03
Aug
Talk Radio and the Conspiracy to Kill
Now I know how the others feel.
Having written extensively about talk radio’s right wing shock jocks and the hate speech they regularly use to tar opponents – equating liberals with terrorists, homosexuals with child rapists and the Mafia, and political and media figures with the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan (even calling on air for assassinations, as Michael Reagan, son of the late president, did last month) – it was only a matter of time until the smear merchants took aim at me.
Still, it was a little surprising to hear that “O’Connor’s mentor in spirit, Josef Goebbels, must be laughing in his grave.” And it was more than just disconcerting that the charge of Nazism was made as part of an attack on the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the award-winning tolerance group named for the late ‘Nazi Hunter,’ after the Center’s New York office offered to host a launch party for my book “Shock Jocks: Hate Speech & Talk Radio.”
The allegation that Goebbels is my mentor came in an email forwarding a post by former Boston Herald writer Don
DonFeder.com Feder, which originally appeared on GrasstopsUSA.com (“Give Your Values A Voice”.) Feder, the email said, “believes that the Wiesenthal Center supports deceptive fools like O’Connor to appease its wealthy leftist supporters. If that is true (and of course no offical [sic] at the Center would own up to it), it is shameful.”
What’s really shameful, of course, is trotting out the ad hominem “You’re a Nazi” meme when confronted with ideas that differ from your own. Feder’s “exclusive commentary” was headlined “Obama and the Conspiracy to Kill Talk Radio,” another false meme being consistently bruited about by the right. Its opening made Feder’s thesis clear: “Looking ahead, liberals are determined to derail potential opposition to their plans to accelerate the deconstruction of America. Consequently, they have targeted talk radio. Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is just one facet of their scheme to eviscerate the only part of the media controlled by conservatives.”
According to Feder & Company, “The jihad against talk radio” (I thought I was a Nazi, not an Islamofascist!) is this:
“The left will do anything to gag its opponents. From the college campus to the halls of Congress (think campus speech codes, think hate crimes legislation, think speech-suppression zones surrounding abortion clinics), liberals are the chief proponents of censorship in America.
On July 23, the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s New York Tolerance Center will host the launch of “Shock Jocks: Hate Speech & Talk Radio” by Rory O’Connor, a book which indicts talk radio as “highly politicized, overly partisan and often factually challenged” — unlike, say, The New York Times, AKA, Mainstream Media Hacks for Obama.
But that’s not all. According to its cover, this penetrating analysis (endorsed by Walter Cronkite, the dean of liberal media manipulators) exposes the “dirty secret” of radio talk shows — how “they use the guise of ‘not being politically correct’ to ratchet up their anti-gay, anti-woman and overtly racist language.” In other words, they’re against same-sex “marriage,” reject feminist mythology and oppose racial quotas. Oh, the venom! Oh, the malice!
The left uses allegations of hate speech to set the stage for censorship. In its invitation, the Wiesenthal Center hyperventilates: ‘Hate speech can lead to hate crimes. And hate speech has no role on the public airwaves.’ Apparently, the First Amendment doesn’t apply to anything the left deems “hate speech.”
FYI, a friend of mine — a Jewish conservative — noted the exquisite irony here: Conservative talk-show hosts tend to be the most outspoken defenders of Israel anywhere in the U.S. media, while their counterparts in the mainstream media are overwhelmingly anti-Israel. Like the Anti-Defamation League, the Wiesenthal Center carries water for the left in the guise of fighting anti-Semitism.
‘Shock Jocks’ is just the latest manifestation of the left’s obsession with talk radio.”
Feder’s unoriginal jeremiad – which he further promulgated on WABC’s Sunday morning “Religion on the Line” program with Rabbi Joe Patasnick — went to repeat what other right-wing media organs such as NewsMax and WorldNetDaily have already attempted to inject into the mainstream—the ridiculous idea that there is a conspiracy afoot to “Hush Rush” and knock conservatives off the airwaves by requiring “fairness” and “balance” in our public discourse.
