With Deregulation You Get - RINOS?

My Recent Posts

General Kelly enunciated a list of things that American’s used to hold sacred back in the days when “America was great”. I do believe he missed one important item. We used to hold sacred the responsibility for our broadcasters to present a balanced and unbiased perspective. But in 1987, the Federal Communications Commission stopped enforcing the fairness doctrine, which required maintaining a balance in broadcasted opinions. This was part of the first Republican deregulation wave, during the Reagan Presidency. Now, with the benefit of 30 years of experience, we can see the effects of this phase of deregulation.

 

Once the airwaves were unshackled, broadcasters searched for ways to remain relevant. AM radio in particular needed resuscitation, since it had become much less relevant with the advent of FM radio which had poached its music monopoly. Experimentation began, with syndication of certain voices becoming more frequent. First among his rivals, Rush Limbaugh began syndication in 1988. He found a loyal following among those conservative listeners who began their political involvement by their adherence to the principles espoused by groups like the John Birch Society. This right fringe of the political spectrum found its way to the AM radio dial, and by serving as a dedicated audience, provided the opportunity for others to start their own talk show empires.

 

It was not long before these purveyors of group think began to affect the popular culture. Dittohead became a common descriptor for those who followed Rush, and people wore it as a badge of honor. It served as a symbol of their liberation from having to think for themselves. Now they could outsource their own need to analyze anything for themselves, allowing the radio to establish their own beliefs. On reflection, it is not surprising that many followers of conservative talk radio are also Evangelical Christians. In their church environment, they also are relieved of having to think about their principles and beliefs. Instead they are told in no uncertain terms about the fifty shades of black and white. The two populations (Evangelical Christians and conservative talk radio listeners) would have a significant overlap if analyzed via a Venn diagram.

 

Meanwhile, the left or progressive side of the political spectrum did not have a similar movement develop in the broadcast media. For whatever reason, liberals tend to form their beliefs through self-reflection, or through their experiences in the world, rather than have their beliefs spoon fed to them by a larger than life figure. As a result, the language of outrage that developed in conservative talk circles was allowed to serve unopposed as the descriptors for liberals over time. Liberals abdicated the field of linguistic battle, and by the time they noticed the language being used against them, the battle had been won by the conservatives. Witness the common descriptions for liberals and progressives today: libtards; snowflakes; and SJW. These are used as terms of disparagement, intended to insult those to whom the comments were directed.

 

The final piece of the media establishment that created a haven for conservatives was the birth of Fox News in 1996. In this comfortable environment, conservatives could feel their egos being massaged by a plethora of hosts and guests, all reinforcing the belief systems of the conservatives that they alone were God’s chosen. It reinforced their world view that their steadfastness to the principles and beliefs broadcast on a Fox tape loop was all that stood between them and the chaos that would result if liberals gained ascendancy. More and more people became adherents to the world view of the Foxes and Rushes, and they continued the demonization of the left via the bastardization of the language that they celebrate. They formed what I call the radical right.

 

The Republican establishment encouraged the growth of this new group that seemed amenable to their party. The establishment offered a wink, wink, nod, nod at the radical right, feigning lip service to the goals of reversing Roe v Wade, pretending to open their arms to welcome the cultural conservatives who ruled the talk show and Fox circles. All the while, the establishment’s true agenda of cutting taxes on the donor class got carried out under W when the surplus amassed under the Clinton years was squandered in the Bush tax cuts compounded with the war on terrorism conveniently left outside of the budgetary process.

 

This fake adherence to the goals of the radical right festered within the souls of that group. The resentment exploded after the near collapse of the economy in 2008, and with the failure to seek criminal prosecution of the Wall Street collaborators who steered the economy into the iceberg. The Tea Party emerged as an inchoate political movement, seizing on the opposition to big government solutions as being failed policies that landed so many people into an economic morass. That the new leader of the Federal government was a half-black interloper who dared to have an international background, allowed the Tea Party to frame their opposition to the establishment as opposition to President Obama.

 

The radical right never forgave the slights from the Republican establishment. Thus began the movement to classify establishment Republicans as RINOs, or Republicans In Name Only. Indeed, the vocabulary of the radical right against their own supposed allies was as vindictive as the names they invoked against the left. So we have cuckservatives and RINOs and cucks as derogatory terms used against those establishment Republicans.

 

At this time, it appears that the radical right wing of the party formerly known as Republicans is rising ascendant. This group does not seem to realize that they are truly a small fraction of the total population of this nation. Instead, they are reveling in each victory against a Flake, or a Corker, as evidence of their superiority.

