Man, Media Matters is getting quite a bit of attention today. They should be happy about it. It's giving them more publicity and helping their cause.

are you happy?  the thing here is that boortz has not been completely honest about this selection of music in this instance.  he claims it was totally random.  that's what he claimed on the "media morons" thread of april 20.  he said the bumper music was "completely and totally random",  but two sentences later he said that sometimes his producer did pick music to fit "the thing"  being discussed.  did he in this instance?  i don't know, but it is obviously not as random as boortz claims.

Yeah, anything that helps point out the right-wing's lies makes us deleriously happy.  Thanks for your concern.

Mr. Boortz:

We are the American Public. We saw when Rush Limbaugh, on his short-lived TV show, decided to show a visual joke. The new Clinton White House has a CAT, he said, and there was a picture of "Socks" on the monitor. The White House now also has a DOG, Limbaugh continued, and then appeared the picture of 13-year old Chelsea Clinton.

The joke? This Clinton child is unattractive, a DOG. Get it?

Not even his fans found it very funny to be making fun of the appearance of a child, so Limbaugh went into damage control.

And that's where YOU come in, Boortz. Limbaugh blamed it on his "technical" support, that his tech put up the "wrong" picture, just as you are claiming it was techinical "chance" that this particular song was played.

The bottom line is, Boortz, NOBODY believed Rush's excuse, and NOBODY believes your denials. We understand WHY you feel you must pass blame, and deny responsibility ... because your attempt at "humor" was so cold and inappropriate, even your buddies found it "over the top". But to then just DENY your culpability ... that just brands you as another rightwing coward.

We are the American People, and to expect us to believe in such "coincidence" or "technically random" foul up, is to insult our intelligence. 

All these recent attacks on Media Matters from right-wing talking heads just proves this website is working. Great job MMFA staff. Keep up the good work.

Absolutley. They are fearful of MMFA and after trying to ignore them , they are now scared especially after MMFA played an important role in stopping hate speech with Imus.  Great job MMFA, keep the pressure on these people.

"they are now scared especially after MMFA played an important role in stopping hate speech with Imus"

The definition of "hate speech" for a liberal: Anything uttered by a non-liberal that does not reflect the principles of liberalism or advance a liberal agenda.

O'Reilly has on numerous occasions engaged in Hate speech. He calls people of the left wacky, he has spewed vile hate toward the Iraqi people I can go back and find all the examples if you like? MMFA did this two weeks ago. 

Thanks for proving my point. The anti-free speech liberals are out of control.

Yeah, but if you think it's bad now, just wait until we're IN control...

Well as you guys were saying about the Dixie Chicks "Free Speech has consequences". These haters are allowed to say this but the advertisers will face consequences. 

I love how the troglodytes give credit to MMFA for what happened to Imus.   If that's true, why are all the Right Wing liars still on the air?

If it was not for MMFA , Imus would still be on MSNBC a MSM outlet spewing his racist and sexist hate daily. MMFA gave the video attention that caught the countrys attention.

Just to clarify, I was referring to Rino Breath as the Troglodyte.

You are correct in that MMFA attracted attention to the Imus remark, but I don't think MMFA was instrumental in his firing.  After all, MMFA points out equally egregious comments by people like Savage, Boortz, Limbaugh, etc. and they are all still on the air.   The Imus thing took on a life of its own.

Also, RINO, my man, you should start a campaign to ask the advertisers that were pulling out of the Imus show why they did it. Are they haters of "free speech" or is it that maybe, just maybe they might lose some of their precious money by being associated with that speech. Get the ball rolling, RINO.

Probably because we still have freedom of speech in this country. We will always have freedom of speech unless the anti free speech far left liberals come to power in this country. And also, the reason that you want to silence these conservatives is because they are actually telling the truth, and you know you can't debate them on the issues. You have to try to silence them through censorship.

