Tucson Shootings Put Republican Hard-Liners On Defensive

[Guest fountainhall]

Good on you, Clarence W. Dupnik! Following the fatal shootings is Tucson, Az, 5 days ago, he’s the one, you’ll recall, who condemned "the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country". The next day he called Arizona the "Tombstone of the United States" because of its lax gun laws, and berated those who "try to inflame the public 24 hours a day" with "rhetoric about hatred, mistrust, paranoia of how government operates". Mr, Dupnik has been the sheriff in Tucson for more than 30 years.

 

Following these horrible events, it has been interesting to see the reactions of those often deemed to be amongst the most strident political commentators in the US. Britain’s Guardian newspaper, referring to Obama’s powerful speech yesterday, writes –

 

The Republican camp, by contrast, dug themselves even deeper into the hole they have climbed into. If Mr Obama's tone was inspired, Sarah Palin's was calamitous from the perspective of a party knowing it has to capture the centre ground to return to power. Not only did she sound defensive and angry (undoing the effect of the presidential props on and behind her). In rifling through her pill case for yet another dose of hyperbole, she stumbled over the concept of a blood libel.

 

Blood libel? Can a Fox News commentator in the 21st century, in any conceivable way, compare her situation as a victim of a slur to that of Jews who were persecuted, forced to convert and massacred in 12th-century England as religious fervour during the Crusades reached its peak? If she did not know what she was talking about, she should have shut up. If she did, she displayed such a lapse of judgment in choosing this particular analogy as to rule out her candidacy as a presidential challenger then and there. At least Ronald Reagan and George W Bush bluffed their way through lacunas in their knowledge. Ms Palin parades them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/14/editorial-barack-obama-tucson-memorial

 

There have also been calls to ban one of the most rightwing talkshow hosts on Fox News, Glenn Beck.

 

A protest was staged against rightwing talkshow host Glenn Beck today, calling for his immediate removal from Fox News. The organisers, Jewish Funds for Justice (JFSJ), a charity that campaigns for social change, delivered a petition with 10,000 signatures.

In the wake of the Tucson shooting, the TV and radio personality has had to defend his record against accusations that he has whipped up hatred within the public discourse. For a media figure who has been variously lambasted as a liar, buffoon, clown, bigot and racist Beck is no stranger to the vitriol that currently passes in America as public debate. In fact, he's built a multimillion dollar empire out of it.

 

So the protest rally that was staged outside the News Corporation headquarters in New York today probably troubled him as much as water flowing off a duck's back. The petition was part of a groundswell of opinion that when it comes to Beck, arguably the most extreme of America's multitude of rightwing talk hosts, enough is now enough.

Amid the billowing criticism, Beck has defended himself by claiming he has "softened" the tone of his monologues over the past couple of years. "Nobody wants to recognise this. Why? Because it hurts their dialogue."

 

But the evidence belies his claim of moderation . . .

 

• Social justice is a "perversion of the Gospel, not what Jesus was saying". 11 March 2010

• "We have been sold a lie … that the poor in America are suffering." November 20 2010

• Putting the "common good" first is the kind of thing that "leads to death camps". 28 May 2010

etc.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/13/glenn-beck-petition-fox

[KhorTose]

We would not have this state of affairs in America if we had the "fairness Doctrine" back again as law. The airwaves belong to all Americans, and for years we required a station that took a political stand to give equal time to the opposing view. The republicans were able to successfully repeal this law, and one of the things the Democratic Congress and President Obama should have done was reinstate this law. The total lack of real leadership in the Democratic Party (from the President on down) has lead to the Republicans victory in the off elections. Now with the Supreme court allowing unlimited corporate contributions the situation will only get worse, not better.

[Guest fountainhall]

But presumably if the Democrats had repealed the law, the Republicans in time would have done exactly the same. I suppose the hope must be that one of the Conservative members of the Supreme Court retires in the next 18 months - or shuffles off this mortal coil!

[kokopelli]

[quote name='fountainhall' t

 

There have also been calls to ban one of the most rightwing talkshow hosts on Fox News, Glenn Beck.

 

 

Oddly enough, Glenn Beck did praise President Obama's speech. Perhaps he is feeling the pressure for some of his outlandish comments.

[Guest anonone]

We would not have this state of affairs in America if we had the "fairness Doctrine" back again as law. The airwaves belong to all Americans, and for years we required a station that took a political stand to give equal time to the opposing view.

 

While by no means an expert on this, would the "fairness doctrine" even apply to cable news outlets? I don't think they utilize the public airwaves. Cable subscribers pay to have access to these 24 hour drivle-fests, which obviously illustrates the absolute stupidity of some.

[Bob]

I don't think they utilize the public airwaves.

 

Sure they do....they run over frequencies licensed by the government even from satellites. For down to earth use, they're running their wires over public utility poles (over, under, and through public right-of-ways).

 

But I don't think the Fairness Doctrine applied to them at the time because most of the programming went over the frequencies licensed over the public airwaves. If it was to become law again, I think it ought to apply given that probably 90% plus is all via cable or satellite nowadays.

 

The Fairness Doctrine, however, is really unworkable (I mean, what if a guest on Leno or at the Academy Awards makes a poltical comment?)and I'm not sure how it ought to be regulated. Without regulation, though, I see only one result: the rich and powerful win as they control the methods and substance of communication. Maybe someday Rupert Murdoch will own everything and we'll all get Fox News crammed down our throats.