CBS Fires Batiste For Anti-Bush Advocacy, Hires Bush Aide To Engage In Pro-Bush Advocacy
CBS Fires Batiste For Anti-Bush Advocacy, Hires Bush Aide To Engage In Pro-Bush Advocacy
In a recent VoteVets ad, Gen. John Batiste says, “I left the Army in protest in order to speak out.” Now, CBS has punished him for speaking out. Last night, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann reported, “General John Batiste loses his CBS job after appearing in an advertisement critical of the president.”
CBS News spokeswoman Sandy Genelius spoke to ThinkProgress this morning and confirmed that Batiste’s consulting contract has been canceled due to his participation in the VoteVets ad. Genelius said Batiste “inadvertently violated our standards” and therefore “we and the General mutually agreed to end his consultants’ arrangement with CBS News.”
When asked what standards Batiste violated, Genelius said he participated in “advocacy,” but noted that she had not seen the ad to verify the charge. Batiste’s only “advocacy” in the ad might be found in this statement: “Mr. President, you have placed our nation in peril. Our only hope is that Congress will act now to protect our fighting men and women.” Watch the ad:
While CBS claims it will not tolerate consultants engaging in outside advocacy, it apparently has no problem paying a former White House communications director to engage in the Bush administration’s advocacy on air. While being billed as CBS News’ “political consultant,” Nicolle Wallace has propagated talking points advanced by her old colleagues in the White House communications office. Some examples:
“The Democrats have to walk a fine line and be careful. People don’t want to turn on the TV and see every story being about the obstruction of people trying to do things.” [Washington Post, 3/7/07]
“Well, you know, people ask me all the time, ‘Do they [in the White House] get it? Do they get how bad things are?’ And the answer is yes.” [CBS Evening News, 12/12/06]
At the end of the day, no matter how discontent some voters are, they really don’t want to see Democrats in control of the Congress. [CBS Evening News, 10/23/06]
It’s apparently only advocacy when you’re opposing Bush. Americans United notes that it took two weeks for CBS to fire Don Imus for racial slurs, but two days to fire Batiste for speaking up on Iraq.
You can send a message to CBS here.
UPDATE: Greg Sargent notes that CBS has allowed escalation advocate Michael O’Hanlon to remain on its payroll.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
98 Responses to “CBS Fires Batiste For Anti-Bush Advocacy, Hires Bush Aide To Engage In Pro-Bush Advocacy”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
So much for the “liberal media”.
May 11th, 2007 at 12:56 pmOT but another example if your iiliberal media. john solomon is up to his regular tricks at the ComPost.
May 11th, 2007 at 12:57 pmAnd you expected what from the Corporate BullShit Station?
May 11th, 2007 at 12:58 pmno, not free speech!!! this “news” organization would never want different opinions than what the government has, now would it??
he must hate america for supporting this war. that’s what the other neo-con mouthpieces have been saying for years. if you oppose bush, if you oppose war, you hate america, you’re a terrorist, you’re a communist, you should be silenced or jailed.
But, the reality is this - it’s the politicians, and media outlets like CBS who hate what this country stands for - liberty - and the free speech as codified in the 1st amendment.
Some further reading:
“The America-Haters Strike Again”
May 11th, 2007 at 1:01 pmhttp://www.populistamerica.com/ the_america_haters_strike_again
Who watches CBS news anyway? I respect the Gen. for standing by what he believes in.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:02 pmThey know which side of their Franklin is printed……er I mean bread is buttered.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:03 pmI can’t remind now what troll claimed some days ago that CBS is one of the “left leaning” media outlets… But probably he’ll stand for his words, isn’t?
May 11th, 2007 at 1:05 pmCorporate Brainwash Syndicate … wheeeee
May 11th, 2007 at 1:06 pmPravda, Tabarish. Eta Amerikan Pravda.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:07 pmSo much for the trolls argument calling for an unbiased opinion.
Be sure to write CBS and let them know that you will no longer be watching their shows or giving money to their sponsors.
But, more importantly, let the sponsors know that too.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:08 pmRestore the Fairness Doctrine!
May 11th, 2007 at 1:09 pmHave you wondered who the top ten media conglomerates are and who owns them? Liberal? HA!!!!!! These are conservative zealots.
http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html
News Corp, Liberty, AOL, Viacom, Vivendi, Bertelsmann etc.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:10 pmRemember that CBS also fired Bill Maher, when he spoke out against the lies leading into the Iraq War,on his “Politically Incorrect” show. It was his job to provide political opinions.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:10 pmCBS has a history of this kind of crap.