There is NO FREE SPEECH ISSUE INVOLVED. You have every right to be as racist and offensive as you like even on your job. You have NO right to be exempt from consequences of those actions nor do you have a right to continued employment if  your employer thinks your offensiveness is counterproductive to his business or if he just doesnt like it.

Boortz and Imus and O'Reilly have a right to say whatever they want. MMFA has the right to quote them and urge its readers to contact their superiors. Using the power of government to silence critics is censorship;using the power of the people to change the tone and timbre of the media is democracy in action.  Good to see it too.

"Using the power of government to silence critics is censorship"

Then tell all of your liberal friends to stop advocating that we put the Fairness Doctrine back in place.

You do KNOW that is a non sequitar dont you? Just because Rush told you that the fairness doctrine is about silencing him doesnt mean it makes any sense whatsoever. People who actually know what the issue is about KNOW that it calls for allowing the other side to be heard, which is like the exact opposite of silencing anyone. You are embarassing yourself. There are reasonable arguments for being against the fairness doctrine. Your propaganda parrot talking point is NOT one of them.

When the Fairness Doctrine was put in place, most talk shows were by neutral hosts, because when you put ideological hosts on the air, it was almost impossible to tell what fair and balanced really was. It's a good likelihood that if we had a Democratic President, they would use the power of the Fairness Doctrine to get Rush off the air, saying that his influence pushed the balance to the right. Also, privately owned radio stations SHOULD NOT be forced to carry unpopular liberals who virtually no one wants to listen to. The reason why conservative radio hosts dominate talk radio is because THEY ARE POPULAR! Maybe you should try to beat us in the free market rather than through government censorship. If a liberal had dismal ratings, the radio station would have to pull the plug on his or her show, and the liberals would not have equal time with conservatives any more. To compensate for the liberal losing his job, a conservative like Limbaugh or Hannity would have to be taken off the air.

First the argument that hey this guy MIGHT do this isnt a compelling one. I dont believe for a second what you say is true. Second no one would be forced to put up liberal shows. There have been ideologues on the radio since the beggining ever hear of Father Conglin (sp) so that argument is just wrong. It only calls for allowing someone attacked to have time to respond and that the other side be heard. If that means Rush, who is using OUR airwaves, that is exploiting OUR resouce, to make obscene amounts of money, actually has to allow an opposing opinion on his show, in the interest of serving the public interest, I dont see how that can be a bad thing. What you are saying is the basic tenet of propaganda, that the other side NOT be heard, is worth protecting. If that is your opinion, that the public service function of the deal we made to allow private companies to profit off of our resource is best served by turning it into a propaganda venue, ok, you are entitled to that opinion. However its just silly to say it is SILENCING someone to say they must allow the other side to be heard, the very notion is just ludicrous. Rush just knows if people heard the other side he could never win in the ACTUAL arena of ideas. So he tells his Limborg listeners that it is about silencing him and without the requisite thinking about the idea which makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER, it gets repeated. It is a talking point without substance.

RINO:

Your rant about a "free market" in the media will make perfect sense, once you explain the "market forces" at play when Phil Donahue was booted from MSNBC.

Explain THAT, and THEN you will have the moral authority to preach to us about how the "market" works. Until you can explain the firing of Donahue, you have ZERO authority on this topic. 

the right spinners are all afraid of there actually being two sides to the story.  they prefer it like 2000, when they had a free hand to make up all their lies about gore.  it says a lot about conservative "thought"  that anyone could actually see allowing another opinion as "censorship".  who's being censored?

"We will always have freedom of speech unless the anti free speech far left liberals come to power in this country. And also, the reason that you want to silence these conservatives is because they are actually telling the truth, and you know you can't debate them on the issues. You have to try to silence them through censorship." rinohunter

You come here, offer very little substance pertaining to issues, incite negativity, just basically you behave like a jerk then complain about being treated like a jerk.

Boortz betrayed a public trust when he used his substantial media influence to target private citizens. It's that simple. As a very public media personality, Boortz is charged with the responsibility to hold inviolate FCC regulations that prohibit him from abusing his power.