 

What I find supremely interesting is that a direct association can be drawn between an act of deregulation (ceasing enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine), and the wave of political polarization washing over this nation thirty years later. As this administration keeps working to roll back regulations developed over decades, it is instructive to keep in mind that these actions can have unintended consequences. And those consequences can be quite destructive, but it may take 30 years for the effects to be fully developed. Be careful what you ask for – you may just get it.

 

Comments

Bill Kamps Added Oct 30, 2017 - 2:22pm
It used to be that the media edited the news, and only told people what it wanted us to know.  Back before the internet, we didnt really know why we were in Viet Nam, how LBJ made his millions, who JFK slept with, who killed Marylin, how Teddy killed that girl in Mass, why the Warren Commission makes no sense, etc.  Because there were few  media outlets, they could easily control the narrative and keep us in the dark "for the good of the country".
 
Now that is no longer possible because of all the possible sources of news.  Now rather than hide information, they overwhelm us with different versions of the same story, such that it is very difficult to know what really happened.  They all spin the news to fit their point of view. 
 
I dont know if this is because of the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine or that just makes it easier.  The media is always spinning things to fit their narrative.  Just  the other day I say  a headline about "mass" layoffs at Tesla.  They let go 200 people out of 40,000.  Hardly a mass layoff. 
 
Dino Manalis Added Oct 30, 2017 - 3:23pm
The media has to be as independent and bipartisan as possible and critique all politicians Right and Left to gain loyalty and public support beyond current levels.  We should strive to come together, not tear us further apart!
George N Romey Added Oct 30, 2017 - 3:32pm
The good news is that today there are alternative sources.  To get a real understanding of the truth people need to do their own investigating and research.  Most people are lazy.  They will take whatever his spoon fed to them by the MSM.
Dave Volek Added Oct 30, 2017 - 3:49pm
Interesting analysis.
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Oct 30, 2017 - 5:17pm
Good article. Avoid the mainstream media unless you are a conservatard (feel free to use that term widely) or otherwise someone who is too stupid to think for yourself. It only figures that Republicans would oppose fairness. Bullies hate fairness. 
John G Added Oct 30, 2017 - 5:18pm
"Political polarisation" I don't think is the right term. It is frenzied identity politics over manufactured wedge issues.
The important ideological issues of war, peace and economic justice are all locked up on the extreme right wing.
War is good, and giving the richest ever more is settled doctrine. Ebveryone else can go to hell.
The political centre has moved waaaaaaaay to the right in the neoliberal era.
In terms of the media, repeal of anti-trust and cross media ownership laws have probably had more impact than the repeal of the fairness doctrine which only ever made it a repub vs dem duopoly anyway.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Oct 30, 2017 - 8:53pm
Authoritarian Followers Syndrome affects both so-called left and right or conservative and progressive.
Thomas Sutrina Added Oct 30, 2017 - 9:31pm

Broken Clock, the is a laugh. Are you joking. This is the closest example of this yellow sheet.
You start by ignoring the fact that the media have supported the Democratic party for decades that I believe reaches back to the world wars. Today over 90% of the media supports Democratic candidates and bills. We can trace the lack of balance and bias perspective of the media back to Adam election.  So in 1987 Federal Communications Commission just couldn't sell that broadcasting was unbiased.
 
 
Rush Limbaugh associated with the John Birch Society is such a laugh that only a Democrat Socialist like you would even suggest it. Evangelical Christians leaders did get involved in politics, but they have failed miserably because the GOP candidates they supported acted like the Democrats do to the Black votes. Once the election is over their needs go out the widow. Roe v Wade funding during GOP administrations that has created a genocide at the level of Hitler.  And it continued despite the party in control.
 
Fox News has shown it's true colors by funding Donald Trump during the primary and then suddenly acting neutral for the general. Why, because the owners of Fox News are just as liberal as the other media owners. They started Fox News because a market existed. Fox New lead all channels it viewership before this election and is now number two. What more do you need about its true color that the public has learned.
 
Now this is the biggest laugh, “The Tea Party emerged as an inchoate political movement, . . . new leaders of the Federal government was a half-black interloper who dared to have an international background, allowed the Tea Party to frame their opposition to the establishment as opposition to President Obama.” First of all the Tea Party emerged during the President George W. Bush's second term because of his out of control spending and taxing. He was in competition with the Democrat administrations.  Obama just continued the out of control spending and taxing.  Both said big business and government were to big to fail so bailed out both with debt and our tax money. We the voters and Tea Party thinking individuals got fired and our pay check replaced by welfare and food stamps.
 
Even A Broken Clock Added Oct 30, 2017 - 11:15pm
Bill - good comments. As many believe, the media exhibited bias in its reporting via what it chose to cover and what it left uncovered. I think Thomas has a problem with that later in the comments. What I was specifically referring to was the portion of the broadcast media's programming explicitly labeled as opinion, and that is what the fairness doctrine tried to address.
 