Normally I ignore such ignorant attacks on my person, along with absurd charges like the one that Barack Obama is somehow engaged in a stealth “conspiracy to kill” talk radio. I raise them now only because of a real conspiracy to kill – one that took two lives in a Tennessee church recently. After a troubled man named Jim Adkisson murdered two and wounded seven, it was reported that he had books by shock jocks Michael Savage, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly in his home. (What wasn’t widely reported is that radio station WNOW-FM in Knoxville airs shock jocks Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz and Mark Levin every weekday. Given the killer’s professed hateful attitudes towards liberals and homosexuals, it’s at least as likely that he was influenced by the hateful speech Savage and the others spew forth on the public airwaves as by their books….)
So when these and other shock jocks regularly employ and promote hate speech over the public airwaves aimed at women, minorities, immigrants, homosexuals, foreigners, Islam and its adherents, and anyone else they perceive as an opponent, dehumanizing them with terms like ‘feminazis,’ ‘hos,’ ‘slanty-eyed gooks’ and the like…and when they consistently blur the borders between news, opinion and entertainment, then quickly retreat when challenged, claiming it’s just ‘good fun,’ asking why you’re being so ‘politically correct,’ and demanding that you just ‘change the channel’… and their audience is angry and armed — what do you expect to happen?
Are the shock jocks creating a climate where such acts are somehow deemed acceptable? Do they have blood on their hands if others – albeit a few, marginalized, desperate and deranged listeners — act on their poisonous rhetoric? Would Jim Adkisson have killed without prompting from extreme right wing talkers? We’ll never know—but isn’t it time to step back and think about the effect this sort of debased dialogue is having on our democracy and society? It’s not ‘just entertainment’ any more—if indeed it ever was. Instead, it’s now literally a deadly serious business, and we all need to examine our accountability—as well as to look for new strategies to contain the spread of hate speech in our media — before someone else gets killed.
In the last few months alone, Michael Reagan has called for murder on-air; Rush Limbaugh has hoped for riots in Denver at the Democratic National Convention and spoken about a non-existent tape of Michelle Obama castigating ‘Whitey’; Bill O’Reilly has mentioned Michelle Obama and a lynching party in the same breath; Don Imus has (again) engaged in racially charged remarks; and Michael Savage has called autistic children ‘idiots’ and ‘morons’ and charged that both autism and asthma are ‘rackets.’
As previously noted, the real racket is the shock jock racket. You know, the one where everyone gets paid—Savage, Limbaugh (to the tune of 400 million dollars), Hannity (100 million), etc.—but also local stations like WOR in New York City, which expressed ‘regret’ but took ‘no responsibility’ for Savage’s remarks; national distributors like Talk Radio Networks –the second largest provider of syndicated talk shows– and its headman Mark Masters, who puts Savage on 350 stations reaching 8 million listeners every week; and of course their corporate advertisers and sponsors. So let’s pressure the corporations who are using the public airwaves but not serving the public interest – and let’s challenge the shock jocks whose dehumanizing talk may be leading to terror and hate acts such as that which played out so tragically in a church in Knoxville.
In remarks given at my recent book launch party at the Tolerance Center, I specifically warned about shock jocks’ hate speech and the potential for some listener actually to take their advice literally, and to act on it in a real world “conspiracy to kill.” Some attendees later told me “You called it.” I hope not.
The first amendment doesn’t require that speech be fair, only free. If Mike Savage is on 350 radio stations, that is a testament to the popularity of the man and his message. If the left wants to counter guys like Savage, then they should get like minded radio personalities to spread the liberal world view. Fore warning is fair warning; from Al Sharpton to Jerry Springer to Ed Koch, the left has failed time and time again at talk radio……..
August 3rd, 2008 at 2:36 pmRory: Congratulations on the new book. Here’s a piece of mine from Counterpunch on the same subject.
Doug*
Counterpunch
Weekend Edition
April 30 / May 1, 2005
America Hold Hostage
Saving Jane Fonda
By DOUG GIEBEL
Big Sandy, Montana
One recent dreary midnight, coming down with a cold and unable to sleep, I lay in bed listening to a call-in talk show from KOA, Denver’s clear channel AM radio station. The topic for an hour’s discussion, chosen by program host Jon Caldara, was whether or not it was appropriate to spit a mouthful of tobacco juice and saliva into the face of Jane Fonda.