“At the end of the day, no matter how discontent some voters are, they really don’t want to see Democrats in control of the Congress. [CBS Evening News, 10/23/06]”
HILARIOUS! (or should I say, “remarkable!”) Wallace should be fired simply for being so stupid.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:13 pmJust sent a short and sweet note~~
What a pitiful excuse for a news resource!! I will avoid watching CBS’ obviously GOP-tainted newscasts. Worthless and spineless!! Recognize that BushCo are a bunch of bullies…is CBS the playground wimp?!
May 11th, 2007 at 1:14 pmLet’s boycott CBS…along with the rest of America because seriously, what does CBS show worth watching?
May 11th, 2007 at 1:16 pmCBS = Fox affiliate
May 11th, 2007 at 1:18 pmRemember that CBS also fired Bill Maher, when he spoke out against the lies leading into the Iraq War,on his “Politically Incorrect†show. It was his job to provide political opinions.
CBS has a history of this kind of crap.
Comment by Wayne — May 11, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
ABC cancelled Politically Incorrect. CBS cancelled The Smothers Brothers, but that was a while ago.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:20 pmWhy does CBS hate our soldiers?
May 11th, 2007 at 1:21 pmHow the mighty CBS News has fallen. From Edward R Murrow to this pathetic excuse for a news operation. Katie Couric and Nicole Wallace. Murrow and Sevareid are spinning in their graves. I was raised on Cronkite, Sevareid, even Rather in the early 1970’s when he spoke truth to Nixon’s power. I don’t even turn to CBS News any longer, it is a total waste of time. Pathetic.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:21 pmThis is what you should show on TV
America the Baby killers
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c9d_1178729541
May 11th, 2007 at 1:21 pm#13, Wayne
Actually, it was ABC that fired Maher in 2002, not CBS.
http://archives.cnn.com/ 2002/ SHOWBIZ/ TV/ 05/ 14/ television.kimmel/ index.html
I guess that clinically tested IQ of 167, semi-photographic memory, and 80% retention rate of everything you read kinda let ya down there, didn’t it, buddy?
May 11th, 2007 at 1:22 pmThis action by CBS doesn’t surprise me. The media has become afraid of Republican attack style politics and has given in to the rightwing nuts. Why CBS would go against a hero is beyond me. This new lap dog probably never served a day in uniform but has the nerve to attack a highly decorated General. General Batiste is my hero and nothing a bunch of cowards say is going to change that fact.
I served 11 years in the US Military and I knew when they put Tommy Franks in charge he’d screw things up. I served with General Franks in Germany many many years ag and he was known as a screw up then and he didn’t change over time. For long time veterans like myself we get to know what makes a good General and a lot of the Generals who serve now aren’t that good. Any General who is afraid to stand up for what he believes doesn’t deserve to command men in combat. If you doubt what I’m saying look and Generals like Patton and McArthur. They didn’t just take orders and march off without a plan to win. They stood up for what was right and their men regardless of what civilain leaders thought or said. As any one who rememebers history knows General Patton was always in trouble for being abrasive to his men, but they loved him because he like McArthur was a Generals General.
These guys like Franks, Pace, Abrazaid, Casey and peace time political Generals who just happened to get promoted for most butt kissing. They couldn’t hold Patton, McArthur, or Omar Bradley’s jock strap. The last great General we had was Stormin Norman Swartskaft. That guy was a throw back General who knew what he was doing and got the job done quick. You didn’t see him making excuses why he couldn’t win a war against a third rate tin horn dictator and a rage tag grow of terrorists. If these fools in Washington had called Stormin Norman out of retirement, we’d be home having parades rather than slowly counting body bags. I young man from my state, Michigan, just died yesterday in Iraq, and I can only wonder why? He had only been there three months and got killed. That my friends is the pattern, young rookies get it because they haven’t hand time to learn how not to die.
When I went to Infantry School I was taught not to die for my country, but to make the enemy die for his. I have carried that thought with he the rest of my life. When I heard some dumb politician saying, “He died for his country”, I can only wonder, why. Unlike civilians we Infantrymen know it’s not a good thing to die for your country. Think about it, why would you want to die for your country. So you guys don’t get the wrong idea, I’d fight for American right now, but I wouldn’t want to die for my country. I would try to follow what I was taught and make them die for their country for cause.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:25 pmI think Imus has a home-run civil case against CBS.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:26 pmI guess that clinically tested IQ of 167, semi-photographic memory, and 80% retention rate of everything you read kinda let ya down there, didn’t it, buddy?
Comment by Exley — May 11, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
That’s right Exley, if you don’t have anything nasty to say don’t say anything at all.
Can you answer why George Bush has not attended the funeral of even one dead soldier? By does the president hate the military?