Dino - I'm afraid that the genie is out of the bottle and we will never return to the days of yesteryear when the opinion portions of the media were unbiased.
 
George - I still recommend NPR for news coverage. They are able to actually get beyond the headlines and provide background for thoughtful people to draw their own conclusions.
Even A Broken Clock Added Oct 30, 2017 - 11:23pm
Dave and Lady S. - thanks.
 
John G. - think you are correct in that the political spectrum has swung much further to the right, and that process was most pronounced during Bill Clinton's presidency. To see Obama's presidency decried as a near-communistic surrender to socialism does generate a chuckle or two as being totally divorced from reality.
 
Jeffry - Authoritarian  Followers Syndrome - I'm going to have to remember that one.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Oct 30, 2017 - 11:37pm
Its a bonafied mental illness that affects 26% of any population. 
Even A Broken Clock Added Oct 30, 2017 - 11:41pm
Thomas - looks like I gored your ox. Let me address a few of your points.
 
As I have previously said, I don't dispute that there is a general liberal bias in the press media. Journalists are self-selected, and more folks who are interested in English and journalism classes are not those who are engaged in the STEM side of things. Therefore, more liberals enter the profession than conservatives. But the fairness doctrine prevented the entire basis of the network from being overtly conservative or liberal. As stated, it is only the opinion portion of the broadcasts that were affected by the doctrine.
 
If you look at the emergence of that grotesque caricature of a human called Rush Limbaugh, you will find a significant portion of his original positions were aligned with those of the John Birch society. Maybe he kept away from things like opposition to fluoridation, but many of the other positions were right aligned. How else could he have found such a ready-made audience. As to your comments on Evangelicals, you confirmed my point. You state that since Republicans acted like Democrats do (sic) to the black voters ...   Therefore you are calling Republicans RINOs, which was my point.
 
Fox news is LIBERAL? That really is news to me. I'm dumbfounded by that statement.
 
Now for the portion where I can refute your rambling, semi-lucid post with facts. The Tea Party did not emerge during Bush's term, although the conditions were ripe for its emergence. No, the Tea Party had an origin, and I remember watching it on CNBC one day when I was working from home. It was February 19, 2009, after the inauguration of Barack Obama, when Rick Santelli of CNBC went off on an epic rant that was the genesis of the Tea Party. By the time of the rant, most of the firings had already taken place. You, sir, are dead wrong about the timing and origin of the movement that you claim allegiance to. Not that this surprises me, since I expect most movement conservatives to bear only a passing acquaintance towards anything approaching a fact or the truth.
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Oct 31, 2017 - 12:08am
Sutrina totally discredited himself with that ridiculous nonsense. Typically of him really, completely out of touch with really. 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Oct 31, 2017 - 1:10am
Typically of him really, completely out of touch with really. 
 
Fully embracing another dimension.
Thomas Sutrina Added Oct 31, 2017 - 8:15am
Huffington Post is not a conservative paper by a long shot.  Here is what it says, "During his five years in office, President Obama has often blamed his problems on what George W. Bush left him with: two wars, a historic recession, an out-of-control financial system and a huge budget deficit. But W.’s most enduring legacy to his successor may have been the tea party movement, and the political dysfunction that it has brought."  
 
"Bush is responsible for the Republican insurrection and the Tea Party Movement twice over. To begin with, he spent eight years demonstrating that Republicans were at least as willing to increase the size of government, and to do it with borrowed money, as Democrats—indeed, more willing than the most recent Democratic administration. That was a good reason for Republicans who believe in the sorts of things Bush said he believed in to conclude that electing Republicans was no great improvement over electing Democrats, hence that renominating current incumbents would mean the wrong people being elected—whoever won. From there it is a short step to nominating someone else, even at the risk of losing the subsequent election.

Second, and I think equally important, Bush made himself massively unpopular with the electorate, with the result that the Democrats did much better in the 2008 election than they had any business doing, given the distribution of political views in the electorate. Having been handed the White House and large majorities in both houses, along with the excuse of an unusually bad recession and related problems, they proceeded to enact a lengthy wish list of Democratic priorities paid for with borrowed money on an enormous scale. The result, as best I can judge from my very limited political expertise, was that they positioned themselves well to the left of the voters. That set up the current situation."   http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2010/09/george-bush-and-tea-party-movement.html?m=0
Thomas Sutrina Added Oct 31, 2017 - 8:23am
There were Tea Party rallies before the general elections for 2008.  And no issue that the Tea Party became far more organized after the 2008 elections.  But was crushed by the IRS in 2012.  PS they received some financial reimbursement this year for the illegal actions of the Democratic and Republican supported IRS actions.
Bill Kamps Added Oct 31, 2017 - 9:02am
Broken, the thing is that opinion leaks into all parts of the news.  When the media sensationalizes the ordinary, it is doing that based on its opinion.  The adjectives that it uses to describe things, and the pictures it uses, even the stories it covers all reflect the media's opinion.  Of course we saw that in spades with the Trump campaign, where Trump was always given no chance of winning the GOP, because it was just a matter of time before he imploded, where he  was given no chance to win the general, etc.  Yes this was voiced in the opinion pieces, but it also was reflected in how they covered the Trump campaign events, being surprised at how  well he  was doing, etc. 
 