In Kansas City, Missouri earlier that same day, a man claiming to be a Vietnam veteran stood in line at Fonda’s book signing, waiting for the opportunity to spew into the actress’s face the gob of juice from tobacco he had been chewing in preparation for his attack. Reports from the scene noted that after wiping the yellow-brown slime from her face, Jane Fonda continued signing books. The spitter was arrested, and calling the target of his gooey blast a “traitor,” said he was very pleased with himself for what he had done.
Most who dialed up the Caldara program said they believed spitting on Ms. Fonda was not only justified, but even perhaps an act of heroic proportions. To his credit, Caldara disagreed and made strenuous efforts to enlighten his angry callers, although most of them seemed content with their view that to the spitter belong the spoils. When host Caldara asked one gentleman caller how he’d feel if someone spat tobacco juice in the caller’s wife’s face and mouth, the caller responded that he hadn’t thought about it that way. Still, because of her trip to Hanoi over 30 years earlier, Fonda was fair game for spitters.
Considerable responsibility for the current climate of anger and hostility in America rests on the shoulders of the many talk show personalities who, hour on hour, deliberately stir their listeners’ negative emotions through argument, name-calling, deliberate misstatement of facts. Unfortunately on the night in question, Jon Caldara was no exception. Although he strongly denounced the spitting incident, he repeatedly called Jane Fonda a “traitor,” making occasional suggestions about how she might atone for her perceived transgressions. He suggested that there may be no statute of limitations for traitors, implying that callers who also found her actions traitorous could bring her to justice in the courts.
As Caldara saw it, Jane Fonda was a traitor who should be dealt with according to the laws governing traitors, but she should not have to suffer the insult of being spat upon.
It was mildly amusing to hear grown men attempt to justify their pro-spit stance with various inane rationalizations. Amusing, that is, until one caller calmly hinted at an act not previously raised during the evening’s discussion. With apparent sincerity, this particular fellow said he’d gladly wait 90 minutes in line for the opportunity to spit in Jane Fonda’s face. But, he added, spit would not be his weapon of choice.
Caldara, a skilled performer, gradually drew forth from this possible stalker a desire to kill Jane Fonda. The man would not, however, risk killing her up close and personal while she was autographing his copy of her new autobiography.
What would you do? asked Caldara.
With calm dispassion, the caller replied, “I’d stand outside across the street and ‘plink’ her when she left the bookstore.”
“So you would kill Jane Fonda,” Caldara said.
The caller answered, “In a heartbeat.”
Caldara paused dramatically and then went to commercial. What interested me was that at no time did Caldara appear to denounce the murder-minded caller’s interest in killing a well-known public figure. Possibly the popular radio host did not wish to further inflame the caller, whose emotionless threat might have found many listeners in agreement with his deadly sentiments.
I wondered if Caldara or the program’s producer had immediately alerted law-enforcement authorities, wondered if they had bothered to contact Random House, Fonda’s publisher. I made persistent attempts to call the station but each time received a “busy” signal.
When he returned to the air, Caldara did not further comment on the assassination-laced incident. He did cut short a discussion with a Vietnam war veteran who supported Fonda’s anti-war stance. As with many such professional talkers, Caldara was not particularly interested in debating an issue that wasn’t part of his political agenda.
Vitriolic call-in personalities know how to foment anger and outrage in their audiences, and the successes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter and others depend on outlandish hyperbole and hypocrisy. They stoke the already-simmering rage of listeners who what to believe the worst, especially about “liberals.” It seems possible the reigning out-of-control political discourse in the nation would cool down if only those filled with anger, hate, bigotry and malice would spend half as much time in self-contemplation as has the daughter of angry-man Hank Fonda.