May 11th, 2007 at 1:29 pmWhy does CBS hate our troops.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:29 pmI’d boycott CBS but I stopped watching them when little katie gave the 3 hour hatemonger her first free speech segment. They are warmongering filth and quite proud of it.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:29 pmABC cancelled Politically Incorrect. CBS cancelled The Smothers Brothers, but that was a while ago.
Comment by Shane
Doh !! I stand corrected, Politically Incorrect was on abc, and they were the ones who fired him.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:29 pmCBS was going to have him do an Andy Rooney type commentary, but wanted to control the direction of his comments, so that deal broke down. Different deal.
See the BS? Smell the BS? cBS. Ah, the fascist corporate media is still happily goose-stepping right along with the bush crime family… Even the so-called ‘groovy’ web sites such as Yahoo and Google still publish corporate propaganda on their little “news headlines.”
Benchmarks for the puppet Vichy regime in Iraq? Just total BS. That’s why the Royal Bush is willing to “consider” such things in any occupation funding bill.
Get the US out of Iraq now, not six months from now, not six years from now, not sixteen years from now.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:31 pmConduct unbecoming of a soldier - stupid f!!king yanks & brits
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=298_1178643873
May 11th, 2007 at 1:31 pm#23 Perhaps you should ask auntie valiant about that. She’s a LAWYER ya know.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:32 pmbernie goldberg must be creaming his shorts
May 11th, 2007 at 1:32 pmI think Imus has a home-run civil case against CBS.
Comment by Joe
In the state of Texas they can fire you at any time for no reason given. Just go. Imus stop your whining and get another job. Jeebus.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:33 pmSo why are people still supporting the war?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fe1_1177436496
JAKE, PATRICK1 from the troops to YOU
May 11th, 2007 at 1:34 pmThanks, #30 I’ll go brillo my eyeballs now…
May 11th, 2007 at 1:34 pm#13, Wayne
Actually, it was ABC that fired Maher in 2002, not CBS.
http://archives.cnn.com/ 2002/ SHOWBIZ/ TV/ 05/ 14/ television.kimmel/ index.html
I guess that clinically tested IQ of 167, semi-photographic memory, and 80% retention rate of everything you read kinda let ya down there, didn’t it, buddy?
Comment by Exley — May 11, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Perhaps a W lackey of the first magnitude shouldn’t be lecturing others about smarts and “retention rates” huh, lil’ trooper?
May 11th, 2007 at 1:36 pmI think Imus has a home-run civil case against CBS.
Comment by Joe
Nope. he doesn’t. The American people own the airwaves - not the corporations who use them. Being a bigot and a racist are not good qualities when the US taxpayers give you a forum in which to spew your hate. While I am not a lawyer - and have not seen Imus’ contract - most contracts have clauses forbidding behavior that reflects badly on the company employing the bigot/racist. Nope imus is gone…probably to show up on Faux news - all other bigots sem to find a home there.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:36 pmComment by Exley
f*ck you a$$hole.
I have always tried to be friendly and non-insulting to you when discussing issues.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:36 pmYou have now crossed the line.
Restore the Fairness Doctrine!
Comment by Peter
And end free speech!
May 11th, 2007 at 1:37 pmHaven’t watched CBS News since the put Perky in the anchor desk. And most of their ‘entertainment’ sucks. Plus I don’t have cable, use rabbit ears and everytime something red shows up on the screen my teevee buzzes loudly.
Still - with 2/3 to 3/4 of the population opposed to the war and Bush @ 28% it seems as though the MSM would get a clue. Oh, wait, they sold their souls for the right to party with the powerful.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:38 pmBWHAHAHAH!!!
thinkprogress.org is making a huge, huge stretch claiming that the ex-Bush administration official is making outside advocacy by talking about the Bush administration during CBS’s air time and equating it to the General who made a commercial against Bush.
I would agree if the ex-administration official was doing pro-Bush commercials, but giving your opinion is NOT making outside advocacy.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:39 pmthinkprogress.org is making a huge, huge stretch claiming that the ex-Bush administration official is making outside advocacy by talking about the Bush administration during CBS’s air time and equating it to the General who made a commercial against Bush.
I would agree if the ex-administration official was doing pro-Bush commercials, but giving your opinion is NOT making outside advocacy.