It has always been a myth that the media didnt offer its opinion mixed into the news. Therefore repealing fair coverage makes sense.  Besides is probably better to know that a particular outlet has a conservative or liberal bias, rather than they pretending they are unbiased.
George Kocan Added Oct 31, 2017 - 9:13am
The media, which includes the entertainment industry, has been and still is a mouthpiece for the Democrat Party.  Numerous books have documented the relentless promotion of the Democrat agenda of big government (fascism), sexual liberation, abortion, national interventionism and ethnic cleansing.  Let us not forget that the anointed successor to the so-called "most trusted man in America," Walter Cronkite, lost his job at CBS TV because he used a fake document in an attempt to smear the president, George W. Bush.  The so-called fairness doctrine came from one of the most corrupt Democrats ever, Lyndon Johnson, who could not tolerate opposition to his agenda.  Nevertheless, Rush Limbaugh, among other, do practice a fairness doctrine, where they allow Democrats to state their case as call-in on the show.  They also broadcast generous amounts of recorded statements of Democrats advocating their ideology.  When I complained to the FCC about unfairness from a radio station, which subtly pushed communism, the program's host sued me, thus, demonstrating how phony the whole fairness doctrine was from the beginning.
Even A Broken Clock Added Oct 31, 2017 - 9:58am
Thomas, I agree with you that the stage was set for the emergence of the Tea Party due to the actions of W. However, I'll see your Huffington Post article and raise you with this excerpt from Wikipedia (I know, relying upon Wikipedia as a source is sometimes iffy)
 
The movement began following Barack Obama's first presidential inauguration (in January 2009) when his administration announced plans to bail out certain home mortgage holders through the bankrupt homeowners. On February 19, 2009 CNBC reporter Rick Santelli launched a "rant" against the bailouts on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, calling for a new "tea party,"[11][12] Later, over fifty conservative activists agreed by conference call to coalesce against Obama's agenda and scheduled series of protests, including the 2009 Taxpayer March on Washington.[13][14] Supporters of the movement subsequently have had a major impact on the internal politics of the Republican Party. Beginning as a grassroots outburst, various local tea party groups eventually began to coalesce, and gained major support from Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a conservative political advocacy group founded by businessmen and political activist David H. Koch.
 
So though there may have been protests against the actions of the previous Republican administration by the progenitors of the Tea Party, it was indeed Rick Santelli that put a name onto the movement. 
 
I do agree with most of what you say in these later comments, except that I think you give the IRS issue too much weight, since I have not noticed that the Tea Party has demobilized since 2012.
Even A Broken Clock Added Oct 31, 2017 - 10:02am
Bill, using the example of the media coverage in 2015 and 2016 as examples of the long-term bias in media is a bit misleading. The horse left the barn many years ago, and now no one will pretend that there is a balance in opinions in either basic news coverage or in commentary. (Oh dear, I forgot our old friend "Fair and Balanced")
 
George, that's an interesting anecdote about your experience with complaining about a radio station. That would make an interesting post on this platform. At least I would read it.
Bill H. Added Oct 31, 2017 - 11:44am
 
Trump tried his hardest, even before getting elected to form his own TV network. When he became President, FCC rules of course would not allow this to happen. This has not stopped his effort, as his new FCC Chairman is manipulating the rules that presently restrict how many broadcast outlets a corporation can own and operate. Take a read on how Sinclair Broadcasting is being financed by Trump and his cronies to begin a massive $3.9 billion dollar takeover of Tribune Media Company, which operates 233 television stations that reach 72 percent of U.S. households.
This will be the true beginning of Government state-run media. Trump has also made moves in the background to obtain and operate Voice of America outlets, which will add even more to his arsenal of propaganda.
All of this happening in the background while he succeeds at deflecting and diverting our attention to all of his other antics, allowing him to do his dirty deeds virtually undetected.
Thomas Sutrina Added Oct 31, 2017 - 12:16pm
I know what Wikipedia says.  This is also from Wikipedia, "
The Tea Party protests were a series of grassroots protests throughout the United States that began in late 2007.
Among other events, protests were held on:

