Keep hate off the airwaves....sign the Media Matters petition.

[madfloridian]

Share this around.

Hate has no place on the airwaves


Recently, the major television networks have given a platform to conservative hate merchants like Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Melanie Morgan.

Coulter's column is distributed by Universal Press Syndicate, one of the country's largest syndicates. Beck was recently hired by CNN Headline News. Morgan broadcasts from a radio station owned by Disney. And all three -- and countless others like them -- are regularly given guest spots on cable-news networks.

The fact that these right-wing pundits -- who have called for the execution of public officials and others -- are given a platform in the major media is unprecedented.

We, the undersigned, urge the media to stop allowing these hate merchants to spread their venom and abuse. America deserves to hear honest, reasoned debate, not rants from professional hatemongers.

Add your name!

[Warren DeMontague]

1. Kicked.

Absolutely. It's inexcusable that these -brownshirts, really, is what they are- are being given airtime.

And where the hell are the honest-to-god liberals? There are none. It's obscene.

[madfloridian]

2. Thanks for the kick. Only 16, 588 have signed so far.

Need a lot more than that.

[bliss_eternal]

3. Do you know which Disney owned station Morgan

is on? I have frequent dealings with Disney and would be happy to express my feelings about this to them. On some fronts they seem to want to seem non-partisan, on others they seem quite progressive and liberal (offering gay days in their parks). I wonder if they know this is a contradiction in terms...I feel obliged to let them know...

Thanks for the links! :)

[Eric J in MN]

26. KSFO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSFO_%28AM%29

[bliss_eternal]

34. Thank you--

:hi:

[Eric J in MN]

35. You're welcome. NT

NT

[OKDem08]

4. done! n/t

[ancient_nomad]

5. Kicked!

16601 signed....


:kick: :kick:

[cry baby]

6. k & r

[MarkDevin]

7. My god, Coulter looks evil!

I'm beginning to think my smart-ass comments about her being a succubus from Hell might just have merit after all!

[Senator]

8. k&r

[Arkansas Granny]

9. k & r

[mogster]

10. Good stuff! Mediamatters rocks! n/t

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

11. Done, K&R. n/t

[zanne]

12. Done. nt

[graywarrior]

13. Done

[RedEarth]

14. k & r

[smoogatz]

15. Wrong approach.

It's a free country (allegedly), and if these idiots can get themselves a forum, they have a right to their views--however odious I may find them. What we need, in fact, are lefty pundits who are able to re-establish the far-left boundaries of public discourse with equal success. The reason the political center became what passes for the "left" in this country is only partly due to the fact that these far-right lunatics are getting air time; the other end of the problem is that there's really no one out there promoting far-left views (thereby making progressive views appear more "mainstream"). Most of the country doesn't even know what socialism is anymore; they think it's the same as fascism. That's a problem.

[madfloridian]

17. I disagree.

Have such hate filled discussions elsewhere, don't give them their own shows (like Beck or like with Savage), and don't put them on Hardball to rile up stupid people. There is enough anger.

[smoogatz]

19. I don't think suppressing ideas (even terrible, stupid ones)

serves anyone. The trouble is not that there's debate--however unpleasant it is at times--it's that the debate is too narrow.

[madfloridian]

20. You are coming from a different place on this.

You seem to think Coulter, Beck, and Melanie have debate. In my mind they are just being put on the air to spread anger and divisiveness.

They offer nothing to make the debate wider and more intelligent. They simply present their hate-filled rhetoric.

[smoogatz]

21. I think they're on the air to push the debate to the right.

And I think that strategy has worked--though the momentum appears to be swinging in the opposite direction now, as the population wakes up to the ugly results of six years of wingnut government. No surprise to anyone, the derivative-minded geniuses who run the networks are way behind the curve. No, instead of suppressing the idiotic ravings of these wingnut morons, let's get some rational, charismatic lefties on the air to go toe-to-toe with them. All we have to do is keep telling the truth, and let the people decide.

[madfloridian]

22. You keep saying they "debate". That's where we differ.

They just spew hatred, which stirs on already unstable people.

There is no debate when they are on...they just spout stuff.