Comment by valiantthehater
Excellent point.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:42 pmShame on you. CBS, for silencing General Batiste int he first place, and for replacing him with a a mouthpiece of the Bush regime, thereby adding insult to injury. If you don’t start reporting from a position of neutrality, instead of slavishly spreading propaganda for the illegal “war” in Iraq, you can expect your ratings to fall faster and farther than you can imagine. The American people are fed up with lies and want news. BTW, I am now BOYCOTTING all your shows, and your advertisers, as you have shown yourselves to be traitors. It is not too late for you to see the light, switch sides, and actually do some reporting, but I am not holding my breath.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:44 pmJesus would be proud of the good general. CBS is still too scared to speak out.
The Generals are speaking now Bush. It would behoove you to listen.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:44 pm#36,
Oh relax, Wayne. It was meant to be a joke. I have been mocked for my perceived (well…maybe more than just “perceived”) arrogance here many many times, and I have always taken it good-naturedly…I was just trying to do the same thing…Like I said, it was just meant to be a joke. Didn’t mean to offend. I apologize.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:45 pmComment by valiantthehater
Comment by John M
You have NO credibility. Why do you even bother posting? You have been wrong to a criminal degree.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:47 pmPeople, people! You’re forgetting: IOKIYAR.
Therefore it’s not “advocacy” when you’re pushing the president’s talking points — it’s patriotism.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:49 pmI’ll anticipate firehead’s next post, and say:
because the General thinks that Iraq is not going well, obviously he supports terrorism and hates America.
because people who care about troops other than by posting flags on their SUVs hate America, and not people who talk about murdering, executing, or imprisoning the majority of Americans, because they disagree with criminally retarded “conservative” policies.
also, everything in the “war on terra” is exactly out of 24, and citing examples from 24 is proof positive of the superiority of conservative logic.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:49 pmRe: You can send a message to CBS here.
Done.
You can be damned sure that if Batiste appeared in a rightwing video praising Bush for the job he has done in this “war,” he’s still have his job.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:50 pmAh! The subtleties of the fascism.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:51 pmCBS endorsed Bush. Now they’re stuck with him.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:53 pmExcellent point.
Comment by John M — May 11, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
————
Heh. CBS may want to fire Wallace’s ass, too. Seems she’s not that in touch with current events after all.
Re:
At the end of the day, no matter how discontent some voters are, they really don’t want to see Democrats in control of the Congress. [CBS Evening News, 10/23/06]
Why don’t you remind us, John, who won control of Congress?
May 11th, 2007 at 1:54 pmRe post #42: Jesus would not be proud of anyone or anything.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:54 pmJesus taught that pride is a sin.
You have NO credibility. Why do you even bother posting? You have been wrong to a criminal degree.
Comment by Gerald Gibson Jr
I know that you must hate people that have different opinions than you. If only everybody was just like Gerald Gibson Jr.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:00 pmMy own take can best be summed up by my letter to CBS on their website:
quote->
The firing of Gen. Batiste is and the excuse of “advocacy” given for it is an affront to the intelligence of your viewers. Many of your “expert consultants”, have for the past five years acted as advocates consistently for the current administration’s policies. To turn on Gen. Batiste in this way gives lie to the purported “liberal bias” meme that has been touted by many of your pundits and commentators, with little question of their “advocacy”.
Please quit insulting us, your viewers. We are not stupid and can easily see through to the bias that governs your corporate policy. If the news your report can not accurately reflect the world as it truly is, we, the viewers, have other choices. Your current behavior heralds the literal though slow death of your “news” departments as more and more of us find real news available on the world wide web.
We, the consumers of news, are not only becoming more aware of alternate sources, but are rapidly becoming disgusted with the currently available “network” news sources who seem more worried about their corporate links to business and government figures than in doing actual journalism.
->endquote
It is up to each of us to inform the corporate media that they have lost credibility and will continue to loose viewers unless they return to a recognizable standard of journalistic integrity.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:02 pmKill the messanger. This one won’t stay silent.
Give em’ hell General.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:03 pmDidn’t mean to offend. I apologize.
Comment by Exley
Ok, then truce.
My apologies for my angry response.
I never claimed that I don’t make mistakes, and like at #26 if I see I did, I admit it and correct it.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:03 pmId love to hear Rather’s remarks on this subject.
It’s not hard to surf right by cbs.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:04 pmThe Liberal Mediaâ„¢ is so deceptive and dishonest by constantly trying to appear as though they were anti-Liberal…
May 11th, 2007 at 2:06 pmRestore the Fairness Doctrine!
Comment by Peter
And end free speech!
Comment by John M — May 11, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
How, by presenting both sides of the story? Yeah John M, I can see how that would end free speech but allowing both side time to present their views. Oh, you think speech should go to the highest bidder.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:09 pmWayne,
“I never claimed that I don’t make mistakes, and like at #26 if I see I did, I admit it and correct it.”
