Ellison: Censorship Is Good!
By Mitch Berg
Keith Ellison (F – MN CD5) speaking at the “Media Reform” conference last week in Minneapolis: “We need a strong, diverse media”. “The problem is, you don’t have enough actors out there making sure the people know what’s going on…if[the people] get a diverse diet of news, they’ll make the right decision!”
Wow. Sounds like a good start, huh? And it’d seem like he’s gotten his wish! In a media market where anyone can set up their own outlet, where 2,000 radio stations carry talk radio, where scads of community newspapers and small radio stations (like Minneapolis’ KFAI) carry a dizzying variety of viewpoints, we sure must have that “diverse diet”.
Sadly, it was not to be. Ellison tacitly called for the censorship of talk radio (the word seems to have gone out to to lefty minions refer to it as “hate radio” at every turn), a shutdown of Fox News, and – most incredibly of all – government subsidy of traditional, lefty-friendly newspapers (9:33 in this video).
Oh, yeah – and listen to the bit at 3:30 and tell me the whole “Media Reform” conference wasn’t a partisan Nuremberg rally.
Other howlers:
- Conservative “Think tanks” have “studios” from whence they “pump out our message” to “our media people” via “hate radio?”
- Ellison calls for speech rationing (4:30)
- claimed that Reagan raised taxes (5:40)
- claims America is an “imperial power” (7:24)
- says illegal immigration isn’t the problem – merely “trade agreements that turn people against each other!” (13:00)
Watch the whole thing. For extra laughs, check out the crowd; as Scott Johnson notes, “Note the tepid audience response to Ellison’s inquiry at 8:00 regarding the employment status of the assembled multitude.”
Even George Soros can’t employ every leftymedia shill.
(Via Lassie and Charles)
June 8th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Keith X says that Ronald Reagan made him sick. Keith says we need to eliminate the opposition press. Based on the links on BH Obama’s web site this week, I would like to ask Keith what he thinks about “the Jewish lobby”.
June 8th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Mitch spews, “Ellison calls for speech rationing” – how’s that?
Ellison, as far as I know, doesn’t in any way prevent anyone from buying airtime via adverstisement. He doesn’t require that any point of view only get 4 hours on a particular radio station. What he, and others, call for, is returning PUBLIC airwaves to a sense of balance. If radio stations desire to advocate for a position by putting one point of view on the air, then good public policy suggests they owe the other view a fair shake, you know “fair and balanced” – like you want to claim for ID. You claim ANY dissent means controversy – so then, let’s give each point of view an airing. Any person can buy whatever amount of air time they desire, it just means that airwaves which are owned by ALL of us, can’t be exclusively dominated by a tiny minority at the interest and behest of those operating radio waves. If you want 100 or 100,000 hours, you can get it – you just have to understand that you can own more than a certain percentage of any one radio station’s air time. That’s not rationing, it’s giving a fair share to different views, and a fair share to a LARGE percentage of americans who happen to not agree with Rush Gasbag.
June 8th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Hmm, the video is not longer available.
They are being uploaded on YouTube under the username “videofreepress,” so check and see if they’ll re-upload it.
June 8th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
BTW – he doesn’t require that a particular view get only 4 hours.. they could get 50 if they want, as long as their timeslice isn’t so large that other views cannot possibly get a fair share. Your hyperbole is both wrong, and stated (as usual) in a way intended to deceive, to be dishonest about what you truly understand. You know full well Ellison isn’t issuing ration cards for time – he’s suggesting that the near total dominance of conservative talk radio on our public airwaves is unhealthy, overtly partisan, and counter to the idea of “public” airwaves. I get that you think getting only HALF the time would be unfair, you want TOTAL control – but it’s not only bad for the country, it’s truly unfair. The only argument is dollars – hate radio DOES indeed sell – but sometimes we should not do something, even if it makes money – creating a hate-filled polemic nation is one of those things.
June 8th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
hate radio DOES indeed sell
Which explains why Air America was such a HUGE success. A more hateful and childish experiment in radio would be tough to meet, yet AA couldn’t sell their product for shit. Peev FAILs again, as usual.
Or, to put it another way. . .
Peev strives to in every way FAIL
And to do so in minute detail
Read his blog comment trolling?
Hell, I’d rather watch bowling.
Or read “War and Peace” penned in braille.
June 8th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
“hate radio DOES indeed sell” then why does Air America fail in every market it tries?
Peev, it’s a free market, producers put programs on that make them money. For whatever reason people will listen to conservative view points while they won’t listen to liberal radio.
Also there are newspapers(mostly liberal), television (mostly liberal), and the internet (mixed, you can find what you want) to get your information and opinions. My only objection to any of this is that tax dollars are spent via PBS and NPR mostly promoting opinions I do not share.
Finally what part of “Congress shall pass no law” is difficult to understand?
June 8th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
“Hate radio”. Good God for dumb. There are NO PEOPLE more full of hate than leftists.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Peev,
For someone who a week ago was quibbling (wrongly) about Scott Johnson’s ability to read a simple state statute, you really seem to have no problem shooting off your mouth about stuff you are pretty obviously unclear on.
