About a week ago, after my appearance on Reliable Sources, I received an email from Newsbusters' Noel Sheppard. Noel was the right wing blogger that wrote what soon came to be the definitive right-wing response to the Spocko controversy. In his email, Noel asked me if I'd be willing to debate him.
Knowing I was on the side of the angels, I agreed provisonally. After some further exchanges in which we both assured each other that we'd follow the ultimate rule of the blogoverse (Don't be a dick), we got down to business.
As Newsbusters (amongst others) has been reporting for the past couple of weeks, a battle is being waged between liberal bloggers and a conservative radio station in San Francisco. Those that are unfamiliar with this issue should read articles covering both sides of the matter here and here.
Two of the most outspoken writers on the Internet regarding this subject have been Mike Stark, who writes at Daily Kos and at his own blog, Calling All Wingnuts, and Noel Sheppard, a contributing editor to NewsBusters as well as a frequent contributor to the American Thinker.
In order to further an understanding of this complex issue, Sheppard and Stark have decided to debate one another at their various Internet venues. The ground rules are as follows:
One last thought before we begin: although political rivals, Sheppard and Stark have had very cordial and profitable e-mail exchanges leading to this point. Their mutual goal beyond clarifying both sides’ views on this issue is to demonstrate that political debate can be done in a civil fashion without the caustic tone so many complain about with little intent to change it.
With that in mind, Sheppard and Stark have pledged to keep their responses focused on the issue at hand without plunging into the abyss that is the all-to-common pointless display of crotch-grabbing and genital-waving that serves no meaningful purpose.
We both sincerely hope this exercise proves informative and beneficial to all involved, and look forward to spirited comments from our readers. Enjoy.
Noel's Questions and my answers
1. In your first article concerning this matter posted at Daily Kos on January 3, 2007, you copied Spocko’s complaint letter to AT&T. In that letter, Spocko advised AT&T’s Wendy Clark (emphasis mine): "If you wish to hear the complete context on any clip or the audio during a date your ad ran contact me I have an educational archive of audio clips, I've listed a few below."
With that in mind, before you wrote this piece, did you get these complete audio clips from Spocko, as well as ask KSFO for full transcripts so as to determine the actual context of the snippets Spocko found offensive? If so, why didn’t you include these transcripts in your article – a practice quite common for media analysts as you are likely aware – so that your readers could indeed see what the context of these statements was? If not, why not? After all, wouldn’t this have been good investigative reporting on your part? Up to this point, Spocko was a virtually unknown blogger. Why would you not do any research to investigate the veracity of the claims that he was making before you reprinted them at the number one liberal blog in the country under your own name? In retrospect, do you think that was a mistake?
Answer: To provide a complete answer to this question requires some context of its own.
When I started CallingAllWingnuts, Spocko emailed me. I think it’s safe to assume that since our battlefields were similar, there was an immediate feeling of kinship. We exchanged several emails over the course of the year in which I became more familiar with Spocko’s work.
This isn’t to say that I kept tabs on his blog or was fully informed as to his every action, but I did know in general terms what he was up to.
I did not ask for complete transcripts from KSFO, but I did listen to most of the clips Spocko provided. Honestly, I think the point you are trying to make here is that Spocko’s work was somehow dishonest or provided false representation to advertisers. All I can say is that some comments speak for themselves. Suggesting that you’d like to dig up a corpse to kill her again is pretty clearly offensive. Suggesting that a caller call Allah a wh*re... well, there aren’t that many ways to interpret that...
So... since I had a previous relationship with Spocko, and since I didn’t use any examples of clips that I feel were taken out of context or misleading, I do not regret anything I’ve done.
2. In many of your posts concerning this matter, you have suggested that this issue is tied to the need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Could you explain this connection inasmuch as requiring a media outlet to allocate 50 percent of its time to opposing viewpoints would in no way prevent it from committing "hate speech" or "fear mongering?" Also, do you believe that the reenactment of this archaic concept should be applied to all media outlets including those that present the news on television, radio, and print? For instance, should MSNBC’s "Countdown" be required to present 30 minutes worth of conservative views? Should the New York Times be required to devote 50 percent of its print-space to conservative writers? How about magazines like The Nation, or blogs like Daily Kos? Should this apply to John Stewart and Stephen Colbert? If not, please explain in detail why any media outlets should be exempt from such legislation that you appear to support.