I realize that. Like I said, it was an attempt at a good-natured ribbing
May 11th, 2007 at 2:10 pm(which, obviously, failed)…I think sometimes things in print don’t come off as they are intended. Again, I didn’t mean to offend.
thinkprogress.org is making a huge, huge stretch claiming that the ex-Bush administration official is making outside advocacy by talking about the Bush administration during CBS’s air time and equating it to the General who made a commercial against Bush.
I would agree if the ex-administration official was doing pro-Bush commercials, but giving your opinion is NOT making outside advocacy.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 11, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
What difference does it make if it is an ad you were a part of where you give your opinion, or a guest on a show giving that same opinion?
So with your logic, if the General had stated the same thing but on a talk show, it would be okay? But if he records it as a commercial, it is wrong?
And, why couldn’t stating an opinion on TV in a newscast be considered “making outside advocacy”? It is being broadcast (keyword: broadcast).
May 11th, 2007 at 2:11 pmJohn M
Please explain how giving equal time to the left and to the right ends free speech.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:13 pmI think sometimes things in print don’t come off as they are intended.
Comment by Exley
That’s very true.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:15 pmThat’s right Tom, you haven’t read Imus’ contract. I’m giving my opinion from a legal standpoint, and his contract acknowledged that his commentary was “extraordinary, controversial, etc…..”
If you went to law school, you would know that Imus can’t be convicted by the court of public opinion. He may be a bigot, but it doesn’t mean that CBS couldn’t have terminated him wrongly. Has the FCC even opened any formal inquiry?
May 11th, 2007 at 2:16 pmI just sent this message:
I can’t believe you canceled Gen. John Batiste’s contract.
He spoke out, in a commercial, on behalf of a nonpartisan, single-issue, campaign about which he has vast direct experience. It is a topic he has, in fact, been paid to talk about on CBS in the past.
This is opposed to Imus who it took CBS two weeks to fire for saying, on air, racial slurs among other things.
I hope that the CBS Newsroom will fix its error in dropping Gen. Batiste, or that another station will capitalize on your error and hire him themselves.
respectfully,
May 11th, 2007 at 2:18 pma CBS new viewer in Omaha, NE in the target 20-30 yr old demographic.
Please explain how giving equal time to the left and to the right ends free speech.
Comment by AkaDad
Because it would be regulated by the government (FCC) and they would determine what was fair or not and how much time is given to each side. I don’t trust a bureaucrat to filter opinions to me. How many here would like to have President Bush nominate people to the FCC, if they are in charge of determining fairness in radio?
May 11th, 2007 at 2:22 pmthe MSM loses more credibility…..wait, what is Zero minus….
May 11th, 2007 at 2:31 pmJohn M, showing his ignorance once again.
Much like other agencies, the FCC’s fairness doctrine rules would be subject to judicial interpretation fo their constitutionality and compatibility with legislative intent. Challenges brought under the fairness doctrine would almost certainly be brought in courts, either before an administrative law judge, or a federal district court. Both sides would have a chance to present their views.
And frankly, having seen how courts operate, the Fairness Doctrine wouldn’t be enforced in a manner such that a TV station would have to show exactly 50-50 “right” “left” balance. Depending on how Congress reintroduced it, it would almost certainly be a burden on any plaintiff to show that the station was violating the Fairness Doctrine, which would pretty much just allow suits when a TV or radio station was completely one-sided.
But, like all remaining Republicans, you are either an idiot or purposely obfuscatory, so you either will ignore the facts surrounding the Fairness Doctrine, or you will not understand them. Instead, you’ll continue making an asinine, baseless, and completely ignorant claim about “free speech” and the Fairness Doctrine.
Republicans = criminally retarded.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:32 pm#64
So it won’t end free speech, you just don’t like Government enforcing equal time…
May 11th, 2007 at 2:33 pmBatiste didn’t sell his soul to Corporate Amerika . He will surely sleep well at night.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:35 pmThoroughly disgusting. We’ve unplugged all of our TV’s and recommend to anyone reading to do the same.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:38 pmMy note to CBS:
May 11th, 2007 at 2:40 pm#67,
more importantly, John M is misrepresenting (either intentionally or out of ignorance) how the Fairness Doctrine would actually work. It’s not a matter of a bureaucrat deciding how much time each side should get, and controlling programming at each TV and radio station.
It would be like all other FCC type deals. Complaints might come in. If the FCC decided there was a fairness doctrine violation, it could attempt to enforce the violation, but it would have to first convince an ALJ. Typically, for the FCC to proceed, it would need pretty strong evidence of a violation.