December 16, 2007 to raise money for the presidential campaign for Ron Paul.[1]
February 27, 2009, to protest the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) U.S. financial system bailouts signed by President George W. Bush in October 2008, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 stimulus legislation signed by President Barack Obama;

etc."   and at a different Wikipedia listing, "In 2002, a Tea Party website was designed and published by the CSE at web address www.usteaparty.com, and stated "our US Tea Party is a national event, hosted continuously online and open to all Americans who feel our taxes are too high and the tax code is too complicated."[70][71] The site did not take off at the time.[72] In 2003, Dick Armey became the chairman of CSE after retiring from Congress.[73] In 2004, Citizens for a Sound Economy split into FreedomWorks, for 501c4 advocacy activity, and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. Dick Armey stayed as chairman of FreedomWorks, while David Koch stayed as Chairman of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. The two organizations would become key players in the Tea Party movement from 2009 onward.[74][75] Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks were "probably the leading partners" in the September 2009 Taxpayer March on Washington, also known as the "9/12 Tea Party," according to The Guardian.[76]
 Wikipedia at this site also takes about Ron Paul rally,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement
 
Race of Obama has nothing to do with the reason for the Tea Party which is it is tagged with often and an objective of CNN.  Racist are members of all groups in America including the NAACP, Democrat party, Republican party, etc.  But in most cases is a small part.  Obviously when you gather people with some common interests that does not mean all interest are share.  Race is not and has never been a common interest for the Tea Party.  
 
Rush Limbaugh does have some common interest with the John Birch Society but does not share enough interest to be a member of the society.  He does not have enough interest to be considered a Constitutional Conservative like Goldwater and Reagan.  But the broader conservative umbrella is another matter.   
 
The GOP leadership are not members of the broader conservative umbrella.  The GOP leadership have more in common with Democrats then the base of their party, the broader conservative umbrella.  That is why they spend more money to defeat conservatives then democrats.  The GOP primary that Moore won is a great example.  The GOP leadership is not funding Moore to any extent, order of magnitude less, compared to the funds for the primary funding against him.  They in effect prefer a Democrat senator to a conservative senator. 
Dave Volek Added Oct 31, 2017 - 1:17pm
Thomas
 
I'll just add my two worth here about media bias.
 
In the aftermath of 911, there was a lot of attention to what the world should do next. So it became a hot topic in the Canadian media. Both major networks--CBC and CTV--bent over backwards to explain the various angles of why we are where we are and various solutions to rectify the world situation. In the end, I think we made the right decision to participate in Afghanistan, but stay out of Iraq.
 
When I flipped to NBC, ABC, and CBS, it seemed the coverage was all about "Let's go to War." Either Mr. Bush had no choice because public pressure was so overwhelming and the media dare not offend the public or Mr. skillfully manipulated the media to his agenda. You Americans did not have the same discussion as we Canadians on this matter.
 
 
During the Obama tenure, I didn't see this president getting a free ride with the media. He got lots of criticism for his handling of the recession, which probably cost him a lot of his base in 2012. It seemed to me that Ms. Clinton got a lot of flak from the mainstream media. For example, there was no attempt to hide or downplay Mr. Comey's report on her leaked emails a couple of weeks before election day. Then there was the secret deal of the DNC. These surely could not have helped her cause. The mainstream media reported these events; many traditional Democrats decided to stay home on election day;  the American people made a choice.
 
I'm also amazed at how so many Trump supporters believe he should be getting a free ride from the media, which Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton did not. He is a controversial politician and electing such a person with poor media skills is going to generate more than usual media sensation. Anyone with half a brain should have seen this coming.
 
So I'm having a hard time believing that the mainstream American media are overtly biased towards Democrats. No is getting a free ride--or should get a free ride.
Phil's Personal Perspectives Added Oct 31, 2017 - 1:28pm
Deregulation is the key to your article.  Regulations may have been promulgated in a bipartisan effort to address a perceived problem.  Differing opinions were discussed and a policy capable of receiving the necessary votes to pass and to address a problem came into existence.  The current climate issues a blanket call for the reduction or removal of regulation.  This indictment generally claims this is an effort to reduce costs and grow business.  Did those who supported regulation, our Congress and President, when passed not consider the consequences of their actions?  Were they too dumb to understand what they were doing?  Perhaps at the current time we fail to study or understand what regulations are still necessary and why.  Catchy phrases may work in the election process but fail to pass muster as a sound basis for decision making.
Even A Broken Clock Added Oct 31, 2017 - 3:21pm
Phil - I appreciate your personal perspective. Regulation always has a need to make the benefits of the regulations outweigh the costs of the regulations. Here is one way that the current administration is placing its thumbs on the scales of the cost / benefit analysis. It is well known that the 2015 Clean Water Rule is the target of Trump and his allies. The proposed modification in the ruling is to eliminate the category of wetlands as being subject to the regulations. Therefore, they can eliminate all of the benefits that wetlands provide from the cost / benefit analysis, and can justify scaling back the regulations because they do not provide sufficient benefits.
 
