has right wing radio gone to far?

[Barack Hussian YO MAMA!!!!]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ3ap-BK0e0
this is a Bill Moyers video of  Bill Moyers Rage on the radio, It talks about ht ugliness of some on
right wing talk radio, a man In walked in church in Knoxville, Tennessee and Killed one person and injured six others he stated that the reason for his act of senseless act of violence "His Hatred of the Liberal movement"  my question is have people in the right wing media mostly on Talk Radio and on Fox news gone to far, people like Rush Limbaugh,Micheal Savage,  Ann Coulter, Sean Hannitty, Neal Bortz  encouraged  this act of violence, I want our conservative friends to ask themselves to these people contribute more bad then good to our political debate in this country.

I would just like to say for the record that I support the first amendment and I do not support
the Government censor the media under any circumstances, I think these people have
a right to preach what ever they want on the radio no matter how hateful or no matter how much I dissagree  I Think freedom of speech is probably  the most important amendment in the Constitution. I just what people to examine this and realize
that our words have consequences.

[cannonia]

Rush Limbaugh,Micheal Savage,  Ann Coulter, Sean Hannitty, Neal Bortz  encouraged  this act of violence

I highly doubt it.

[memphis]

Not so much gone too far as lost all relavance...

[TomC]

Rush Limbaugh,Micheal Savage,  Ann Coulter, Sean Hannitty, Neal Bortz  encouraged  this act of violence

You forgot Liddy, Heston, and Gingrich.

[??????????]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ3ap-BK0e0
this is a Bill Moyers video of  Bill Moyers Rage on the radio, It talks about ht ugliness of some on
right wing talk radio, a man In walked in church in Knoxville, Tennessee and Killed one person and injured six others he stated that the reason for his act of senseless act of violence "His Hatred of the Liberal movement"  my question is have people in the right wing media mostly on Talk Radio and on Fox news gone to far, people like Rush Limbaugh,Micheal Savage,  Ann Coulter, Sean Hannitty, Neal Bortz  encouraged  this act of violence, I want our conservative friends to ask themselves to these people contribute more bad then good to our political debate in this country.

I would just like to say for the record that I support the first amendment and I do not support
the Government censor the media under any circumstances, I think these people have
a right to preach what ever they want on the radio no matter how hateful or no matter how much I dissagree  I Think freedom of speech is probably  the most important amendment in the Constitution. I just what people to examine this and realize
that our words have consequences.

To be fair, anyone who actually thinks these radio hosts should be blamed is probably an idiot.

[Punditty]

The First Amendment is for everyone's use, so long as no one is yelling fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. I highly doubt that any of the people mentioned in the original posts ever said anything directly encouraging a shooting spree in a church. But if they did, well, that's another matter. A criminal matter - not a matter of taking free speech too far.

Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and others of that ilk can say what they damn well please. That doesn't mean anyone who doesn't want to has to listen (although there was that time I was on a long road trip with a Michael Savage fan...that kind of sucked).

"Ignorant and biased reporting has its counterpart in ignorant and biased reading and listening." - Eric Sevareid

For those of you too young to remember Sevareid, he was a WWII correspondent and later gave commentaries on the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite. To see in a contrast between today's tone on TV news & cable shoutfests and how it was in a different era, check out this 1977 clip of Sevareid signing off, a few days after he turned 65.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/1242637

[OldWeirdAmerica]

Those hosts probably do encourage hatred in some cases, but  most of the farthest-right conservatives don't even take Limbaugh and Hannity and other similar personalities seriously. There are very conservative people in this country who don't need right wing shock jocks to make them hate what they perceive, often correctly, as a liberal movement that despises their way of life, wants to forcefully remake their communities, is bent on taking their means of self-defense, and is destroying the US with wasteful spending.

[Zarn]

I'm not a fan of 'right-wing' (I'm a libertarian and view right-wing as something completely different) radio, but I find all kinds left-wing media just as bad.

