If you don’t support Take Back Toledo, you are a parasite, coward & the Fairness Doctrine
I debated if I was going to include Michael Miller’s column in this week’s Toledo Free Press entitled, Recall to Arms as a part of the weekly summary I do on what’s in the Toledo Free Press or post about it as a stand alone post. (Yes, the weekly review is still coming, just a bit later today.) Then I saw the article in the Blade where Wilson is quoted and saw his response to Michael Miller’s column.
Back in early January, I noticed Brian Wilson had written a post on the Take Back Toledo forum where he called Retired/”fixed income” seniors, unemployed/welfare/low wage earners; “parasites” and those like him, “producers” claiming that the “producers” were outnumbered by the “parasites” by a two to one margin.
Unless Take Back Toledo is successful, the parasites will continue to elect those politicians who promise “business as usual”.
Wilson is wrong about the two to one margin, but that’s beside the point, if you don’t agree with his position, you are ignorant, lazy, a parasite, a coward and the list could continue.
Convincing people it was worth the effort to get involved in a cause that was realistically if successful was only going to toss the Mayor out for a few months was a difficult proposition had it actually be done the way it was stated it was going to be, a business driven action. Michael Miller makes some good observations that Wilson calls “Monday morning quarterbacking” which to me it’s not Monday morning yet, it would be Monday morning the day after April 12th if the effort fails.
You rally people to a cause when it’s one they can believe in, unless you are the sort where if someone calls you a coward, or ignorant or a parasite or any of the other names that Wilson’s selected, creates some “I’ll show him” testosterone laden reaction. For most of us that typically turns people off. If one of the big issues raised with the Mayor is the lack of respect and the use of threats, insults and fear, how does acting in a similar manner make it any different? That’s not very “business like” and it’s apparent that it doesn’t work. Alienating people may be great for radio where the idea is to create controversy and outrage, real or fake to get people to call in and listen to see who you are going to slam next. It’s not how you build a consensus of people demonstrating they are willing to work together, that will have some differences but agree on a few common goals. It’s that very lack of team building, making people feel as if they are not welcome to the table, that “it’s my way or the highway”, vendetta mentality, that both Wilson and Finkbeiner exhibit.
As to the whole Fairness Doctrine, here those of you willing to follow a few simple rules, have the chance to agree or disagree with me and to share your own thoughts on a variety of topics. If you rely on just one source of media, you most likely will only get one side; it’s when you believe that particular format without question that it becomes a problem.
I wasn’t really going to focus that much on the whole Fairness Doctrine aspect of the Blade article, until I saw some of the comments Chris Myers shared on SwampBubbles. Stating that those who don’t go on WSPD have no spine and that allowing Troy Neff to buy airtime on WCWA somehow demonstrated access for the other side, deserves just a bit of a different point of view.
If you truly don’t believe in the format/message that WSPD is putting out, why would you go on the show? If you know moments after you are off the air, you will be mocked, with selected bits cherry picked played over and over again, why would you subject yourself to that. It’s not quite as simple as these “spineless” politicians are refusing to go on WSPD.
Some of talk radio is designed similar to some blog sites that focus on the known premise that negativity drives traffic, controversy creates listeners, and WSPD has done a better job in taking advantage of the ability to create controversy that has gotten them media and internet attention. It does not always transcend listenership into action though, we’ve seen this in the past. The previous recall effort by Tom Morrissey was promo’d by WSPD, COSI and the 3/4% income tax were passed by the voters, just to name a few past examples where despite the huge amount of hours spent delivering a message by WSPD it did not translate into action.
Troy Neff did not have listenership numbers where he was a real threat to WSPD, he did however take better advantage of podcasting, promoting interviews and technology. That could have generated larger listenership numbers as more and more elected officials found his site more “friendly;” the same thing would have been possible had 1560 taken advantage of technology for Tom Watkins show. Reports out there back up my belief that podcasting and the ability to listen online make a large difference. While neither of these formats would have realistically taken over WSPD with their having Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, it did provide more options for AM radio listeners and for the online political community.
There is a gap now as far as the ability to provide information with both Neff and Watkins gone. I believe there should be more local ownership, that part of the Media Ownership Reform Act might have merit. Yet if we are really going to go there, then the issue is larger than just radio. In the battle between local Clear Channel and Block Communications, both are corporations who demonstrate a desire to shut down their “competition” which means for a Fairness Doctrine to be really “fair” it would have to incorporate more than radio and television.