Public figures and elected officials are fair game, they have an equal power footing, they can respond to Boortz.

What astounds me is his monumental cowardice and all his willing accomplices who defend him. All these tough guy, talk radio conservatives lack the basic integrity to stand by their jokey words and comic deeds for what they are: baseless smears and attacks. Hey, if you want to be like them that's your bidness, just don't get in our bidness for speaking out against the reprobates.

Have a nice day!

Rhino Hunter ♥  Bill O'Reilly

I think you lying weasel conservatives that keep pretending this is a free speech issue when it has been shown over and over that it is not are just pathetic

Everyone engages in "hatespeech".  Liberals call conservatives backward hicks, stupid, evil, etc... ALL THE TIME!

Not true I only say that about neocons.

It's not hate speech if it's the truth.

Evil is as evil does. And evil always deserves the hatred of the good.

Do tell, what is the definition of "hate speech" for a conservative?

I don't know. I've never really heard a conservative talk about "hate speech" before. Most conservatives I know actually support 1st Amendment rights. I guess if you went beyond the reach of the 1st Amendment and threatened to kill somebody that could be "hate speech," since that is illegal and could land you in jail.

Ah ok.  So let's resurrect the 'N' word and every other racial slur from the darker chapters of American history and bring them back to prominence and acceptance?  After all, it's all about the First Amendment, right?

Furthermore, when did criticizing "hate speech" become an infringement on Fist Amendment rights? 

oops.  "Fist" Amendment?

The People's right to fist, being essential to the health of society, shall in no way be abridged.

Best one sentence parody of the constitution, ever.

The ACLU defended the KKK's free speech rights, so maybe you should ask them.

In the eyes of the ACLU, fighting for another person's rights to say what they want and endorsing what they say are completely different things.

Again, you're trying to make hate speech criticism a free speech issue. 

NBC and CBS were under no Constitutional obligation whatsoever to provide Imus a job.  Imus is still within his rights to host a blog or stand on a freakin' street corner and call black girls the 'H' word, it doesn't mean we have to just shut up and let it stand with no response. 

My point is that something isn't technically "hate speech" unless it threatens other people and lands you in jail. You have the right to criticize controversial comments. You have that free speech right as well. My point is simply that a comment isn't legally actionable "hate speech" unless it goes so far as to threaten someone's well being or life.

Just an observation...

It is increasingly difficult to read your posts on the subject as you frequently interchange the ideal of "free speech" with the Constitutional Right to Free Speech.  There is a difference between the two, but you could never tell that from reading your posts.

Is that the same as MMFA's "hate speech" toward Billdo and Slanthead?

Rino, Boortz wants to take away your right to vote. Read the back of his new book, "Somebody's Gotta Say It." He says

Myth: Everyone has a right to vote. Fac: No, my friend, you don not have a right to vote.

No expalaination given by him.

The NeoClown toadies are test-driving this "no right to vote" thing;  one of them hit this site a few days ago.  No, the Constitution does not literally spell out our right to vote, but the 14th Amendment assumes it's existence, and the 9th Amendment refers to rights not enumerated.

Anyway, one has to wonder why they even bring this up.  Could it be that they're preparing their defense for the time when Karl Rove's election shenanigans are revealed. 

Far, FAR too easy. Anything that Murtha says, even though he is one of the brightest guys in Washington, is considered hate speech by the Repubs. Anything said about saving the lives of American soldiers or caring for them when they return is hate speech. Anything against King George, KKKarl, Dick, Wolfy, etc is considered hate speech by the Repubs and the Right.

"Why do they hate our country so much?" cry the angry Repubs. "Why do they want to ruin our fun and money as we rake billions from the taxpayer and divert it from the needy to Haliburton?"

Hate speech has been taken to a new art form by the Repubs, and bought into by the stupid. Sorry, somebody has to point out that every with an ounce of logic knows that O'HannityBaughBeckBortzWeiner is one big lie to sell the fact that GWB is the worst president ever. 