Answer: I do not have expert knowledge of the Fairness Doctrine as proposed or as previously applied. That said, I do recognize that there will be line-drawing issues inherent in any application of it. As such, the people in charge of "drawing the line" will play an outsized role in the enforcement of any implementation. There will be issues that will have to be addressed dealing with oversight and in establishing some insulation from politicization.
Since I no specific proposal exists so far as I know, I am happy to discuss the issue from a liberal’s perspective and answer best I can your specific questions.
First, I agree that requiring a media outlet to provide equal time for opposing viewpoints would do nothing to prevent violent or hateful rhetoric. In fact, it is conceivable that the outlet could fill its program schedule with 100% hate speech – all it would have to do is give 50% of its programming to David Duke and 50% to some of the more radical black nationalists groups (sorry, I cannot name one).
Second, I do not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be applied to all media outlets. I think it should be applied to all outlets that use the public’s broadcast spectrum – mainly, broadcast television and AM/FM radio (not satellite radio or TV). These broadcast spectrums are public property, leased to private entities. Just like we can place restrictions on land we own when we rent it, the people should be able to place restrictions on the broadcast spectrum property we collectively own when we rent that. This is especially important for this reason: media consolidation. ABC is owned by Disney. NBC by General Electric. CBS by Viacom. I am not going to do all of your reader’s research for them, but consolidation has put ownership of thousands of local radio stations and television stations into the hands of just a few corporate owners. When programming decisions are made by executives in far away high-rise offices, and when these decisions are made by underlings of executives that have a fiduciary interest in maximizing profits for the parent company... well, the proof is in the pudding. Brian Ross, of ABC, had a story ready to go that would have blown the lid off Disney’s hiring practices – specifically, their refusal to screen amusement park workers for a history of sexual predation of children. The story was spiked by ABC at the last minute.
Back to the Fairness Doctrine... The right in this country is known to be more corporate friendly than the left is. When corporations buy the media – the means of mass communication – you can count on receiving an undiluted corporate friendly message and program schedule. Corporations are notoriously anti-union, for example. Well, surprise, surprise... so is Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
Next – should Countdown be forced to present 30 minutes of conservative messaging? The answer is no – Countdown – aside from being on cable which would remove it from the Fairness Doctrine’s purview – is more than balanced by Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough. Even if it weren’t, however, I would have no problem with one station being all-conservative, as long as the provider offered a all-liberal station that viewers could choose.
Next, since the barriers of entry are so low, and again, since no publicly owned asset is being used in furtherance of the "message", I don’t believe the Fairness Doctrine should apply to websites, blogs or print media should be regulated.
3. Do you believe that you and I could easily take snippets of broadcasts or articles from all kinds of media outlets including The New York Times, The Nation, CNN, MSNBC, Air America Radio, Daily Kos, and the Howard Stern Show that out of context could be easily perceived as "hate speech," "racist," or "fear mongering"? Assuming the answer is yes, have you organized blog swarms to incite sponsors of The New York Times, The Nation, CNN, MSNBC, Air America Radio, Daily Kos, or the Howard Stern Show to cease advertising at these outlets due to the existence of such content? If not, why? Please explain your answer.
Answer: No, I don’t believe you can take snippets from any of the aforementioned (with the possible exception of obscure diarists and commenters at Daily Kos) that would in any way compare to the rhetoric we hear from the right side every single day. Further, if you were to mine Democratic Underground or DailyKos for outrageous comments, you would have missed the point. Ann Coulter is worshipped by many people on the right – she’s a leader amongst you. You cheer her. She calls for rat poison in Supreme Court justice’s food... She speaks of executing liberals... of "ragheads". Our marginal commenters are marginal for a reason. We marginalize them. Even Cindy Sheehan is left out in the wilderness by our political leadership. Hilary Clinton wouldn’t meet with her. I haven’t even seen Ted Kennedy anywhere near her.