Also, many times these types of rules would allow for private suits to enforce the law. In that case, private citizens (say you or me watching CBS News in Los Angeles notice a strong bias: we document the fact that 300 Republicans appear in 6 months vs. 3000 Democrats, etc.) could litigate in district court. But again, the burden would be on the person making the complaint.
Like so many other Republicans, John M. is regurgitating bogus talking points.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:41 pmJohn M, showing his ignorance once again.
Much like other agencies, the FCC’s fairness doctrine rules would be subject to judicial interpretation fo their constitutionality and compatibility with legislative intent. Challenges brought under the fairness doctrine would almost certainly be brought in courts, either before an administrative law judge, or a federal district court. Both sides would have a chance to present their views.
And frankly, having seen how courts operate, the Fairness Doctrine wouldn’t be enforced in a manner such that a TV station would have to show exactly 50-50 “right†“left†balance. Depending on how Congress reintroduced it, it would almost certainly be a burden on any plaintiff to show that the station was violating the Fairness Doctrine, which would pretty much just allow suits when a TV or radio station was completely one-sided.
But, like all remaining Republicans, you are either an idiot or purposely obfuscatory, so you either will ignore the facts surrounding the Fairness Doctrine, or you will not understand them. Instead, you’ll continue making an asinine, baseless, and completely ignorant claim about “free speech†and the Fairness Doctrine.
Republicans = criminally retarded.
Comment by Jake-o-bin
You are really missing the point. If the fairness doctrine comes back in it’s new form it will essentially make stations keep anybody off the air that could come across as one-sided. Stations would not want to take the chance of being tagged by the FCC, they would not want to go through the hassle and costs of taking the issue to a court. The UnFairness doctrine would keep people from saying anything objectionable, which is the reason free speech exists.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:42 pmSo it won’t end free speech, you just don’t like Government enforcing equal time…
Comment by AkaDad
It would have the effect of ending free speech.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:43 pmCBS News is falling like a rock and they are scared to death so they are trying to be more like FOX. Personally I gave up on television news a long time ago relying on newspapaers and the internet. I can actually stomach small segments of the Today Show now that I do not run the risk of Couric asking a mother whose toddler has just been found raped and murdered how she is feeling.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:48 pm#71, you are really the one missing the point.
It will not keep anyone off the air. To make that claim indicates that you are either completely dishonest or completely ignorant about how the Fairness doctrine and the Constitution work. No one can legally be kept off the air for having too many opinions.
In practice, the way it would almost certainly work:
Local CBS Radio station has a lineup of O’Reilly, Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and a bunch of music and non-partisan programming. Citizen X complains to FCC (or sues in court, if FCC is non-responsive). FCC then investigates and sees that this radio station is completely one-sided. It then seeks some sort of relief, either monetary or injunctive (latter more likely). Radio station then has option of either airing more liberals or eliminating conservatives. But no one person has to be kicked off the air.
Alternatively, if CNN only invites Democrats onto its programs, and no Republicans, and the aggregate has a demonstrably one-sided bias, CNN can either invite more Republicans or disinvite Dems.
But to claim that “If the fairness doctrine comes back in it’s new form it will essentially make stations keep anybody off the air that could come across as one-sided” is so idiotic it could only come from a Republican. It’s just not true, it never was true when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect. And the only reason people like Rush are feeding you these baloney talking points is that they know, despite the bs, that the media leans quite demonstrably pro-Republican, and they don’t want anything challenging that bias.
Try familiarizing yourself with a topic sometime before making claims asserting you have some knowledge of it. Idiot.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:51 pm#71, I’m reading your post again, and I just really have trouble understanding how someone can be so stupid.
That is not what the Fairness Doctrine says. It simply says there needs to be balance in programming. You can’t have 1000 Republican guests and 1 Democrat. You can’t have 50 shows that are demonstrably pro-Democrat and 1 that is demonstrably pro-Republican. Any radio station that is not run by idiots could figure this out. To claim that this would in any way stifle free speech is empirically not true.
If what you were saying had any grain of truth to it, you could sue to block the Fairness Doctrine, since any law that has the purpose or effect of stifling free speech (e.g., someone’s opinion, as you dubiously and idiotically claim) is a clear violation of Amendment I.
Try not being a dumbass. It might help if you stopped listening to Rush. (Note that I am not demanding you stop listening, so I am not actually trying to stifle anyone’s free speech, I am instead expressing my own opinion that your mental retardation and complete ignorance are likely caused, in part, by the media you choose to receive).
May 11th, 2007 at 2:56 pmSpeak the truth and get shitcanned. American Facism at its best. Heil Bush!
May 11th, 2007 at 3:02 pmBoycott CBS and it’s advertisers!