I understand how people believe that including wetlands in regulations represents a potential taking of personal property rights by government without compensation. Therefore I nominate Houston as the poster child for what can happen with unmitigated development of former wetland sites, removing much of the natural water surge capability to handle tropical storms. Hurricane Harvey would have resulted in huge flooding regardless of the development, but no one that I am aware of would claim that there was no effect from removing wetlands and filling and paving over former flood surge landscape.
 
One real complaint of business (especially manufacturing) is that we are putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage by requiring compliance with burdensome environmental regulations that are not required in other countries. On that note, please refer to China where lack of regulations cause crippling smog and water stained with leather dyes, masking the other toxic pollutants. Rather than race back down to the bottom in environmental protection, I'd prefer to engage in trade pacts that require adherence to environmental regulation in developing countries.
 
But, you know, all trade deals are losers for the US, so we must throw out the baby with the bathwater.
George N Romey Added Oct 31, 2017 - 3:39pm
Like the myth that RR was a budget hawk. He exploded the deficit, nearly doubled it just like Obama.  He was anything but small government.   Both parties add to government and they both do it for the sake of the ruling elite.
Phil's Personal Perspectives Added Oct 31, 2017 - 4:05pm
I agree with most of your comment.  Everything from clean water, public lands, etc are are being discarded by the current administration.  Houston couldn’t blame regulation for flooding but the recovery cost due to the lack of regulation is huge.  I do have to disagree to some extent with your final comment.  Regardless I appreciate your taking the time and replying to my earlier comment.  Discussion based on information either personal or on line has to lead to better understanding and hopefully improve our quality of life.
Jeff Michka Added Oct 31, 2017 - 4:11pm
Seems the author missed it completely.  Ronnie Raygun lobbied hard to get the FCC to drop "The Fairness Doctrine," and the author ignored the Telecommunication Act of '96 as what change "ownership ratios" in favor of big corps controlling vast swaths of all media, which had been studiously avoided since 1933 as something that could (and has) imbalanced news and information since.
Even A Broken Clock Added Oct 31, 2017 - 8:25pm
Phil - thanks. Sometimes I will admit I get a little snarky in my replies, especially when a comment is just what seems outrageous to me. But I try to find something to comment on meaningfully even on those replies I disagree with.
 
Jeff - such is the problem with simplification for a post that I deliberately try to keep to around 1000 words. You are exactly correct, and the results of the ownership ratios is why we have the Sinclair group able to post its conservative pabulum to nearly 70% of households in this country. We've got a Sinclair station in our media market and it is unwatchable.
Jeff Michka Added Oct 31, 2017 - 8:39pm
EABC sez: We've got a Sinclair station in our media market and it is unwatchable.-EVERYBODY HAS AT LEAST ONE in their market...Got ya' re: edited text.  However, we really have to hit all the sources of our maliase for any affect.  Simple and short doesn't work for a lot of what we discuss here.
opher goodwin Added Nov 1, 2017 - 6:02am
Deregulation is usually a way for unscrupulous people to make more money.
In Britain the Tories deregulated the Animal Food industry. They no longer had to sterilise the food by heating it to the required temperature. The industry realised they could cut costs by reducing the temperature they heated the food up to. The result was BSE. It meant millions of cattle were infected and had to be slaughtered, people were infected and died, and it cost Britain billions.
The deregulation of news means there is nobody overseeing the lies being put out. Now nobody has any faith in mainstream news.
The internet is a dual-edged sword. We get masses of information, scare stories, bias, fake news, fabricated stories and real news. The trouble is that nobody knows what is true.
People put their faith in one source or another but they have no idea who is really putting it out. It is all propaganda of one type or another.
Deregulation is rarely good.
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 1, 2017 - 9:04am
Opher so the Britain deregulation of animal food industry, how many of the companies in that business went bankrupt and the owners were sued personally because it is know that you have to sterilise they can not use a mistake as an explanation?  How many of those owner and major voting stock holders went bankrupt?   My guess is zero so the risk was zero.  The government were partners in the fraud.  Those billions came out of the public coffers.  Am I correct? 
 
There is Britain's problem.  It is not a capitalism problem but a government problem and government owns regulations.  Bankrupts is the legal means of government to be the keeper of blind justice.  Everyone lives under the same law.  Not the case in Britain.
wsucram15 Added Nov 1, 2017 - 10:14am
EABC..you are really kicking A#%...the past few articles have been outstanding.  Really good stuff.
Not that anything was not before..but these have been good.
With that said..Thomas..Seriously?  Wikipedia? It was the mortgage and jobs stimulus bill that created the "large response " to what was called the "tea party"which may have existed prior by ideal but not in mobilization. 
That happened as EABC says in the middle of February 2009, I remember the marches in DC, they were quite rowdy. I believe the person most credited with this term is, Rick Santelli on the floor of the Chicago Merchantile Exchange.  At which time, on national tv,  which he encouraged the protest of the mortgage bailout by Chicago tea party members..which then blew up on the internet, February 19. 2009.
 
