Communications 101, Class 3

The radio station owned by the neocon keeps airing Jackie Walorsky’s Military Industrial Complex Cheerleading with talk of the situation in Syria and creating the sense of urgency for the United States to go in there to fix it.  Somehow, the failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have somehow escaped Walorsky’s notice.  And, I ask again, since when did we become the world’s police??

The radio station is doing its part to keep us involved, therefore adding to the war profiteers’ bank accounts by repeating the comments.  One of the principles of Communications is to keep repeating a message until a) people believe it; or b) you get the result you seek.

The folks in the videos on false flags hold the belief that ISIS is just Al Queda and all of it is staged.  I noted in the nooz that “jihadi john” is now dead.  Convenient, isn’t it??  I wonder if that means that the crisis actor who stood in front of a green screen pretending to behead someone is now dead so that he cannot speak out?

You can tell this is a neocon radio station because while airing these pro-war, pro-military industrial complex statements from Jackie Walorsky, there is no one speaking out with a different point of view.  The station will tell you that they air different viewpoints….with Joe Donnelly, a DINO (Democrat in Name Only).

Bwahahahahaha  *snort*   bwahahahahaha.

Joe Donnelly will tell you the exact same thing that Walorsky tells you.  He will tell you that our nation’s security depends on us going into yet another country.  He’ll tell you that while ignoring how much our influence has destabilized the Middle East.  And he will ignore all the innocent people killed.

The radio station won’t air someone who questions the military industrial complex and the aggressive actions taken.

And they don’t have to — Reagan made sure of that by taking away the Fairness Doctrine, which required the media to air opposing views at the same time as the others, with as many minutes, without interference.

A really good piece on the fairness doctrine here.

**FAIR disagrees with my statement above:

…it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50.


The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views.


When the Sinclair Broadcast Group retreated from pre-election plans to force its 62 television stations to preempt prime-time programming in favor of airing the blatantly anti-John Kerry documentary Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal, the reversal wasn’t triggered by a concern for fairness: Sinclair back-pedaled because its stock was tanking. The staunchly conservative broadcaster’s plan had provoked calls for sponsor boycotts, and Wall Street saw a company that was putting politics ahead of profits. Sinclair’s stock declined by nearly 17 percent before the company announced it would air a somewhat more balanced news program in place of the documentary (Baltimore Sun, 10/24/04).

But if fairness mattered little to Sinclair, the news that a corporation that controlled more TV licenses than any other could put the publicly owned airwaves to partisan use sparked discussion of fairness across the board, from media democracy activists to television industry executives.


Together, they are part of a growing trend that sees movement conservatives and Republican partisans using the publicly owned airwaves as a political megaphone—one that goes largely unanswered by any regular opposing perspective. It’s an imbalance that begs for a remedy.


American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.

— Rep. Luther Johnson (D.-Texas), in the debate that preceded the Radio Act of 1927 (KPFA, 1/16/03)


It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, aesthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.

— U.S. Supreme Court, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.


[Mark Fowler] and his like-minded commissioners, a majority of whom had been appointed by President Ronald Reagan, argued that the doctrine violated broadcasters’ First Amendment free speech rights by giving government a measure of editorial control over stations.


See…you twist it around to be the exact opposite of what it is — that is, taking freedom of speech away from opposing views is…violating the Freedom of Speech of the station owners…yep.


Wrote [Justice Robert ]Bork: “We do not believe that language adopted in 1959 made the Fairness Doctrine a binding statutory obligation,” because, he said, the doctrine was imposed “under,” not “by” the Communications Act of 1934 (California Lawyer, 8/88). Bork held that the 1959 amendment established that the FCC could apply the doctrine, but was not obliged to do so—that keeping the rule or scuttling it was simply a matter of FCC discretion.


A written law is not a law…(if we don’t agree with its purpose of presenting views opposite our own ideology)…see?

All you see on the nooz now is rightwing views.  Big Energy views.  Big Pharma views.

I briefly watched John Kerry speak at the Institute for Peace.  What a joke.  He was advocating TPP as a way for peace.  Seriously.  He was seriously asserting that subjugating our Constitution, our own autonomy, and our ability to make enough money to provide for ourselves…is a way to peace.  No…it’s a way to control every one and every thing so that no one can speak out against unfairness and injustice.

And he asserted that we need to go to Syria.  We need to go kill some people in order to save them.

I was reminded of a quote from the 60s:

“We seem bent on saving the Vietnamese from Ho Chi Minh,

even if we have to kill them and demolish their country to do it.”

~George McGovern


My feeling is that entering Syria will be the straw that broke the camel’s back.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s