To further anticipate another response from you, let me take the case of Al Sharpton. The man is not perfect, and, in fact, has some pretty damning skeletons in his closet. The difference between the left’s acceptance of Sharpton and the right’s acceptance of Coulter/Limbaugh/Malkin is that Sharpton has been right 95% of the time. He’s made some big mistakes, but they’ve been infrequent and are in large part long in the past. The leading voices of the right have said and done outrageous things within the last year or so – repeatedly – and they have never been asked to pay a price. The seemingly cannot do anything that cost them credibility amongst the rank and file of conservatives.
4. Which do you see as a greater threat to our nation and why: media outlets such as the New York Times publishing top secret national security information like the NSA’s wiretapping of terrorists and their use of SWIFT to identify terrorist funding networks, or; talk radio programs like the one in question, the Howard Stern Show, or programs broadcast on Air America Radio making statements that might be offensive to some listeners?
Answer: I’d like to get away from any discussion of Howard Stern or Don Imus or any of the other "entertainers" that don’t primarily talk about politics. I don’t listen to them, no political junkie on the left or right, that I know of, derives any kind of opinion from them, and as such, for the purposes of this debate, they are irrelevancies.
This question strays pretty far from the issue at hand, but I will endeavor to answer it to the best of my ability.
These are two entirely different issues. While I will not deny that it is conceivable for a press organization to cross the line and publish sensitive national security information that harms our nation’s security, neither of these issues rise to that level.
The news regarding terrorists wiretaps was not that we were doing it – even the most bumbling oaf of a terrorist can be expected to know that any government would do whatever it could to intercept and disrupt terror communications. Indeed, any terrorist that did not have that level of awareness is probably not a terrorist we need to worry about. No... The news here is that the administration had circumvented clear law established by the FISA statutes. The government is prohibited from intercepting American’s wire communications without a warrant. It’s that simple. If we could make it through the height of the cold war without violating that statute – a time we were facing down the nuclear annihilation of the entire planet – well, I think it is safe to say that we can handle a crazy fellow with a couple of sticks of dynamite strapped to his belly.
The SWIFT program was in the public domain. Again, people that transfer enough money to be caught up in SWIFT monitoring, I believe, will be concerned enough about their money to be cognizant of the means and methods that are used to transfer and track it. In fact, and perhaps you will want to show me the error in my thinking, but I do see an incredible danger in an increasingly authoritative government telling a free press what information in the public domain they may or may not discuss.
On the other hand, as I noted in my questions to you, I do see dots connecting the rhetoric employed by conservative talk radio show hosts to the leading Republican politicians that legitimize the opinions of these hosts by appearing on their shows. In a world that is shrinking by the day – networked like never before – I am certain that Indonesians, Pakistanis, Iranians, Egyptians, Saudis and other Muslim populations are aware that a large portion of America views their very existence as an enemy threat. At a time when we should be pursuing a strategy based on winning the hearts and minds of sane and reasonable Muslims, we are instead throwing gasoline on the fire.
Let me finish this answer with a rhetorical question. You are a young male Iraqi. You hear from interpreters that the Americans listen to the Armed Forces Radio Network. Some guy comes on the radio just about every day and sells "Gitmo Gear". Worse yet, he called the Abu Grahb atrocities (a lot of Iraqi’s died there, some tortured by Americans – look it up) nothing worse than college pranks... Well, if you are this Iraqi and you just happen to look out your window as two terrorists plant a roadside IED, are you going to risk your life to tell the Americans? Perhaps you need to do some role reversal – make the occupied country the USA, the occupiers Muslims (that hate Christians because Christians killed 3,000 people in their prosperous, far away and morally degenerate country in a terror incident), the radio host constantly ridicules you and your lifestyle, and the Supreme Leader of the Army that occupies your town has regular chats with this talk show host. Will your heart be won over? Your mind?
So to me, this is a no brainer. Freedom of the press good. Irresponsible speech, allowed, but bad.
5. In your first post about this issue on January 3, 2007, you wrote the following (emphasis mine):
I've got visions of Micky [sic] Mouse with his snapped neck caught in a mousetrap of Spocko's making. Spocko took on a giant and so far, is winning.
