Fox News is a Behemoth

Rupert Murdoch has had a tough year as have all media companies but this ought to give him a reason to smile. Plus he can really give the finger in Olbermann's general direction:

Fox News was the ratings leader during prime time and total day during February 2009 — its 86th month on top. FNC averaged more Total Viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined in prime time and total day.

FNC had nine out of the top 10 programs in cable news last month in Total Viewers. The O'Reilly Factor was #1 for the 99th consecutive month, and was up 33% in Total Viewers compared to February 2008. The other top programs included Hannity (up 38%), Glenn Beck (the 5pmET hour was up 100%), The FOX Report with Shepard Smith (up 30%) and On the Record with Greta Van Susteren (up 24%).

On the Record also reclaimed the lead in the 25-54 demographic, up 4% year to year. At 7pmET, FOX Report was up 28% in the demo, The O'Reilly Factor was up 44% and "Hannity" up 34%.

There's no way else to spin in but to say that Fox is dominating. we hear that Rachel Maddow is making a move or the Olberwoman is rampaging but these numbers are so overwhelmingly in favor of Fox News that anything they say will sound ridiculous.

They beat CNN and MSNBC even when you combine their viewers.

Hey, maybe using the Nutroots sites for storylines will help them out.

This will only encourage the Unfairness Doctrine supporters to push for it to include cable news as well.

"Fairness" Doctrine Update

I've been getting back to normal after a week on the left coast and that would explain the light posting.

That said, I'm ready to go at it again after digesting the events of last week where we saw a bill passed that will put us on the glorious par of Iceland, France and Great Britain. One thing about Obama, he reaches for the stars, doesn't he?

On to today's first topic. You know that the return of the "Fairness Doctrine" has been a liberal wish since Reagan rightly bounced it over twenty years. It's represents everything that America doesn't and that would explain why libs love it so much.

Well, now the libs have their man in place and they don't even need the three traitors--Specter, Snowe and Collins-- to jump ship to get it back in all it's infamy. Once Obama establishes Julius Genachowski--his nominee--we'll see it come fast and furious and the GOP will be helpless (second item) to do anything but watch and whimper.

This time however, it's not just TV they want, they want to go after talk radio and will bring the best Stalinist policies to do so. They will go to for profit companies and tell them what they must put on the air. Don't like what Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin say? Put on six hours of mindless liberal droning by the likes of Ed Schultz to counter them. No one will listen but it will be "fair". It really doesn't matter what the ownership of the networks say because the government wants this and they dole out the licenses. Last I heard, Premiere Radio and other entities didn't ask for or receive any bailout money, because, of course, they're making money...at least until this new Orwellian measure is implemented.

But wait, they won't stop at talk radio; no they'll soon go after the Internet and blogs will be a nice easy target. Don't like what I write? Just complain and they'll force me to allow posting one of these scrubs to counter it.

I find it amusing that liberals screamed that George W. Bush was going to do the following things:

*Bush would cancel the election in 2008; and
*Our rights would be severely curtailed.

Interesting that it's a liberal president that has diminished our rights more in the first month than eight years of "W".

With all that in mind; note how Megyn Kelly goes all pitbull on the most irritating liberal of all:

Paleo-Libs Can Sure Make a point

I make it a daily part of my regimen to slam "liberals" because they make it easy. They are knee-jerk anti-American, have an elitism about them that I find grating and look at the military and Israel with contempt. They deserve my daily ridicule.

But those liberals are neo-liberals not the true liberals who are thinkers and never worry that what they write will be scorned. They are fearless and thoughtful and I have to say; I enjoy reading them.

I would put Christopher Hitchens in that groups as well as the excellent Camille Paglia.

Ms. Paglia has a must-read that makes some salient points:

Money by the barrelful, by the truckload. Mountains of money, heaped like gassy pyramids in the national dump. Scrounging packs of politicos, snapping, snarling and sending green bills flying sky-high as they root through the tangled mass with ragged claws. The stale hot air filled with cries of rage, the gnashing of teeth and dark prophecies of doom.

Yes, this grotesque scene, like a claustrophobic circle in Dante's "Inferno," was what the U.S. government has looked like for the past two weeks as it fights on over Barack Obama's stimulus package -- a mammoth, chaotic grab bag of treasures, toys and gimcracks. Could popular opinion of our feckless Congress sink any lower? You betcha!

Anyone who can use "gimcracks" is alright by me, but I digress.

Ms. Paglia is one who can see things for what they truly are. She knows that the stimulus plan is a farce and says so. Juxtapose that with the neo-libs who are in for whatever Obama wants. $1-trillion, $2-trillion, whatever, dude. It's all good.

But this is what I find ingratiating about Ms. Paglia:

Speaking of talk radio (which I listen to constantly), I remain incredulous that any Democrat who professes liberal values would give a moment's thought to supporting a return of the Fairness Doctrine to muzzle conservative shows. (My latest manifesto on this subject appeared in my last column.) The failure of liberals to master the vibrant medium of talk radio remains puzzling. To reach the radio audience (whether the topic is sports, politics or car repair), a host must have populist instincts and use the robust common voice. Too many Democrats have become arrogant elitists, speaking down in snide, condescending tones toward tradition-minded middle Americans whom they stereotype as rubes and buffoons. But the bottom line is that government surveillance of the ideological content of talk radio is a shocking first step toward totalitarianism.