May 11th, 2007 at 3:09 pma trip in the wayback machine…
Six weeks before the 2004 Presidential election Viacom’s CEO Sumner Redstone (of CBS TV) endorsed Bush on behalf of Viacom…
“From a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on.”
May 11th, 2007 at 3:21 pmIs thinkprogress.org advocating that people that are asked their opinion about President Bush’s policy and give a positive opinion should be fired?
how the hell is it the same to give your opinion on a subject when asked and to make a commercial for or against something?
thinkprogress.org and its readers can’t be this ridiculously stupid, can they?
May 11th, 2007 at 3:25 pmvaliantthehater sez:
Well, you seem to be OK with it (provided the opinion is a negative one). Why is a positive opinion OK, but not a negative one?
You’re right…it’s substantially different. In the first instance, CBS is offering itself as a platform to catapulting pro-Chimpy propaganda, free of charge. In the second instance, a group of concerned citizens purchased airtime to express their views.
The message is clear. You can express all the opinions about Chimpy you like, and if they’re positive, you’ll be handed a forum in which to do so…but if your opinions are negative, you’ll be punished, even though you paid for the time yourself.
There’s a big difference, VTH…and you and your ilk are on the wrong side of it.
May 11th, 2007 at 3:45 pmIt will not keep anyone off the air. To make that claim indicates that you are either completely dishonest or completely ignorant about how the Fairness doctrine and the Constitution work. No one can legally be kept off the air for having too many opinions.
In practice, the way it would almost certainly work:
Local CBS Radio station has a lineup of O’Reilly, Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and a bunch of music and non-partisan programming. Citizen X complains to FCC (or sues in court, if FCC is non-responsive). FCC then investigates and sees that this radio station is completely one-sided. It then seeks some sort of relief, either monetary or injunctive (latter more likely). Radio station then has option of either airing more liberals or eliminating conservatives. But no one person has to be kicked off the air.
Alternatively, if CNN only invites Democrats onto its programs, and no Republicans, and the aggregate has a demonstrably one-sided bias, CNN can either invite more Republicans or disinvite Dems.
But to claim that “If the fairness doctrine comes back in it’s new form it will essentially make stations keep anybody off the air that could come across as one-sided†is so idiotic it could only come from a Republican. It’s just not true, it never was true when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect. And the only reason people like Rush are feeding you these baloney talking points is that they know, despite the bs, that the media leans quite demonstrably pro-Republican, and they don’t want anything challenging that bias.
Try familiarizing yourself with a topic sometime before making claims asserting you have some knowledge of it. Idiot.
Comment by Jake-o-bin
Your ignorance is cute. What this bill will do is, ensure that each show will have a “fair” balance. This will be the end of right wing only talk shows as they will not conform to the regulations on their shows. That is exactly what the left wants. Behind Soros, who has been doing the same thing in Europe, they want to silence dissent. They want to cover up any strong viewpoints from the other side.
You said “It will not keep anyone off the air”, but why is it that no right wing radio hosts existed before the fairness doctrine was dropped? Can you name one show that was similar to Hannity, Limbaugh or Savage before 1987?
May 11th, 2007 at 4:16 pmJohn M, you really don’t get it. Throwing in the evil specter of Soros doesn’t help your argument. You clearly don’t understand how the Fairness Doctrine worked, or how it would work in the future. Instead, you just assume it will be some evil censorship device. Try actually reading about it, instead of making up this picture in your head.
As for O’Reilly, Hannity, et al., right wing radio started in the early 80s. It actually lost money for quite some time (as did Fox News and the Washington Times) but was funded by conservatives with deep pockets who wanted a counterbalance to what they perceived as the liberal media. The Fairness Doctrine’s end had no effect on them, just as it had no effect on the rise of shock jock radio, like Howard Stern. The only thing the Fairness Doctrine says is that a radio show or TV show can’t have a predominance of one side of political viewpoint.
Every other argument you’re making is off topic and ill informed. For example, when you make the claim that the bill will ensure that “each show will have a “fair” balance” you prove your ignorance. The Fairness Doctrine does no such thing. It simply says that in the aggregate, a TV or radio station must have a balance. If it has a Rush Limbaugh, it must have someone on the other side. If it has 100 Republican guests a week, it must have some reasonable approximation of similar # of Democrats.
That’s it. It doesn’t affect any individual show, it doesn’t censor anything, it just says on balance a station must be balanced, which surely you’d agree with, since you presumably believe media should be “fair and balanced.”
Stop talking about this, you clearly have no idea what you’re spouting. Go read up on the Fairness Doctrine, instead of just taking the talking points you’re being given. Dumbass.
