Conservative Talk Radio Overreacts Over Question to Rumsfeld
As a conservative, I’ve been embarrassed by the five-alarm reaction by Rush Limbaugh and some fool who substituted for Glenn Beck today over that armor question asked by a soldier to DefSec Rumsfeld.
The fact that some embed reporter suggested the question to one of the members of the Tennessee Army National Guard seems to have conservative talk radio in a melt down.
Honestly who cares? The question is legit, and not even Limbaugh is fighting that aspect, so who cares if Rummy heard it from a soldier, a reporter, parent, or a member of the National Honor Society during take a student to Fallujah Day.
What is the difference between the soldier getting the idea from a reporter or a friend who might email him with a suggestion or the soldier thinking of the question after reading a newspaper report from the front lines?
Conservatives seem to have a problem with the way the question was asked. They are running up and down the sidelines throwing their red flags asking for a do over.
This is a case where conservatives are tighter than Superglue with the White House. Do we have to come to the administration’s defense every ten minutes?
Actually the talking heads might just want to take their cue from the Commander-in-Chief:
Bush said he thought the questions to Rumsfeld were legitimate.
“We expect our troops to have the best possible equipment,” he said. “And if I were a soldier overseas wanting to defend my country, I’d want to ask the secretary of defense the same question.”
Next issue.
33 Responses to “Conservative Talk Radio Overreacts Over Question to Rumsfeld”
Just out of curiosity having been working on a final rather than listening to Conservative Talk radio (amongst other things I’d rather do)…
Did any of them have a good explanation for the cheers coming up from the crowd of soldiers? (My best guess is that they alleged that the reporter used telepathy to force them to cheer).
I think the furor is a reaction to the way the media portrayed that situation as though the troops were rebelling against their chain of command. The fact that the question was actually proposed by a reporter deflates that spin, even though the question was legitimate.
Actually, this is exactly like the furor that social liberals raised when it was noticed that most of the complaints to the FCC in the last year have been generated by one activist group (the Parents Television Council, if I recall). If they’re legitimate complaints, why does it matter who inspired them? But it obviously makes a big difference in how the situation is perceived.
The U.S. media – saving the lives of soldiers
It took exactly 1 day from the time that a reporter discovered that the company manufacturing the armored humvees could produce 100 more a month to the time that the DOD asked that company to produce the extra 100 a month.
If one soldier had played over 2,000 “hoorahs” after the question, then the comparison with the Parents Television Council-inspired complaintes would be valid. However, each of those cheers were from individuals, whereas when most of the complaints regarding Janet Jackson and the MNF “scandal” come from a few people who make repeated complaints. I think that it is ridiculous for the Right Wing to get upset at the origin of the question in an attempt to deflect its legitimacy. What about the question from the soldier whose family has not received a paycheck since June? Was he planted as well? If the administration doesn’t want to have their faulty planning of this war exposed, then they should have the same “sit down and shut up” policy with respect to the troops as they do with the White House press corps.
The PTC wouldnt SPAM the FCC would they?, sorry for the OT comment. It is actually a valid question.
But to address Eric’s comment, the problem is that the PTC is able to create a biased sample at least in the eyes of Michael Powel or his arguements. Those 2000 soldiers are the very core of the question at hand.
The only way to get a similar sample for FCC complaints would be to have Neilson track complaints along with their viewer raitings.
This is one of the most shameful stories of the era – MUST FIRE RUMMY- what a silly, arrrogant, self-imbued, stupid, incompetent ass.
The problem is not new, funraising all over America to send body armour to to troops, TV specials on the problems aboud.
Get on the phone George Bush, show us you are a real man in charge, YES, The President, and yell at some corporate fat cat. Pretend you are Ronald Regan or FDR in a furry . Many LIVES at at stake. Good lives thrown into a coffin, thrown away by inept leadership in time of War. Disgusting, completely.
To go along with what Mr. Foltz said, one of the reasons Mr. Powell has given for the increasing crackdown on the networks by the FCC is the fact that the total number of complaints coming into the FCC has skyrocketed. In Mr. Powell’s own words, there was this year:
“a dramatic rise in public concern and outrage about what is being broadcast into their homes.”
He was basing this statement entirely on the massive increase in the number of letters they’ve received.
In reality, the reason that he’s seen such a massive increase in the letters was that particular group – if there was a rise in the outrage about broadcast TV (aside from the Super bowl of course), the statistic he based his statement on is essentially unrelated to any reliable measure of the real outrage.
Spc. Thomas Jerry Wilson – What was so wrong about what he did?
I’m not understanding the stance taken today by Hannity or Limbaugh on this story.