You mean like Coulter when she said Justice Stevens should be poisoned or that the way to talk to a liberal is after you beat them with a baseball bat. Or Weinerdog saying we should kill one hundred million Muslims? Actually I pretty much agree with your point here. I am not one that thinks all insults raise to the level of hatespeech and leave that for the actual advocation of violence.

...or that the way to talk to a liberal is after you beat them with a baseball bat

I don't know Solon, there are times I could use one of those bats on a few Liberals around here...

JUST KIDDING!!!![ this message to those here that lack a sense of humor]

;-)

That's why I wear a helmet.

Hope it's one of those hi tech ones and not a leather one:-)

I should hope we are all too well aware of how utterly useless a leatherhelmet is.

; )

Ann?!  Ann Coulter?!?  I had no idea you read MMfA!

So, Ann Coulter engages in hate speech regularly, correct?  Ask her about her "joke" about Justice Stevens, about her "chance" with Bill Clinton and her plans for Middle Eastern leaders.  Am I right?

It probably makes a difference that Coulter was only joking. I don't think that's illegal speech. But I do think she was way over the line with those comments. And I will admit that she's pretty extreme. I definitely wouldn't want her to be President. If she were, we would probably be at war with every single Middle Eastern country.

And yet she constantly says she MEANS everything she says. You KNOW this was humor HOW? Was it your amazing mind reading powers of was it just that NO conservative EVER says anything offensive its ALWAYS just a joke? I dont think since even SHE didnt say it was a joke the defense can be taken seriously.

I like how you just ignored the rest of my post. Don't want to give me any credit at all for being at least slightly open minded and slightly more moderate than you may have thought?

I already addressed the other points in another post. I agree. If it isnt advocating violence I dont see it as hatespeech, thats my opinion which just happens to agree with yours. She however DOES advocate violence, she SAYS she means everthing she says so your excuse she was joking falls flat. As for her being president since that will happen roughly the same time as Pinky and the Brain take over the world I didnt see anything to address.

Rhino, do you need the "conservative talk show host" to define YOUR definition of hate speech?

Are you serious?  Just the other day Slanthead made a pre-emtive smear against Moyer's documentary BUYING THE WAR  by calling it , you guessed it, "HATESPEECH".

Do tell, what is the definition of "hate speech" for a conservative?

--  "Happy Holidays"

ha ha! now that was funny

Uh no, that's the right wing definition of the term when they wish to co-opt it to use against liberals.

Hate speech has a very clear definition: "speech that is intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability". The whiney-ass titty baby right is very intentionally rying to generalise its meaning to include political speech so they can turn it into a First Amendment issue.

A direct quote from the racist asswater Boortz himself.

... yup that's why we hated the nappy head ho term it didn't advanced our of agenda of stamping out disrespect. RINO why this irrational hate against "Liberals" where does it come from?

From the Childrens Guide To Propaganda, written by some German, I remember a lot of G's. Not to put to bald a face on it. The Nazi's didn't just beat on one population. The conservatives do not just work over any thing with the liberal label. There are favorite targets in either case. 

Rhino, Would you please define YOUR definition of "Hate Speech".

See I'm a "liberal" and I need you help in understanding exactly what "hate speech" is.

Forget it. he ran away .

Conservative pundits really hate being quoted, don't they?

Yep.  I think Keith's summation of O'Reilly's fear applies to every one of these morons that find it necessary to lash back at MMFA:  Their greatest fear is that they will be quoted correctly.

Thus, I think, hate speech to a pseudocon is when you quote them.

Quoting conservative pundits verbatim is hate speech.

---"the all-out attack on talk radio that is under way right now."---

Another poor, poor, maligned, misunderstood, "it was just a joke/I was baiting them/it was really the computer", right-wing talk show host "victim".

Doesn't your heart just bleed for them...