I e-mailed John Caldara, asking if his station had contacted authorities or Random House about the murder threat. I received no response. Early the next morning, I sent a message to Random House and to producers at the Diane Rhem Show in Washington, D.C. Diane had recently interviewed Jane Fonda for an entertaining hour free of vitriolic overstatement. I related the Denver caller’s interest in murdering Fonda. (The man had, after all, described his plan to “plink” her outside a bookstore.) Nancy Robertson, a Rehm Show producer, immediately contacted Jane Fonda’s publicist at Random House with the information I’d provided, and the publicist planned to contact John Caldara at KOA in Denver to learn more particulars. It seemed obvious, then, that no one had bothered to alert the publisher prior to my contact.
If Caldara and station KOA did not bother alerting either law enforcement or Jane Fonda about the caller’s repeated threats, it may be because stations and audiences are so used to hearing outrageous statement they give them little significance. However, to this writer, ignoring the publicly-uttered statements and plans of those who openly threaten the lives of others seems negligent . Perhaps if the target of the threats had not been Jane Fonda — if instead it had been Colorado’s governor or the President of the United States — the station might have leapt into action. Or maybe not.
To my knowledge, President Bush and other political leaders who benefit from the publicity given to them by call-in “entertainments” have not stepped forward to vigorously condemn the hostile atmosphere stimulated by such programs. In an Omaha appearance, President Bush responded to a heckler by saying with a touch of cynicism, “We love free speech in America.” These days one wonders if, perhaps, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave is now afflicted by a mean-spirited cowardly streak that loves wallowing in hostility and anger even more than it loves free speech. “Plink.”
August 3rd, 2008 at 11:10 pmDon Feder is like Julius Striker, and you have called it the way it is once again. Father Coughlin is not dead he’s come back as Rush Limbaugh!
August 4th, 2008 at 1:16 pmTaking unpopular stands requires a certain amount of moxie. Race hatred got me beaten and the beating lead me to to stand with Malcomb rather than Martin. I got beaten by la Raza for being a White looking guy with a Latina.
August 4th, 2008 at 5:57 pmWhen I dared to criticize illegal immigration I damn near got shot by a coyote who had rammed my car. My mistake was being unarmed around thugs.
Psychotics come in all races, all political colorings. I am a defender of free speech yours and mine. I also defend your right to be offended will you defend mine?
#######
#######
Hi,Roy:
Re: “Hey, Lefty!”…awaiting moderation
in your COMMENTS section
Have you ever thought about the ROOT
CAUSE(s) of political affiliation?:
genes, parental influence, teachers’
instructions, Hollywood movies, books,
magazines, or something in the water?
I had coined the term, “Liberalism is
a mental disease,” in the early Nineties,
and which expression Michael Savage
had borrowed as: “Liberalism is a
mental disorder.”
Leftists are driven by their emotions,
for the most part, while rightists are
more reason-driven, for the most part.
Study my thoughts in here, to help you
to understand better why ‘LEFTY’ be-
comes a mass murderer in the names of
EQUALITY and FAIRNESS:
Underlying Psychology of Politics
http://underlyingpsychologyofpolitics.blogspot.com/
Best Regards,
-Deacon
P.S.
Contact me at my e-mail address if you
wish to discuss my ideas.
#######
August 5th, 2008 at 5:45 am#######
Shock jocks .. Rush Limbaugh … Sean Hannity?? Maybe Howard Stern could be called a “shock jock” but not these people.
Anyone who disagrees with your socialist world view must be evil so anything they do must be wrong. That is crazy, although I am sure you don;t see it that way.
Sure, there are people like Mike Savage who I will not listen to just like you might think Jerry Springer is over the line (although that really is a bad example since his old radio show I thought was well done for someone on the left but I think you should understand where I am going with this…).
The great thing (as long as it lasts) in America is we have freedom of choice. We DON’T HAVE TO LISTEN, we could turn it off and listen to something else or not listen to anything.
You don’t like Rush and Sean, fine don’t listen. That is part of the problem, you don’t listen…not enough to decide on your own. In stead to read short transcripts out of context and decide their conservative views are so far from your leftist view that they must be stopped. That is scary.
August 5th, 2008 at 8:34 am