The tea party did in fact have a strong "cultural bias" called birtherism.  Those that claimed Obama was born outside the US and was a Muslim.  This was also a "tea party" theory. Among many other things negative.   I can appreciate some of the idealism..but most of it was just negative.  Which is why we are in the shit we have now.
 
 
Even A Broken Clock Added Nov 1, 2017 - 1:19pm
Opher, at least in the US, the issue of regulation and deregulation is one of the primary causes of the lobbying industry. The return on investment in modifying regulations to favor your particular company is many times greater than productive investments. In this I will agree with Thomas that regulation is a source of inefficiency in our economy. But as you note, what are the alternatives? Unregulated industries only respond to market signals, and if something bad happens, the damage has already been done.
 
That said, the wholesale dismantling of all regulations as sought by the Trump administration will not be good, as good regulations will be discarded alongside troublesome ones.
Even A Broken Clock Added Nov 1, 2017 - 1:21pm
Jeanne, thanks for your kind words. I've been enjoying life on WB, and these types of discussions is part of the fun. I agree with your comment on the Tea Party. Though the movement was forming prior to Santelli, he gave it the name and popularized it. It was like watching a supersaturated solution suddenly finding a nucleation source, and immediately precipitating out (sorry for the chemical reference). He triggered the phase change.
Jeff Michka Added Nov 1, 2017 - 6:25pm
Rick Santelli on the floor of the Chicago Merchantile Exchange.  At which time, on national tv,  which he encouraged the protest of the mortgage bailout by Chicago tea party members..which then blew up on the internet, February 19. 2009.-Funny, but nobody bashed Santelli at the time or later for being in the "MSM",  in this case CNBC, but he was saying things the rightists wanted to hear, so must instantly be defined as "an honest broker",  Riiiight.
wsucram15 Added Nov 1, 2017 - 6:29pm
I know..but there are so many liberal groups that have been around for a long time that no one will ever hear about.  Its difficult to get the media to shout out a name...you really have to achieve a lot.
 
I have a friend who was the only person that I know to not only sit in a Supreme Court hearing, but record it, which is unheard of.   It was  the Citizens United case.  He so objected to the justices comments on the matter he, and a couple of friends stood up in the Court and protested, (immediately drug out and arrested).  However, not before handing the tape of the hearing and subsequent arrest to another friend who was not arrested.  ITs on the internet somewhere.   You would think..right? Newsworthy..nuts get arrested in SC? Not a word.  They were just trying to bring media attention to the damage of Citizens United back then.   And Nothing... 
 
Ive known of people that filed against and fought the government all the way to the SC over many things.  Won certiorari  by the court and even though the had a good case..lost due to lack of funds and proper representation.  No one will argue against the government.   Not that way.
 
 
It was the publicity and the protesting afterwards (all media) that made the tea party what it was, in my opinion.  
Its like any group...Indivisible right now.  It all fades to something new.  Cycles out..whatever.
Dont worry about the scientific reference, I understood it.  Lol...
 
The Burghal Hidage Added Nov 2, 2017 - 7:30am
If you are willing to delegate the authority to the state to be the arbiter of "fairness" you might s well strike the word from our dictionary.
Even A Broken Clock Added Nov 2, 2017 - 10:25am
Touche, Burghal. I'm just using the benefit of hindsight to see that regardless of how effective the fairness doctrine had been applied in the past, with it rescinded we see the current media mess we live within.
Ari Silverstein Added Nov 3, 2017 - 8:06am
“We used to hold sacred the responsibility for our broadcasters to present a balanced and unbiased perspective.”
 
Since the beginning of media, nobody has presented a balanced and unbiased perspective.  Call it human nature...we all have biases and those biases interfere in our ability to be balanced.  The only difference between now and the past, is that you just became aware of these biases. 
Even A Broken Clock Added Nov 3, 2017 - 11:01am
Ari, I do agree with you up to a point. The perspective applied to true news coverage (and what is and is not included in coverage) always reflected the tendency for more liberals to be involved in media than conservatives. It is in the removal of the requirement for opinions and editorials to reflect a balanced perspective which has led to the polarization by media network we see today.
 