Kerik just stepped down because of an illegal nanny. Go here for more info: http://www.politicalthought.net
Who on Earth thinks that posting O/T links to their blog in someone else’s comments is going to get them more readers? On-topic, maybe. That’s kind of sketchy, IMO, but not rude. Off-topic is just rude.
“And if I were a soldier overseas wanting to defend my country, I’d want to ask the secretary of defense the same question.”
But since I am not a soldier overseas, I won’t ask the secretary of defense any questions for the next four years.
FOUR MORE YEARS – You asked for it, you’re gonna get it.
In reality, the reason that he’s seen such a massive increase in the letters was that particular group
And for the most part, that particular group has merely empowered regular people all over the country who are legitimately outraged over the trash on broadcast TV to voice their complaints.
In fact, there are *millions*, not just thousands, who are outraged. If you doubt that, just visit any non-liberal church on any given Sunday and talk to a few people. What difference does it make if they’ve taken advantage of boilerplate complaints when most of the complaints come from individuals?
Sorry, folks, but anyone who thinks the crackdown on broadcast indecency is bogus but the questioning of Rumsfeld shows that our military is in the worst shape it’s ever been in under the most inept leadership ever…or whatever…is completely blinded by his/her ideology and/or partisanship.
(By the way, I’d like to thank Balta and other PTC-bashers for inspiring me to write a few letters of my own to the FCC!)
So, Eric, once you manage to get everything on broadcast TV down to the level of the old Disney shows are you going after cable next? I’ve certainly heard suggestions from the conservative side that it should be done.
They’ll never get ahold of cable, and even if they do, there’s always the Internet.
Jim, I’m guessing you’re being ironic with the Disney thing but just in case, let me say that there must be a happy medium between “old Disney shows” and Super Bowl boob-flashing or “Desperate Housewives.”
And, no, because cable is a pay service and does not employ the broadcast airwaves (which are owned by “we the people”), they can put out whatever they want as long as their customers are happy.
“(By the way, I’d like to thank Balta and other PTC-bashers for inspiring me to write a few letters of my own to the FCC!)”
Eric, does that mean that you’re the one person in the country who thought the opening ceremonies of the Olympics were too risque?
Actually Eric, I do have a large problem with the FCC taking up charge based on the complaints of only a vocal minority, never mind I think the FCC should be out of the content business these days.
We have a rating system and V-Chips for poor parents.
I do not run out and file a complaint when the 700 Club runs some story I dont like, no matter how offensive I might find it to be, nor will file a complaint when CSI shows some violence or gore during primetime.
Since the FCC clearly has no way to determine source, the only way to run a system that would be to let Neilson capture complaints along with its ratings.
After all, even if the PTC drones can generate a couple thousand complaints, if they represent less than %1 of the population why should we censor television to appease them? Don’t the ratings themselves speak for what the general public wants to see?
Foltz,
So many fallacies, so little time. First of all, the actual number of people filing complaints to the FCC may be a “vocal minority,” but there is no doubt in my mind that they represent a very large fraction of the population, if not a majority. I’m sure if there has been any poll in the last year asking people if there’s too much sex & violence on TV, a majority would have said yes.
Secondly, it actually doesn’t matter even if only *one* person filed a complaint. If the content is indecent, it’s indecent. There are rules that broadcasters must follow. Would you contend that if only a small minority of a company’s shareholders complained to the SEC about something that company was doing, the SEC should ignore it? Of course not.
Thirdly, this is not about a program that simply offends someone’s beliefs or whatnot. This is about obscenity, which is a specific (though subjective) issue. As above, there are established rules on the subject.
Finally, if you wish to argue that the FCC shouldn’t have any rules at all on content (hard core porn at 3 in the afternoon, let the V-chips filter it out if parents object), then go ahead. But it seems to me that since the vast majority of people agree there should be rules for broadcast TV, the only real debate to be had is where to draw the line–not under what circumstances the regulatory agency should act when the line is crossed.
So many fallacies Eric, define indecent (the FCC doesnt) and I’ll agree on the one complaint issue. But I notice that the FCC doesnt go after anyone unless they have a decent sized audience.
Wow, for once I agree with PunchTheBag. I was starting to think he was just a conservative caricature, and now he goes and says something reasonable.
Eric,
Your friends at the PTC certainly don’t agree with your view on cable. Right now they’re starting on basic cable, but I sincerely wonder if they’ll stop there. In for a penny, in for a pound. The groups like PTC and Concerned Women for America and other socially conservative groups are certain that Bush’s “mandate” is their mandate. I don’t think most of the Republican Party has the guts to stand up to them either.
Don’t have time to say much at the moment, but I wanted to let y’all know that there is some good material on this matter at the current home page of Soldiers for the Truth:
http://www.sftt.org
Thanks!
Eric,
This thread has sort of gone off topic, which I am not a fan of causing, so if you would like to make a front page post on the matter, I would be happy to chat up the PTC (or the FCC) in a proper form.