If we were really interested in being blunt, what scares people is the power of the free airwaves. This has not yet transitioned into a scenario where that power has actually worked. With the internet, print media and television, there is a balance, WSPD could be everything some of it’s detractors say when it comes to negativity, even if it was, when we try to quiet those we don’t agree with, we head down a path where we could be the very next one that is quieted. The ability to dissent, to rage, to rant, to protest is one of the foundations of this nation.
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~ John Stuart Mill
Then again, what do I know, according to Wilson, I’m one of those Kool-Aid drinkers, mouth-breathers, has-beens, never-will-be people who blogs.
I always thought that the Democrats currently in control would never be dumb enough to push for the fairness doctrine or something like it. I may have been wrong.
February 16th, 2009 at 1:51 pmI’m not sure how much it’s going to be pushed, but I can’t say I see it as a benefit. While it’s rare, I’d say I agree with Redfern on this one, if people really don’t like what’s being said? No one is forced to listen.
February 16th, 2009 at 1:57 pmI have heard Brian, Fred and Maggie be fair to guests with differing opinions. But they should not be afraid of the tough questions. Many of those who shy away don’t want to answer the questions. They prefer to go to the mediums where they will allow them to get away with whatever they (pols) want to say. Those have a strong case have nothing to fear. Unfortunately, most politicians in this area are not used to having strong cases, thus they sit back and whine about fairness.
February 16th, 2009 at 5:48 pmChris, I think you missed my point, unless something has dramatically changed, I’ve heard a baby crying and having that be “Young Ben” just as one example of what I was referencing. Maybe I’m the “Miss Manners” type but if you don’t give respect, it’s hard to get it in return.
You called people spineless for doing what we have a right to do in America, not only a choice of who to listen to? But a choice of who you want to talk to.
No where is it written as a part of being an elected official you have to talk to talk radio hosts or bloggers for that matter.
February 16th, 2009 at 5:57 pmIt is also an American right to be critical of leaders, especially leaders who deserve criticism. If they can’t handle “words” then maybe they need to reconsider. Ben could not even handle someone highlighting he had the wrong campaign finance disclaimer on his signs, so it does give a good glimpse of his character. Those who are comfortable with what they do, base their decisions on law and sound judgment have nothing to fear and can probably sound very intelligent and make hosts that just call names look silly. Of course if they base their decision on none of those, they will be the ones who look silly, which is probably why many want to complain about fairness rather than talk about their decisions. They don’t have to do that, but then if people have questions and don’t want to answer them, it is not the fault of the person answering the questions. Hey, they are elected leaders, it comes with the territory.
February 16th, 2009 at 8:33 pmI disagree that it comes with the territory. Throughout the history of our country leaders have been criticized. I believe it’s the personalization that’s being cited as unacceptable. A very different story.
It’s one thing entirely to discuss a bad policy decision, a poor choice in hiring or an unacceptable budget. But it’s another thing to mock a person, personally. And that’s a line that prior to our generation, people had more respect and manners than to engage in that.
That said, I enjoy Wilson’s show. It’s not a news broadcast and it is ‘talk radio’. It’s opinion. Nothing more and nothing less. And it is in the same vein as many other popular talk radio shows. If people don’t like what’s being said – CHANGE THE CHANNEL. But don’t legislate what may be said because you don’t like it. That’s not capitalism, that’s totalitarianism. And I don’t think we need to go there to cater to those that haven’t the intelligence to figure out the little dials on the radio and how to use them. Puh.
Personally, I’m so mad at the Mayor of Toledo right now that I’ll do everything I can to see he’s not re-elected. I believe he and the other leaders in this area for the last 30 years have SCREWED THE POOCH. And any person with an I.Q. of shoe leather, in the Mayor’s shoes, would tender a heart felt apology for having failed so abjectly to serve the city of Toledo and move.
But I do think this could be a wake up call to try to return to a time in history where there were lines of societal politeness. I think it would go a long way toward restoring a sense of detente among people and political parties.
The first step in resolving parties in oppositional positions is discussion.
February 16th, 2009 at 8:50 pmChris, if you read the full post, no where did I say that questions were wrong and once again there is a difference between “asking questions” and trying to demean, belittle, etc.
You declared those who don’t want to appear on WSPD as spineless, I don’t think a lack of spine has anything to do with it.