I don't recall any threats, but the left-wing tries to rule through intimidation and ridicule.

[JSojourner]

I do not blame extremist talk radio for anti-liberal or anti-government acts of violence.  But I do believe such demagogues stoke the fires already burning...and do nothing to put them out.

In the late 80's and through most of the 90's, patriot militias, common law courts, extremist religious sects and violent right wing radicals spouting bizarre conspiracy theories gained a fairly strong, though relatively small, footing in this country.  Why?

Many people note the ascent of Rush Limbaugh and his many idiot clones on the airwaves at the same time and draw a parallel.  And yes, these nuts say some horrendously racist, sexist, homophobic and even violent things.  Limbaugh, included.

But it's a case of chicken and egg.  And what's more, there's another factor. 

"Guv'mint".

Even before Bill Clinton, right wing extremists were sounding alarms about George H.W. Bush and his call for "a new world order".  Remember, I hosted a talk show on Christian radio at the time and typically interviewed authors.  You would not believe how many books crossed my desk complaining about the Illuminati, The Tri-Lateral Commission, Jewish Bankers, the Masons, the United Nations, the New Age movement, Satanist cults, etc etc etc.

Often, George H.W. Bush was cited as -- at best -- an unwitting enabler of these evil institutions.  Less often, but hardly rarely -- he was accused of being a leader.  Goals 2000.  Outcome based Education. National History Standards. Nation Building.  The UN Human Rights Declaration.  Multiculturalism.  All these things -- most of them just purely good and decent at their core were lambasted by these silly prophets of doom and these fantasizers obsessed with all things demonic and eschatalogical.

It got worse under Clinton. 

It has faded almost into complete obscurity under The Decider.  I'd like to believe it's because these folks just went away, were defeated or just gave up.  I rather think it has to do with the perception among them that George W. Bush is close enough to their positions on most issues to keep them from panic, violence or minor rebellion.  As one of them put it to me, "Well, he ain't no Bo Gritz or Ollie North.  But he's clearly the Lord's man for such a time as this.  And he's far better than his sellout old man."

What will happen under a McCain administration?  I suspect it will get worse.  Under an Obama administration, I suspect the movement will swell radically.  And while their specific axes to grind may change -- you may hear a lot more about the evils of "multiculturalism" and "tolerance" and a lot less about "the Illuminati" and black helicopters ferrying United Nations troops around our country -- I think these tortured voices will be heard again.

To the extent that right wing talk radio provides these clowns with specific talking points or simply a general sense of justification for their hate, it really doesn't matter.  Talk radio has been a horrible influence.  (And let's us on the left not be cocky assholes and presume our current crop of idiots can't or won't be factors in inciting, if not violence, stupidity and hate.)

But to make talk radio the root cause of it all, rather than just an obnoxious symptom, is like blaming school yard violence on toy cap guns. 

[Person Man]

It's probably not talk show radio- but John McCain's rallies have become more and more violent and dangerous. This is a pretty dangerous time in our country. Terrorists are regrouping in Asia and our economy is collapsing. To add the icing on the cake, a win by either of these candidates will enflame significant amounts of our population to the point of violence. If McCain wins, this could be the ultimate insult to the racial minorities in this country. If Obama wins, this could be the ultimate insult to the far-right in this country.

[agcatter]

Perhaps President Obama and a filibuster proof senate can simply shut talk radio down.  That's the plan, is it not?

[??????????]

Perhaps President Obama and a filibuster proof senate can simply shut talk radio down.  That's the plan, is it not?

Yep, fairness doctrine. Lets hope for some pirate radio.

[agcatter]

"Fairness Doctrine" as much as the left would love to pass it simply won't fly.  It's too blatant an attempt to shut down free speech criticism of the Obama administration.  Some liberals wouldn't even go along.  I just meant they'd like to shut up conservatives on the radio.  Obama won't touch it, although he'd like to.  Red state senators don't want to stir up a hornet's nest.