May 11th, 2007 at 5:07 pmCBS has been irrelevant since M*A*S*H* went off the air.
May 11th, 2007 at 6:45 pmCBwuzzah?
May 11th, 2007 at 10:06 pmCBS, CNN are all FRAUDS and pretending to be news sources and both are looking ridiculously the same. Hyping the weather or A fire as the top story every week, if not every day. When was the last report from Gaza, every week dozens are killed by the IDF, “kidnapped taken back to Israeli prisons, yet for the last SEVERAL months, you only hear about Olhmerts political problems, thats it. They protect Israel and they protect the White House.
May 12th, 2007 at 12:19 amNBC Fires Phil Donahue, and hires Lt. Rick Francona, and many other Generals, “ex”-cia, intelligence employees. What’s particularly disgusting about Francona is that he was Saddam Hussein’s connection to the U.S. military, during the Iran/Iraq war, and provided him with intelligence information, helped aim his guns and this was the very same time he was using chemical & biological weapons and he’s providing commentary on Iraq.
Ever Arab commentator is cut from the same cloth, singing the same tune as the white house.
As far as General Batiste, they could have given him a warning to limit his politics, instead they over react, yet it’s ok for these clowns to hire war mongering Generals, Barry McCafferty who works for military defense contractor and all the other pro war generals, colonels, who work for “news” agencies.
Another classical example of how CBS has buckled down to the White House and Republican Party in letting Gen. Bastiste go for his anti-war efforts. Hiring a Republican to take his place takes the cake. I have lost my faith in CBS.
May 12th, 2007 at 9:33 amThe general is a brave man. He commands my respect, we would do well to listen to him. I only wish we haan like him in the white house.
May 12th, 2007 at 12:36 pmWill all boneheads please quit posting links, to justify their positions, on issues? Anyone can post anything on line and it need not be factual.
May 12th, 2007 at 12:58 pmIt is amazing that Jake-o-bin tells John M he does not get it, when ABC, NBC, CBS, and (especially CNN) have presented all news through liberal eye glasses for 30-40 years. This dangerous belief is the reason many are very concerned about radio/TV “Fairness Doctrine”. It is extremely unbalanced to the left now, but folks like Jake… want opposing views silenced entirely.
May 12th, 2007 at 1:19 pmCBS’s decision to fire General Batiste was one of the worst it’s made in a long line of bad decisions. CBS is clearly out of touch with what many americans feel in this country now: The Bush administration is corrupt and deserves no consideration of credibility whatsoever at this time and CBS’s continual allowance and favoritism of right-wing talking heads shows just how out of touch it is.
May 12th, 2007 at 1:37 pmAt this time many americans are downgrading or disconnecting their cable television service because the programming is so out of touch with their interests. Looking at the current selection of ‘reality shows’, etc. shows that they are going after the low-hanging fruit, the lowest common denominator of viewership.
If CBS and the other news organizations had any credibility they would cut out the right-wing bias b.s. and stick to straight news. Instead they will continue to engage in producing programs that have a clear bias and repulse instead of engage their viewership. Perhaps when they have lost so much money they are bankrupt they will realize this. I hope that this country does not have long to wait to see the final days of the sad and pathetic state that television news media has become.
The people of the United States of America own the media while the FCC just regulates it and is suppose to regulate it for us.
There is a really simple solution to the media in the US. Have the FCC follow regulations where they take back the licensure from media outlets that have proven to go against the public good, show political, racialbias, etc.
In other words, CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, and all cable television, radio, telephone, etc. outlets would lose their rights to use the frequences and thus their rights to broadcast. Also, have criminal penalities for executives and companies that go against the public good so there is a consequense for breaking these regulations and laws. It should be painful if they do violate the law - like mandatory 20 - 50 year sentences without the possibility of parole.
Further, if they violate FCC policy, their company should have fines that total in the tens of millions not some rinky dinky thousands of dollars when the violate the public trust.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:28 pmIt has been a very long time since the White House realized that having lost the support of Walter Cronkite (for the Vietnam War), they had lost the support of the American people.
May 15th, 2007 at 5:38 pmEd Morrow must be spinning in his grave…..
May 15th, 2007 at 6:31 pmWell, I think what CBS did is despicable, however, I seldom
watch CBS.
I watch HARDBALL, BBC World Service, Telesur,etc.
Who owns CBS and why do they have a stake in Bush advocacy?
However, they are right, about one thing.
Hillary and Obama will cancel each other out.
The Democrats have to get a nationwide viable candidate.
I would vote for Al Gore or Bill Richardson.
But I would vote for McCain, even Giuliani, before Hillary or Obama.
May 25th, 2007 at 3:37 am