You had better become a radical, Ray, before it's too late.
Harry --------------------------------------------------
Ray Harrell wrote:
Harry,
Just because you can explain it doesn't make it right. I long for the good old days of the fairness doctrine. There are SOO many reasons for something being popular. Remember how popular the Coliseum was? There were more people murdered in the Coliseum than by Hitler and Stalin combined. And in a time of much lower population figures. I guess you could argue for any kind of support of conquering murderers as giving the people what they wanted. That was certainly the reason for the yellow journalism that murdered Indian men, women and children in the 19th century. It was more popular to send those Cherokees to Oklahoma, steal their farms, businesses, censor their newspaper, ban their written language, ban their religion, and eventually end up sterilizing their women without their knowledge up until 1978. Because it was popular.
Harry that argument is immoral and undemocratic and you should be ashamed of yourself. I expected more.
REH --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Ray, > > The trouble with Novak (from his remark) is that it sells. The trouble that > inflicted poor old Phil is that he didn't sell. In fact the reason that > right-wing people dominate the radio talk shows is that they achieve > ratings. People like to listen to them. > > I should have seen this was happening a long time ago. I listened regularly > to Michael Jackson, a former Englishman, who held the morning spot on our > ABC station for about 30 years. > > Michael was an American liberal. He knew everyone in politics, everyone > from the international scene and, most important, everyone in the arts - > particularly the Hollywood crowd.. He is married to the daughter of Alan Ladd. > > He also came in early and read all the papers before going on the air. > > Obviously such an urbane, sophisticated, experienced radio talk show host > will survive for ever. Yet, he was fired. More people were listening to the > loud mouths than to Michael. Perhaps more importantly his liberalism > possibly seemed more dated that his competition. > > He was replaced by Dennis Prager - a conservative who also exhibited > similar traits to Michael. He is a scholar, a writer of a number of books, > fun to listen to - someone who is as likely to launch into a deep > discussion of religion as anything else. He held the spot for some time, > then was knocked out by more active hosts. > > Prager now has a national show on what appears to be a conservative network > with people like Michael Medwin and Hugh Hewitt. He is still often > interesting, but is maybe a smidgen louder than he used to be. > > I know little of Savage. Occasionally, my son gets him on car radio, but I > haven't really listened to him. I don't recall anything he's said, but he > seems to have a pushy, intrusive voice. > > I wonder if they'll run him on delay so they can bleep out what can't be > allowed to reach sensitive American ears? Back in the 50's, in the Toronto > CBC studios their delay method wasn't electronic. They had an endless tape > running around several posts to provide the delay. One evening the tape > broke and the host had to decide quickly - replace me with music, or go > ahead. He decided to go ahead. > > I thought at the time that was a compliment. On reflection, it was probably > that anything I said would be so innocuous so the delay didn't matter. (As > radio and television were changing back in those days, a lot of programs > seemed to run on (Rube Goldberg - US) (Heath Robinson - UK) hook-ups. > > Towards his demise, Donahue seemed to have some better programming - but > it apparently didn't help. I didn't often agree with him - but it's a > shame he's gone. > > I don't think that priests are necessarily paedophiles. Rather, I would > suspect that kids are merely targets of opportunity. They are what's available. > > Would Karen, Selma, Sally, et al, kindly avert their eyes for the next two > paragraphs - which may be said to be sexually explicit. > > My assumption for male sexually is derived from an old saw. It is: > > "All a man needs is a hole in the wall." > > This may be the reason for priestly misbehavior with children. If adults > had provided the opportunities, they might be chosen. But, sadly, it is the > kids with whom the failed priest might have most intimate contact. > > The assumption is born out in prisons and other venues without women. The > prisoners aren't (necessarily) homosexual. They are looking for something > better than a hole in the wall. The same may be said of some (or many) > "homosexuals". > > If they are afraid of women, or whatever, they may turn to men. This is not > to deny actual homosexuality. We seem to be a mixture of male and female > characteristics. That the mixture may veer in either direction seems normal. > > So, the sad priest caught up in this situation may yield to temptation. It > is wrong, but I'm not convinced it does irretrievable damage to the kid. In > fact, the bottomless coffers of the Catholic Church may provide temptation > in reverse. > > But, harm to a child rasps our sensibilities and wrinkles our nose in > disgust. This doesn't make such things easy to think about. > > Harry
****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 2/25/2003