Yes, Jim, you’re absolutely right. My friends at the PTC and I (we’re allies despite the fact that we disagree at least 50% of the time) are, at this very moment, forming an elite strike force that will break into your home, replace your Playboy magazine collection with old issues of Reader’s Digest, and install a device on your TV that will only let it tune in “The 700 Club” and old episodes of “The Andy Griffith Show.” Mua-hah-hah-hah-hah!!
Well they can take all the Playboy’s they want, just leave the National Geographics alone.
Actually, I’ve been listening to Michael Savage on my drive home lately, and as much of a racist, reactionary, anti-bill-of-rights hatemonger he is, he has broken with the “blind party loyalty” that so many other rightwing talkradio hosts adhere to.
Savage has blasted the Bush administration on the Worker Visa issue.
And now, he’s taking Rummy to task on the troop armor issue. He had a couple of armor manufacturers on the phone who said flat out, that they had plenty of capacity to produce much more armor. While he questioned where the question came from, he said that, indeed, it was a vaild question, and our first priority should be protecting our troops.
I’m a liberal, and I agree with that philosophy 100%. Not because it’s an opportunity to Bash Bush. But because the safety of our troops matters. Success in the War On Terror depends on it.
In fact, there are *millions*, not just thousands, who are outraged. If you doubt that, just visit any non-liberal church on any given Sunday and talk to a few people.
Ah, if only these people would excercise some ADULT RESPONSIBILITY and use the OFF button on their TVs.
Pro Football has been “unfit for minors” for decades. Have you *seen* the cheerleader routines? They’re pretty obscene in themselves. Then there’s the whole violence aspect, but I guess some people think that steroided-up overpaid gangsters smashing eachother into the ground is okay for kids to watch, but a nipple is not.
There’s an argument to be made, of course, that these are *public* airwaves, and that standards must be maintained. So sure, that’s fine. But standards play out when you look at the ratings of popular shows. If a show is highly-rated, then it can’t be said to be indecent by the community standards. If folks TRULY thought it was indecent, then they wouldn’t tune in now, would they? Yet it’s a basically accepted tennent that sex sells in America. That’s a FACT. The Silent Majority is a myth. There may be millions of people who are offended by this stuff. Too bad for them, there are TENS of millions who think it’s great, and tune in day after day.
Those TENS of millions don’t need the few puritans administering a NANNY-STATE.
Sorry, OBF, you’re wrong. A show can be “highly rated” with only a few percentage of the general population watching it. A typical hit show gets maybe 15 percent of the Nielsen viewers watching TV during that time slot. And obviously, not everyone in America is watching TV during that time.
There may be more people who patronize adult video stores than people who would like to see them shut down entirely, but because the majority of the population thinks it necessary, we have zoning laws that restrict where such an establishment may be located.
Eric, Neilson offers up rating and share #’s, the former being a set figure that will tell you how many people were watching a show, while the later will tell you the percentage of the viewing audience at that time.
Yes, I expected those would be the figures they’d offer. Presumably Neilson extrapolates the number of their viewers watching to estimate the number of people watching nationwide.
So OBF still needs to show me one of two things to convince me that “the people have spoken” and want the kind of programming the FCC is cracking down on:
1) A scientific poll showing that a majority of people think the FCC is being too harsh, or
2) Ratings numbers showing that a controversial show on broadcast TV has garnered more than 10-20 million viewers.
Alas, I don’t think I’ll be hearing from OBF again in this thread. Trolls prefer a hit-and-run MO, not an actual intellectual discourse.
I actually agree with you Eric, but I want said poll in reverse. But umm, MNF and the Superbowl do indeed draw more than 10million. In fact this link http://tv.yahoo.com/nielsen/ is the most recent MNF data I could pull shows a 12 million audience, and initial reports had the MNF game the week after its “controversial” opening scoring better.
But why 10 million? Seems awfully high, even the top rated shows on TV these days doesnt break 20 million with cable.
What REALLY grates me is that the FCC doesnt have to provide any set rules, they are allowed to determine context for anything they wish to review. So Howard Stern and the Superbowl gets roasted, but Oprah and the 700 Club get a pass.
First, I don’t think we can conclude much from controversial moments during football broadcasts, because the content is still 95% about football. In other words, no matter what they show before the game or at halftime, a lot of people will still tune in to watch the game itself.
Why 10 million? Because I’m quite certain there are at least that many people in the country who are strongly in favor of the FCC’s crackdown on broadcast indecency.
Speaking of which, I did manage to find mention of one poll on the subject. A poll taken in the wake of the Janet Jackson incident found that about three-fourths of people supported stricter rules on nudity and sexual content:
http://charleston.net/stories/022204/wor_22jackson.shtml