How'd he do it? He did it the way it's always done - by working within the law, identifying points of weakness, exploiting them and being absolutely tenacious.
Having hopefully seen the actual transcripts of the broadcasts in question, from a legal perspective, as a potential future attorney, how do you think Spocko’s arguments would hold up in court? After all, his contention that a KSFO representative said the word "sh**ty" to disparage a carmaker was 100 percent false. Furthermore, when you look at the actual context of the discussions in print, and hear them in complete audio clips, they are not at all what was presented at his blog or in the letter that he sent to AT&T. In fact, not even close.
With that in mind, do you think his claims of "hate speech," "fear mongering," and "racism" emanating from these broadcasts would hold up in court? Or, would a good attorney rip his position apart due to all of its seemingly obvious flaws? As a potential future attorney, please explain your answer in detail.
Answer: Spocko’s claim will hold up in court just fine. The EFF has just today posted their answer to ABC’s cease and desist letter.
That said, and at the risk of being cherry-picked by your side, I will break some news: I was not happy when I heard the Chivvy tapes – especially after the KSFO hosts put those remarks into context. If that context is the truthful and complete story, I do not think Spocko’s "Chivvy" clip lives up to my personal standards. It is not acceptable to "spin" the facts to be something they are not. That said, I think it is asking an awful lot for me to believe the KSFO defense without anything further. They have lied – repeatedly – throughout this ordeal. I have examples if you are interested.
To sum up, from my perspective, that is the fundamental difference between right and left. I don’t point this out to sleight any single conservative; instead I think the problem is a plague on the movement. There is a fundamental lack of dishonesty in politics. Somehow, conservatives have come to see politics as a game of advocacy – something to be won at all cost. If "spin" is necessary, so be it. If outright lies are required, well, it’s all in the game. Mock outrage? Check. Race-baiting? Sure, if it will win an election... Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Dick Wadhams, and Ralph Reed have corroded the foundations of the conservative movement. Honor and integrity are secondary to victory. This model is not sustainable. 2006 was merely a foreshadowing of 2008. Until the grass and netroots of your party starts holding your leadership accountable for their moral failings, things will just keep getting worse for conservatives. And honestly, I think that’s a shame because when one party is so weakened as to become an afterthought, the other becomes arrogant in its hubris. We all lose.
My advice to y’all – and please don’t think I’m being sanctimonious, sarcastic or anything less than sincere...
In everything I have ever done as an activist, I have been careful to make sure that I could not be accused of "spinning" or "exaggerating" my claims. The most important asset a progressive activist has is a reputation for honesty. The reason I wasn’t hurt by any of the attacks you folks threw at me after the George Allen incidents is that I never acted in such a way as to bring discredit upon myself – at least not from the perspective of a fair-minded person willing to listen to all of the facts. To reiterate – if I had acted irresponsibly or dishonestly – ever in my blogging career – you can bet that the George Allen oppo research people would have found it and crucified me with it. They spent 30 million dollars on that race. If they could help it, there was no way they would have let me get away unscathed.
These are the questions I presented to Mr. Sheppard.
1. Given the right's history of protesting the CBS miniseries The Reagans, radio station's boycott of the Dixie Chicks and, perhaps most damningly, Melanie Morgan's personal involvement in attempting to prevent theaters from screening Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, exactly how does Spocko's campaign differ from the trails previously blazed?
Noel's answer: There are certainly some similarities between those campaigns and Spocko’s. However, the differences are glaring.
For instance, KSFO is a conservative radio station, and celebrates that fact. It actually advertises on television and in print that it is a conservative voice in the Bay Area. I should know, as unlike most folks espousing an opinion on this issue, I actually live within the reach of its non-Internet broadcasts.
As such, complaining about KSFO offering conservative opinions – even ones that occur during extremely satirical moments intended to push the envelope to make a serious point – is akin to getting angry because a classical radio station played Beethoven’s "Ninth."
Actually, Edgar Varèse’s "Ionisation" is probably a better analogy; somebody sound the sirens.