Remember the Point / Counterpoint segments on 60 minutes? That was an interesting attempt to provide both liberal and conservative perspectives on the same platform. Of course, I also liked the Saturday Night Live parody of this with Jane Curtin and Dan Ackroyd, where Dan replied to Jane's commentary with, "Jane, you ignorant slut."
Bill Caciene Added Nov 4, 2017 - 6:32am
People that listen to Rush Limbaugh think very well for themselves.  With all the other crap in the media, I applaud all of them for rising above the fray and choosing someone entertaining and intelligent.  The fact you don’t like him and speak so poorly of his listeners, simply shows your own political bias.  As for the label “dittohead” Rush is not big on callers that waste time saying how great he is.  So he promoted the word so that his callers would be brief and show their appreciation at the same time.  Genius if you asked me. 
Jeff Michka Added Nov 4, 2017 - 5:31pm
TBH, typically, makes noise: to delegate the authority to the state to be the arbiter of "fairness"-I suspect you have no idea of what the Fairness Doctrine was, or how it worked, but your statement I quoted show you as just mouthing words that  other rightists will "understand."  If the Fairness doctrine was still with us, it would be unlikely the Orange garbage bag would have gotten all his "free media," and as a result, won the election.
Jeff Michka Added Nov 4, 2017 - 5:33pm
Bill C sez: Genius if you asked me.-Oh yeah, like him using the mic to damn all those awful black people dealing drugs, as he swallowed another handful of oxycontin.  Like some on WB (not you, Bill C) THAT'S JUST BEING A HYPOCRITE.
Jeff Michka Added Nov 4, 2017 - 8:21pm
wsucram15 sez: The tea party did in fact have a strong "cultural bias" called birtherism.  Those that claimed Obama was born outside the US and was a Muslim.  This was also a "tea party" theory. Among many other things negative. - Hmmm, are you actually saying Trump didn't invent "birtherism?"  He's invented everything.  Just let him tell you he has.
Even A Broken Clock Added Nov 5, 2017 - 1:15pm
Bill - I do find it interesting that of all the readers on WB, you are the only one to defend Rush. I do stand by my comments about his listeners outsourcing their thinking to someone else, and yes, I had heard about the origin of the phrase dittohead. I just find it extremely ironic that folks would wear that phrase as a badge of honor.
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 5, 2017 - 2:05pm
Actually I defended Rush near the start of this thread, "Rush Limbaugh does have some common interest with the John Birch Society but does not share enough interest to be a member of the society.  He does not have enough interest to be considered a Constitutional Conservative like Goldwater and Reagan.  But the broader conservative umbrella is another matter."  
 
This is also a very false claim, " The tea party did in fact have a strong "cultural bias" called birtherism."  As I pointed out the tea party is a reaction to out of control spending by Bush.  Obama was not a national figure when the tea party started to form.   Trump is not a member of the tea party and he was the birther shouting it from every street corner.  Trump to my knowledge has never attended a rally of the tea party.   Trump is a salesman and the birther issue got his name know outside TV as a potential political player.
 
Only us Illinoisans had even know who Obama was.  He was a player in the Chicago Democratic Party.  Used a leak of a "sealed" divorce  proceedings to present the wife's words used to get custody of the children.    The propelled him into the senate.  And making Obama the choice for the Democratic party was a surprise to many. Out side the top leadership in the party he was a unknown.  Obama was a low life politician to have that much pull in the Chicago party before he ran for the presidency.   
Flying Junior Added Nov 6, 2017 - 1:40am
I couldn't believe it when I recently heard a Trumpanzee calling out Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell as RINOs.  Nobody was calling them that last year.  McConnell is as fine of a republican obstructionist as any that I have ever known.  A true follower of the demon Limbaugh.
 
How about Paul Ryan's "Pathway to Poverty?"  That wasn't exactly RINO material.
 
Dammit, even Boehner was not a RINO.  He was a worthy opponent.
 
What's next?  Newt Gingrich is Antifa?  Deep State?  Obama shadow government?
 
An American republican is supposed to be a responsible politician who cares about his constituency and promotes the interests of commerce.  What am I missing?  They used to even care about the environment.
 
Come back into the light wayward sons and daughters.
Even A Broken Clock Added Nov 6, 2017 - 10:58am
Thomas, I'm sorry for all of the pain you had to feel during the Obama years. I know that it was difficult for you to have to look up to someone who obviously had made a deal with Mephistopheles in order to gain power. What I find really interesting is your desire to revise history into insisting that prior to 2004, when Obama first burst onto the national stage, that there was a concerted movement known as the Tea Party that protested the out of control spending by Bush. It would have been good if that had actually been the case - the spending for the wars would have been rolled into the budget and maybe taxes would not have been cut unnecessarily back in the early years of the Bush presidency.
 
FJ - I am in violent agreement with you on the disbelief I find when encountering someone who is under the influence of the cult of personality fostered by our current President.