Yeah, my empathy for these jerks is simply oozing from my pores, considering how much money they make for working 2-3 hours a day.  Just when I thought I had it rough.

No, but my a@@ bleeds for them.

Solon, I blame you for this...

You say that like its a bad thing.

He has enough trouble thinking in English.  Now his caveman brain has to deal with Greek too?

bring it on ! I will continue to send my check to Media Matters for it obviously works.

Did they all get together and have a meeting, or are they just taking a page from O'Really's "reporting" and decided to use it as an opportunity to pile on to MMFA?

I lost a lot of trust with media matters when they started taking stuff out of context that "Michael Smerconish" said.  Smerconish is not like Savage, Limbaugh, etc.  He is pretty thoughtful, even Bill Mahar has said so.

Exactly what was "taken out of context"?

I'll answer that, Doris:

Uh, stuff.  You know.

Don' cha?

I ♥ Holly

How do you do that? I mean, it's kinda ghey, but it's interesting...

Ghey? 

Rock on with your bad self, Mr. Graphics-In-The-Comments Man!

Val, I know how to make capital letters.

On a good day I can find the exclamation mark

♥♠♦♣☺

Interesting, the preview does not show what actually shows up...

Back at ya, MHK!

What mmfa does is they post titles like 

That title is taken out of context.  It does not include all the details of what smerconish said.  They use the titles to make people look bad but the full story is much more balanced.  This caught my interest because I listen to smerconish,beck,limbaugh at work each day and know that beck and limbaugh are unbalanced and do propaganda.  But there is no way smerconish is even close to them.

More or less mmfa uses titles like the drudge report - the titles make people look bad but the details are much more balanced.  The titles are taken out of context.

I can agree on one thing.  From what I saw this week, Smerconish is not like Savage or Boortz.  He does come across as more middle of the road, even though he came across as a Bush apologist when he was on Bill Maher's show.

One day this week, Smerconish did a story about a dead American soldier whose widow succeeded in getting a Wiccan symbol put on his headstone.  I thought he handled the story very well, and actually agreed that the woman had a right to do what she did.  I have to respect him for that. 

Smerconish is no doubt a conservative - but I have listened to his radio show for at least a few months now and will say he is not mean or demeaning or hateful to callers and goes out of his way to tell the full details of the story.  

 I would just say to mmfa - please dont group smerconish in with rush and savage and beck, he really is not close to them. 

I like Bill Maher, but he also said that Mann Coulter is a friend of his.  I loved it when Richard Belzer  told him that his friend is a vile, despicable person.

See, what's going on here is that Rush Limbaugh made his fortune before MMFA came along.  Now, all the Limbaugh parrots are trying to cash in on the same gravy train, and they see MMFA as a potential threat.  It's getting harder to make a living as a Right Wing liar these days.

This is too meta for me.

It is to laugh. These nitwits are appearantly arguring that we are ant-like in our behavior. If they want to make that analogy, I would ask whether it is more likely that these "pundits", rather than the "liberal media" obtain and transmit information on the state of the world by licking each other's anal openings

Yes, I read yours prior to posting mine below; but still could not find negative connotation is any of the hours I have been regaled with legends of the Myrmidons, as allies of Achilles, or separately, as the most formidable mercenary force of the age.

I'm stuck on why "myrmidons" is a bad thing? Although obviously not the actual name of the site, association with the myth of the Myrmidons is (I thought) quite positive; and thus, an attempted slur or slight that misfired? Or does the fundie take on Myrmidons differ?

One negative characteristic in some accounts is unthinking loyalty to a leader.  That would be a projection of  a right wing flaw onto us.

In Troilus and Cressida, Shakespeare has Achilles cowardly order his Myrmidons to to murder Hector, which they enthusiastically do.   From this, a secondary definition, "hired ruffian," arose in England.