Mitch spews, “Ellison calls for speech rationing” – how’s that?
Ellison, as far as I know, doesn’t in any way prevent anyone from buying airtime via adverstisement.
He called for further campaign “finance reform”, which does exactly that.
He doesn’t require that any point of view only get 4 hours on a particular radio station. What he, and others, call for, is returning PUBLIC airwaves to a sense of balance.
Without specifying what the “imbalance” is.
When the media market provides an avalanche of points of view that’d have been unheard of 20 years ago, there is no need for the government to do anything.
If radio stations desire to advocate for a position by putting one point of view on the air, then good public policy suggests they owe the other view a fair shake, you know “fair and balanced” – like you want to claim for ID.
That is terrible public policy, and is censorship in any case.
You claim ANY dissent means controversy – so then, let’s give each point of view an airing.
Bullpucks, Peev. Every point of view – dozens, hundreds of them – get aired as it is.
Ellison doesn’t care about “diverse points of view” – he wants to shut down talk radio. That is all.
Any person can buy whatever amount of air time they desire
And with that statement, you have just shown you have no idea – zero – how broadcasting works. Trying to have a discussion about broadcasting economics with someone who doesn’t understand even the most elementary facts about the business model is totally fruitless.
it just means that airwaves which are owned by ALL of us, can’t be exclusively dominated by a tiny minority at the interest and behest of those operating radio waves
It is quite clearly not a tiny minority, since it has become a huge, immensely successful business. On the right. It’s been a failure on the left.
. If you want 100 or 100,000 hours, you can get it – you just have to understand that you can own more than a certain percentage of any one radio station’s air time.
Again, your ignorance of the business and complete lack of historical perspective make this a completely hopeless discussion.
When stations have to try to balance ideologies (absent any market imperative to do so), the vast majority will do what they did before 1988; avoid “controversial” talk altogether.
And you either know that (as Ellison damn sure does) and are being disingenuous in your support for silencing right-wing voices, or you are too ignorant to pay any attention to.
That’s not rationing, it’s giving a fair share to different views, and a fair share to a LARGE percentage of americans who happen to not agree with Rush Gasbag.
If there are so many of them, when why is Ed Schultz (a genuine hateful gasbag, unlike Limbaugh, by the way) the only successful lefty offering in the talk market? Why did Air America and Nova M and Jim Hightower and Mario Cuomo die horrible deaths in the market?
That “LARGE” percentage, right?
Your hyperbole is both wrong, and stated (as usual) in a way intended to deceive, to be dishonest about what you truly understand.
No, Peevish, as usual – especially on this topic – you are operating from half-true talking points. Like most armchair experts in this field, you furrow your brow and make statements that, to the ignorant, might sound informed. For those of us who’ve been in the trenches, during AND after the repeal of the
Fairnesscensorship doctrine – well, we know better.You know full well Ellison isn’t issuing ration cards for time
Strawman.
– he’s suggesting that the near total dominance of conservative talk radio on our public airwaves is unhealthy, overtly partisan, and counter to the idea of “public” airwaves.
And it’s bullshit!
Oh, Peev? When are you going to cop to the fact that you used an anonymous sockpuppet identity to “report” on another of your anonymous sockpuppet identities, as if you were writing about a third party? While “blogging ethics” is a pretty nebulous if not comical area, that would be a big breach of whatever of such that do exist.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Reagan did raise taxes, a lot:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp
“In 1982 . . . The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.
In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. . . .
In 1984, Reagan signed . . the Deficit Reduction Act [which] raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP.
The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more. . .
According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today’s economy.”
June 9th, 2008 at 2:01 am
. . . there are newspapers(mostly liberal), television (mostly liberal)
Make that overwhelmingly liberal. I’m no John McCain fan, but you’d think the fact that both ‘highly qualified’ dem contenders for their party’s nomination had, together, a little more than 2/3 the years in elective office that McCain has would be a bigger story.
Hillary’s first election was in 2000. She got the nomination by virtue of her marriage to Bill Clinton. She got 55% percent of the vote. Her GOP opponent was a little-known congressman. Barak Hussein Obama was first elected in ’98 from a heavily democratic Chicago district. He won his senate seat running against a carpet-bagging Alan Keyes.
If either Clinton or Obama was a Republican, the story of the ‘lightweight’ GOP candidate would be a staple of broadcast news.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Mitch wrote:
[Ellison] claimed that Reagan raised taxes (5:40)
RickDFL opined:
Reagan did raise taxes, a lot:
But the National Review article RickDFl cites also says:
The record of the Reagan era on taxes is mixed. Marginal income tax rates were dramatically reduced and indexed to inflation. On the other hand many tax deductions used by the middle & working classes were eliminated or reduced.
Federal government receipts as a percentage of GDP have been remarkably flat since about 1950 (as can be seen here:http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy02/hist.html).
June 9th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Rick
This comes up every time the Reagan tax legacy comes up. It’s true and a bit of a strawman.