You’ll also note if you read the entire post that I don’t support the Fairness Doctrine, if you want to agree with the concept of calling senior citizens “parasites” that’s your choice. I think name calling demonstrates there is little of value to be said, you apparently disagree with that. That said, you have the right to call people names, they also have the right to not hold you in respect when you do…
February 16th, 2009 at 8:52 pmKate, thanks, that’s pretty much the basis of my position when I sat down to write this, that part of the problem is people not willing to discuss, but to demean and dismiss.
February 16th, 2009 at 8:56 pmRedfern’s statement is a cop-out.
While it is true that the Fairness Doctrine is the boogey-man of right-wing nutjobs, there is no “free market” when it comes to conservative radio stations and he knows it.
Rush, Beck, et. al. owe their success to the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, hence their rabid response to any mention of bringing it back.
2 corporations, Cumulus and Clear Channel, own 13 radio statons that can be heard in Toledo and they are on shaky financial ground despite their stranglehold on the airwaves.
As to TBT, their response to Mr. Miller’s article shows how doomed their cause is. They cannot even gain the support of a man who publicly vilifies Carty and calls him an economic terrorist.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:53 amLisaRenee wrote:
Yup. And to be perfectly honest – I couldn’t do those talk show hosts job. I’m seeing the real impact of bad government today.
I’ve never been afraid of anything. But I’m scared now. I look around Toledo and I see the empty manufacturing facilities, I see the empty shops, malls and offices. In the neighborhoods I see the empty windows with the foreclosure stickers on the doors. An army of them.
I drive down the street to my house, where I’ve driven for years. About three years ago I saw a toddler outside with his Dad. Every day in the front yard when I came home. The next year that boy was being pushed down the sidewalk on a bike with training wheels. By his Dad. Every day the sun was shining, this guy was in his uniform shirt – like maybe he was a car mechanic? – pushing this kid up and down the street.
Last summer I grinned every time I saw that little boy flying up and down in front of the house without his training wheels. Dad standing there grinning. Now the house is dark and there’s a foreclosure sticker on the door. I just cried when I saw that. These are real people in real lives that they only get to do once. This is not a dress rehearsal. And now that little boy will have his family losing their house as one of his earliest memories.
I am pissed, I am mentally and spiritually pissed off. I want to know how the people who were supposed to be, who SWORE to be the stewards of our economy, our city, our state and our federal government even have the balls to show their face anywhere? Seriously?
Barney Frank is reading bank CEO’s off about unacceptable conduct? Really? And he’s comfortable doing it on camera? For real?
So, I absolutely could not do their jobs because the FCC would probably have me put in jail.
But I do think that at least at the community level, people need to stop waiting for the government to show up at the game and do the right thing. It isn’t happening. So we need to have a community dialogue of some sort and a radio show is a great place to do it. I’m sure that’s what started the Take Back Toledo effort and landed it in WSPD’s lap.
How they move forward from here is their decision. I think Michael Miller’s column had a lot of food for thought for that project.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:27 amRE: Take back Toledo – I agree, it would be easier to get people to join your team if you don’t insult them first. I think TBT is a big waste of time and money. It just seems like it’s a bunch of guys who are puffing out their chests and wanting to get their names in the newspaper. I might take them a bit more seriously if they had someone to support instead of just someone to tear down. Right now it’s just a big “We don’t like Carty” club.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:59 pmThe fairness doctrine means that all sides will be heard on WSPD along side Fred and Brian. It just won’t be the liberals. We will get to hear the anarchists, the socalists, the islamic jihadists, the comunists etc.
The fairness doctrine might be the item that ends the 2 party rule.
p.s. Take back toledo is a joke. I’m tired of the negative whinning of groups like this.
off topic – the new pizza joint downtown is a welcome addition.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:05 amHmm…that’s an interesting post jr. That means the Christian perspective will get equal time in the mainstream media.
I really like that! Thanks for a nice thought on a dreary day!
February 18th, 2009 at 12:45 pmPeople mixing up two different concepts.
The Fairness Doctrine required holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission’s view) honest, equitable and balanced.
The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with matters of public importance, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.
The re-adoption of these rules will not mean that Limbaugh, etc will be off the air. Really depends on how willing a station is to fight complaints.
The rules themselves are really ineffective. What is effective is the threat of litigation.
I too am sick and tired of WSPD’s constant whining and complaining. Neither the fairness doctrine of the equal time rule would stop that.
Changing the station is far more effective.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:00 pm