Thanks for enlightening / reminding me! I suppose I read initially with my juvenile (Homer-based) regard for Achilles firmly in place, and consequently "overlooked" baser motives imputed to certain of his acts. With all the linguistic connotations of those motives now in place, I can see the potential - still a reach, IMO - for use of "Myrmidon" as a slight or slur.  

That's because you don't understand the conservative dialect.  They value alliteration and rhetoric above standard definitions.  Therefore, you only need to know that it is SUPPOSED to be derogatory, it doesn't necessarily have to be defined as such.  Some call it nuance, some call it illiteracy.  Doesn't matter, as long as it sounds good.

Sounds good like a Bernie Taupin lyric. I like Elton, but those lyrics make no sense. But hey, they sound good. When I complain my husband asks, "are you listening to the lyrics again?"

Maybe it's the association with Achilles. This adminsitration has so many points of vulnerability, but none that can be helped by a dip in the Styx. I hear that Cheney spends his weekends shooting ducks from a boat floating there. I'd hate to see his dog.

Which one?  Buckshot, or Sieve?

I think the term Myrmidons is a play on “MMFA's benefactor”  Soros’ Greek heritage. I guess Soros is Achilles, which would make Soros the son of a goddess mother and a human father. Who woulda thunk it? .

Another useful insight!

At MMFA, one need only ask for enlightenment, and one shall be enlightened!

My thought exactly! Check out the definition on Wikipedia: [link to en.wikipedia.org] />

Myrmidons, men created from ants by Zeus to repopulate the isle of Aegina, after Hera visited a plague upon the inhabitants from jealousy at another of Zeus' dalliances, this time with Achille's great-grandmother, whom the island is named after. 

So is Boortz calling us the Aegean ant-men, considered hard-working, industrious and brave? I don't get the insult.  

I see the continuing death of Air America makes the news again."A death of Wagnerian Proportions!" There's an opera based on the Jerry Springer(sorry this really lowers the level here, some could probably argue against this, but) Show, why not "The Death of Air America." Mark Twain could observe on rumers of death.

It's about time talk radio came under attack, the way these idiots like Boortz, Limbough, et al. have been attacking their fellow-Americans for many years.  Well, if 97% of the voters want another Clinton in the White House, thats good news to me.  If so there's hope we can get out of Iraq, and will once again enjoy a decade of civility, low-unemployment and good wages, balanced budget, diplomacy and goodwill toward the United States throughout the world.  Bring it on!

Lol! Clinton leave Iraq? Oh, that's a good one. I'm laughing. She's already said she'll keep half the army there indefinitely. Don't see end of occupation coming from her direction, no siree.

Bluebayou, you just reek of vile liberalism don't you.

"Civility?" " Low-unemployment" "good wages"???

Why don't you take your evil liberal ideas and post on some other site.  If you continue to spread your "hate speech" against conservatives; we will have to ask you to leave.

(just joking)

Ha, hah, whatever-McCain-you-are.  I post where I choose and not only here.  Most of my comments are about the subject matter up there under the headline, rarely in response to particular comments by other posters.  Go fish in a different river.

You have apparantly been missing aDifferent McCains posts. He wasnt being serious. He is pretty liberal himself.

Solon, no I hadn't seen any of his other posts, and my response to him was tongue-in-cheek.  I knew he wasn't serious.  I meant to be funny in calling him "whatever-McCain-you-are", because I think John McCain switches his positions so frequently, he doesn't know who he is.  By the way, I enjoy your posts.

Thank you I appreciate that. Satire is hard to detect in posts. I missed it.

Despite Boortz's many shortcomings, you gotta love his stance on the 4th amendment, the war on drugs, and the way he nullifies the right wing christian zealots. Other than that I can't stand him.

Redking 75687,

I googled your comment from Sen.Clinton about her "keeping half the Army in Iraq", came up empty,help me out,where did you find those words? 

Myrmidon: A loyal follower,a subordinate who executes orders unquestioningly or unscrupulously.   Merriam-Webster

Please help me understand, How is Media-Matters being a "Myrmidon'?