Yep. He compromised with the Democrat congress and jacked up taxes to get some other legislation passed.
It was, however, a tiny fraction of the cuts he instituted earlier in his administration.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:05 am
It was, however, a tiny fraction of the cuts he instituted earlier in his administration.
It would be interesting to see whether net tax burden during Reagan administration went up or down. Anybody has the figures on the ready? I’m too lazy to look them up, sorry. 😉
June 9th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Shorter Peev\leftover\penema\whatever he’s calling himself today: “There is no rationing….everyone gets the same slice of the pie.
Those that can read and write the English language might remember that according to any English dictionary he has just defined rationing:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rationing
“the act of distributing by allotting or apportioning; distribution according to a plan”
But let’s not tell him (them) today. Watching moonbats splash in their kool-aid is an excellent way to start any week.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:48 am
“It would be interesting to see whether net tax burden during Reagan administration went up or down.”
Federal revenues as a percentage of GDP went down slightly from 18.9% in 1980 to 18.1% in 1988. Reagan’s eight years seem to stand out for the relative lack of fluctuation in this number. Of course the Federal budget deficit went up as a percentage of GDP too, so much of the decrease was illusory.
http://www.cbpp.org/10-21-03tax.htm
June 9th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I wrote an earlier response to RickDFL’s ‘Reagan raised taxes’ meme but it seems to have gotten lost in the machinery of SITD. Short version:
-The author of the NR article RickDFL quotes from believes the while the tax cuts oiginated with Reagan, the tax icreases of the Reagan era originated with congress.
-The percentage of GDP consumed by the government has been remarkably steady since about 1950.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I got a bit of time and did some searching, but 90% of all hits on al-Google were from lefty websites crying “gotcha” over the fact that common knowledge that revenues after Reagan tax cuts doubled was wrong, because they actually were only 99.6%.
Way too much chaff to sift through to find the wheat.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
And there’s my comment. With an unclosed tag.
June 9th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Fixed. I’ll probably get banned for this. ‘Affecting the content of other people’s comments’.
June 9th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Federal revenues as a percentage of GDP went down slightly from 18.9% in 1980 to 18.1% in 1988.
Because the GDP went up. For many of us, the first and foremost goal isn’t necessarily to see to it that government gets fed first, in any case.
Of course the Federal budget deficit went up as a percentage of GDP too, so much of the decrease was illusory.
Except that many economists – among them John Lindeman at Heritage – note that the “Peace Dividend” that was a direct product of the single greatest consumer of Reagan’s spending (defense) and the boom of the ’90s that was its direct result, more than paid for the costs of the Reagan deficit.
June 9th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I’m not an economist, but if I was an economist I think it would be great to look at state GDP’s vs taxes & spending since the 1980’s. State governments can’t print money like the fed can; if they want to spend money they don’t have they can only borrow it from existing sources.
Then, too, there’s the state & local politician’s trick of promising future benefits to public employees to secure their vote now while paying for it with future tax receipts. Hawaii did this a lot. Retired civil servants who hired before 1980-something get lifetime free health insurance for them & their spouse. State & county jobs here tend to be sinecures.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Mitch:
“Because the GDP went up.” No. A rise in total GDP necessarily will not reduce the % going towards Fed revenue. As GDP goes up, so do profits, incomes, and imports all of which will increase total Fed revenue. Generally, Fed revenue would rise at the same level as GDP, keeping the % constant.
Whether Reagan’s deficits were good for the country in the long term, it does not change the fact that the % of GDP taken by Federal revenues went down, in large part, because the % of GDP going to the Federal debt went up.
June 9th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Sorry, first line should be ‘will not necessarily’. Damm cut and paste.
June 9th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I can’t help but think you are playing a game of 3 card monte here, RickDFL.
After many ups and down (mostly up) the percentage of GDP that’s used to pay interest on the national debt is about the same now as it was in 1970. National debt as a percentage of GDP spiked at the end of WW2 has never reached those heights yet.
June 9th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
“I can’t help but think you are playing a game of 3 card monte here, RickDFL.”
Why? Say you cut taxes 100 billion, but borrow an additional 200 billion and spend the extra 100 billion. If you just look at Fed revenue as % of GDP, it looks like you have reduced the size of the government, but by any real measure you have increased it by a 100 billion.
There may be perfectly good reasons for any combination of raising or lowering taxes, borrowing, or spending but you have to look at all three to accurately measure what is happening to the ‘size’ of the government. Overall, Reagan lowered taxes, but he did so at the cost of increased borrowing.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
‘3 card monte’ as in your statement that ‘Reagan raised taxes’, then demonstrated by self to be foundationless (at least when using this source as a citation) since in the full source of your quote the author says that he does not believe that the raised taxes were initiated by Reagan. Hence your switch to talk of deficits rather than defending your premise that Reagan raised taxes. ‘Keep your eyes on the lady, son’, in this case ‘the lady’ being Reagan’s inability to . . . what? Lower taxes? Control deficit spending?