[smoogatz]

23. I'm talking about the general debate, right vs. left

of which Coulter et al are a part. No, the Coulters of this world don't "debate" in the sense that your college forensics team debates--it's much more primal and down and dirty than that. They're propagandists, pure and simple--paid attack dogs sent out by their corporate masters to say absolutely ANY negative thing that pops into their heads about "liberals" (i.e., anyone who doesn't think that corporations ought to rule the world without regulation of any kind and that said corporations ought to have unlimited access to America's military for whatever purpose they deem necessary). What I'm saying is that attempting to suppress that propaganda will only result in the propagandist's having a legitimate gripe about censorship of their views. Instead, we should insist that progressive voices be heard in equal numbers and at equal volume. Making the Coulters of the world defend their views is a much better strategy, IMO, than censoring them. But hey, we probably just disagree about this. That's okay.

[Eric J in MN]

27. "Hardball" could have used the time it showed Ann Coulter

...this week to show Amy Goodman instead.

I wouldn't describe that as suppression. I'd describe it as a TV producer making a decision.

Who can better inform the public, Ann Coulter or Amy Goodman?

[Eric J in MN]

25. If you were TV producer, would you invite Ann Coulter

...on the show you worked on?

I wouldn't. I signed the petition as a way of asking TV producers who make that decision to not invite her.

[smoogatz]

28. I might do half the segment with someone like Coulter

and half with, say, Bill Moyers. And let the public decide who's smarter, better-informed, and has better ideas. Y'know?

[Eric J in MN]

31. I consider Ann Coulter beyond the pale.

She said that she wishes Timothy McVeigh had blown up the NY Times building, and she's stuck by that remark.

If I were a TV producer, I wouldn't invite her on at all.

[smoogatz]

37. But you're not. And they do.

Because she makes good tablournalism.

[Eric J in MN]

38. Yes, but I can still sign a petition saying they shouldn't invite her. NT

NT

[Silent3]

29. What does "it's a free country" have to do with it?

I'm a very staunch supporter of free speech... I wouldn't want *the government* stepping in to stop any of these people from getting air time or from saying whatever they want to say.

But using one's own free speech to complain about how others are using theirs? That's an important part of the process, including complaining about who is given how big a platform to say what they have to say. Religious zealots have no right as far as I'm concerned to, say, have the government make adult magazines illegal, but they have every right to picket businesses that sell such magazines and to take their business elsewhere.

We have just as much right to complain to broadcasters who give Coulter et al airtime, and to take our viewship elsewhere.

[smoogatz]

36. Do religious zealots have the right to demand that public libraries

dispose of books by gay authors? Is it okay for religious zealots to burn books or other media that they find offensive? Or is that a form of censorship?

[Silent3]

39. They certainly have the right...

...to make such a demand (that a public library dispose of books by gay authors). They have no right to expect, however, that their demands will get anything more than a "No, we can't and won't do that" as a response from a public institution.

Making the demand is not censorship. Only when a public institution responds to such a demand in the affirmative does censorship occur.

If religious zealots buy copies of books they don't like, and then burn those copies, that's within their rights. If that's how they want to conduct a protest, I don't have to like it, but I do acknowledge their right to do so. If they steal other people's books, or steal copies from public libraries and burn them, then they are guilty of vandalism and theft. If they conduct such illegal burnings in massive numbers, one might call it "vigilante censorship", I suppose. Only when the government takes control of and/or permits such burnings of books taken from other individuals or public institutions, however, does true censorship exist.

[Finder]

16. I think it is better to let them speak...

and to use their words against them. It will be essential for historians later when documenting the rise to fascism.

[madfloridian]

18. As they speak their anger, they rile up the uninformed...

and they cater to the lowest type and most uneducated. They do have an influence.

[Eric J in MN]

24. Done. NT

NT

[Greyhound]

30. Sorry, can't go along with this. It's antithetical to our (former) concept

of free speech.

Seems to me the real problem is that 3 corporations own about 98% of all the media in this country. Address this issue and a wide variety of viewpoints will find an audience. Oh, and as a side benefit to the reintroduction of competition, the quality of programming will rise.

[Eric J in MN]

32. It's letting TV producers know which people

...you don't want to see on TV.

I've written "The Al Franken Show" that I don't want them to invite Joe Klein on again.

This is similar.

[madfloridian]

33. These are propaganda artists, they are not commentators.

I am stunned at what I am reading here. They are simply people who say hateful things, tell lies, to get people angry.

I did not realize how far down the road we had gone, that we did not even recognize the difference between speech that is free and propaganda that is harming all of us.

I almost wish the mods would lock this. I wish I had not posted it. Things are bad enough in this country without using the words Coulter, Beck, Melanie in the same sentence as free speech. They don't speak, they screech, they read words, they spout nonsense.

They are feeding the anger of unstable people. Just like Rush Limbaugh.