By contrast, I don’t recall television or radio ads for "Fahrenheit 9/11" disclosing that it was a liberal’s view of the events leading up to the attacks on our nation with the intent to sway viewers from voting for President Bush in the upcoming elections.
Do you remember it being promoted that way, or simply as a documentary?
More importantly, there were falsehoods in Spocko’s complaint letter to KSFO’s advertisers. In particular, his statement that one of the station’s announcers said "sh**y" to describe a sponsor’s product was 100 percent incorrect.
As I wrote in my January 15 article on this subject, Tom Benner said "Chivvy" to comically mock car dealers who mispronounce the words "Chevy" and "Chevrolet." As someone who lives in the Bay Area that should be aware of this extremely common joke, Spocko either intentionally misrepresented this segment to KSFO’s advertisers, or there is another explanation significantly less flattering.
Moreover, the snippets that were clearly offensive as presented in Spocko’s correspondence, and disseminated all over the Internet in this abbreviated form except by NewsBusters, were not close to being as distasteful when heard or read in their full context which was not provided to advertisers in this complaint letter.
Therefore, in my view, Spocko was guilty of attempting to inflame sponsors with false and misleading information with the expressed goal of silencing political voices he disagreed with. For this to be analogous to what Move America Forward did in 2004 with its protest against "Fahrenheit 9/11," one would have to show that the letters sent to theater owners by this organization contained false and misleading information about the film.
As a potential future attorney, you certainly must see the difference between protesting the content of a movie or radio program, and distributing false and misleading information about said content in order to disrupt or prevent its dissemination.
Now, Spocko certainly has the right to voice his complaints about KSFO, and is welcome to continue doing so. However, those who disagree with his position, and his methods, similarly have the right to protest and speak out against his actions.
Or, is this a right accorded only to the left?
2. Understanding that, so far, the only person who's free speech has been curtailed in any way at all is Spocko himself, what, exactly, is the issue? In an attempt to answer my own question, I believe Spocko's opponents object to his efforts to contact KSFO advertisers because you define that effort as an attack on the KSFO host's free speech. If that is correct, the solution to the problem would be for Spocko to shut up – to stop his communications with KSFO advertisers. Is this not advocacy of exactly what ABC/Disney thought they were doing when they shut down Spocko's blog?
3. On Reliable Sources, I suggested that the way to fight speech you disagree with is with more free speech. In this example, Spocko spoke with advertisers that decided they did not want their money to be used to support speech they disagreed with. Do you believe businesses should be insulated from knowledge of what their ad budget is supporting? If not, isn't Spocko providing corporate America with a service?
4. Enlarging the playing field somewhat, let's talk about free speech, talk radio and eliminationist rhetoric for a moment. Lee Rodgers suggested that we should threaten millions of Indonesian Muslims with annihilation. Ann Coulter, at CPAC, said, "Ragheads talk tough, ragheads face consequences," and was met with applause from the room full of conservatives. The event was attended by Dick Cheney, Mitch McConnel, John Fund, John Cornyn, Tom Tancredo and scores of other influential conservatives. Coulter has been invited back to this year's event. Rush Limbaugh compared the events at Abu Grahb to fraternity hazing and sells "Gitmo gear". Some time later, George Bush invited Limbaugh to the White House. Do you believe talk radio rhetoric is helpful to winning hearts and minds in the war on terror? Is it wise for the nation's political leaders to legitimize this kind of rhetoric?
5. I'm fully aware that some on the left have engaged in equally irresponsible rhetoric. War protestors, for example, will often march with Bush=Hitler signs. Others have called George Bush a terrorist. The difference between over-the-top rhetoric from the left, as far as I can tell, is that the most outlandish and irresponsible amongst us are marginalized and ignored by our political leaders. On the other hand, as previously mentioned, the right embraces Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Melanie Morgan, Charles Johnson, Michelle Malkin and the rest of your "shock troops". From our perspective, it is difficult to see how a good faith exchange of ideas can take place when we our very patriotism (amongst other things) is under constant attack. Given the public face you've chosen to embrace (as a movement), how would you suggest we return to civil political discourse?
The rest of Noel's answers to my questions can be found here.