[??????????]

"Fairness Doctrine" as much as the left would love to pass it simply won't fly.  It's too blatant an attempt to shut down free speech criticism of the Obama administration.  Some liberals wouldn't even go along.  I just meant they'd like to shut up conservatives on the radio.  Obama won't touch it, although he'd like to.  Red state senators don't want to stir up a hornet's nest.

You ain't seen nothing yet. I wouldn't trust Obama as far as I could throw him.

[agcatter]

Oh, I don't trust him.  Not as far as I can throw a house.  He just couldn't get away with it as much as he'd like to.  It would be a big time  political overreach and would look like a blatant power grab.  Even Democratic Senators like Nelson of Nebraska wouldn't want any part of it.

[??????????]

Oh, I don't trust him.  Not as far as I can throw a house.  He just couldn't get away with it as much as he'd like to.  It would be a big time  political overreach and would look like a blatant power grab.  Even Democratic Senators like Nelson of Nebraska wouldn't want any part of it.

I hope you're right, but overall I have a very negative/pessimistic opinion of government in general.

[agcatter]

I share your distrust of government.  They grab power when they can.  They just don't do it when there is a bright light shining on their actions.  The light in this case would be brighter than the sun.

[Хahar 🤔]

What's with this belief that everyone and everything with a negative PM score hates the First Amendment?

I, for one, am glad that the "Fairness" Doctrine is gone.

[??????????]

I, for one, am glad that the "Fairness" Doctrine is gone.

Good for you. But like me you're politically irrelevant. The leaders of your party are the ones that matter.

[opebo]

"Fairness Doctrine" as much as the left would love to pass it simply won't fly.  It's too blatant an attempt to shut down free speech criticism of the Obama administration.  Some liberals wouldn't even go along.  I just meant they'd like to shut up conservatives on the radio.  Obama won't touch it, although he'd like to.  Red state senators don't want to stir up a hornet's nest.

Actually the fairness doctrine encourages free speech, while the current only-the-owners-may-speak system effectively muzzles the vast majority of people.

[agcatter]

I'm not going to argue the "fairness" doctrine" one way or the other.  I'm simply saying that as a political reality it would be a severe overreach and Obama knows it.  Just because it appears you have numbers doesn't mean it's good politics to try to muscle through something that looks like a blatant power grab - in this case an effort to shut up the opposition.  Roosevelt's court packing plan went down in flames when he had huge majorities in the House and Senate.  Conservatives would go balistic and many mainstream liberals wouldn't like it.

It's politically, a non starter.

[opebo]

We'll see.  It will depend on how bad the depression gets.

Keep in mind that the court packing was a blatant power grab, while fairness in airtime just ensures free speech.

[Ronnie]

The thing is that radio stations don't want to have liberals on the show, because they don't generate much viewership.  Why do we want to force the stations to put liberals on the show?  Why don't we do the same for the LA Times or NY Times?

[Torie]

The quality of right wing talk radio is really very poor. Even Medved has tanked in quality. What gets ratings I guess is inimical to quality. Or maybe the talk show hosts really do lack peripheral vision or something. Hugh Hewitt in particular  is such a pathetic partisan agitprop hack. Does anyone disagree?

[Ronnie]

The quality of right wing talk radio is really very poor. Even Medved has tanked in quality. What gets ratings I guess is inimical to quality. Or maybe the talk show hosts really do lack peripheral vision or something. Hugh Hewitt in particular  is such a pathetic partisan agitprop hack. Does anyone disagree?

My dad used to be a close friend of Dennis Prager, and almost went into business with him.  I think that his show is really hackish, but it still prompts me to see the other side of the equation, and he is a really awesome debater IMO.

Honestly, I don't really think that it's so fair of you to say that when newspapers like NY times and the mainstream media in general (besides talk radio) are very hackish.  We don't we give a fairness doctrine to the mainstream media?