One of the nuggets I've gleaned from several radio sources is that Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who has been in the aggressive forefront of the campaign to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, is married to Tom Athans, who works extensively with left-wing radio organizations and was once the executive vice-president of Air America, the liberal radio syndicate that, despite massive publicity from major media, has failed miserably to win a national audience. Stabenow's outrageous conflict of interest has of course been largely ignored by the prestige press, which should have been demanding that she recuse herself from all political involvement with this issue.

Google "Stabenow" and "Fairness Doctrine" and then click on the links that lead to liberal sites. See how many mention anything about Stabenow's conflict of interest. Short answer: none.

Ms. Paglia came out and said she liked Sarah Palin and was appalled by her treatment. A ballsy call to say the least when neo-libs have a hatred that reaches deep against the homespun governor of our northern most state.

Ms. Paglia calls a spade a spade and has no recriminations or gives a damn what neo-libs or, for that matter, I think. That's what makes her so entertaining and actually makes me pine for the good battle against paleo-libs. They tended to be much more informed and respectful adversaries.

Yes, I'll disagree with Ms. Paglia on a great many issues but always enjoy her intelligent take on the issues of the day and you all should too.

Bill Press and the "Fairness Doctrine"

Bill Press is unlistenable and always has been. He made his name as the irritating liberal on CNN and MSNBC broadcasts and now bemoans that liberals just can't cut it when actual profit is required:

If you're looking for a break from those conservative voices that dominate talk radio, take time out today to listen to local station OBAMA 1260 AM. You'll hear the progressive voices of Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz, Lionel -- or, during morning drive, my own "Bill Press Show" -- providing welcome relief from the constant Obama-bashing by Rush Limbaugh and others. Unfortunately, today's the last day you'll be able to do so.

OBAMA 1260? Sounds like it was very non-partisan. I'll tune into Rush on REAGAN 990 tomorrow.

Anyway, he continues:

The commercial use of public airwaves is supposed to reflect the diversity of the local community, but that's not how it works in Washington. On the AM dial, WMAL (630) features wall-to-wall conservative talk. So do stations WTNT (570) and WHFS (1580). For the past two years, OBAMA 1260 -- even with a weak signal that cannot be heard in downtown Washington -- was the exception. No longer. Starting tomorrow, our nation's capital, where Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House, and where Democrats outnumber Republicans 10 to one, will have no progressive voices on the air.

Hey Bill, here's a newsflash: liberals make no money (and steal from kids when they try), which is the entire point of producing and airing a program. Yes, the government allows the commercial use of airwaves but only because they have to regulate the signal, not the content. Someone like Press will never understand that.

To mollify critics, Red Zebra has said it will add Ed Schultz to its conservative lineup on 570 AM. This means Shultz will be outgunned in this market by at least 15 conservative talkers: Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Chris Plante, Michael Smerconish, Michael Savage, Andy Parks, Fred Grandy, Bill Bennett, Monica Crowley, Bill O'Reilly, Dennis Miller and Lars Larsen. No matter how good Schultz is, that's not a fair contest -- nor a fair use of the public airwaves.

If Schultz is so good, he should be able to find an audience regardless of who else is airing. If liberals need to listen to talk they want, they'll find him. It's a red herring as libs don't listen to Hannity or Crowley or any of the others anyway.

Unfortunately, what's happening in Washington reflects what has happened in one city after another across the country. In Miami, Clear Channel recently dumped progressive talk for sports: Clear Channel stations made the same move in San Diego and Cincinnati. Sacramento abandoned progressive talk for gospel music. In fact, according to a study released by the Center for American Progress and Free Press, there are nine hours of conservative talk for every one hour of progressive talk.

They dumped liberal talk for gospel? That's gotta hurt, Bill. Especially considering gospel gets about a 0.00007% of any given audience. That's about ten times what liberal talk gets I guess.

Why? Station owners complain they can't get good ratings or make any money with progressive talk, but that's nonsense. In Minnesota, independent owner Janet Robert has operated KTNF (950 AM) profitably for five years. In Madison, Wis., WXXM, 92.1 FM, just scored its highest ratings ever. And KPOJ in Portland, Ore., soared with progressive talk from No. 23 in market ratings to No. 1. Nationwide, progressive talkers Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller have proven that, given a level playing field, they can more than hold their own in ratings -- and make money for their stations.

Wow, they get killer ratings in overwhelmingly liberal markets that rank about fiftieth in population. Way to make your point, Bill.

BTW, KTNF is 18th out of 20 stations in Minneapolis with a whopping 1.1 share. How are they making money exactly? As for KPOJ, they are fourth and--shocka--they are a Clear Channel station who liberals rail against. I for one am totally convinced...or not.

Companies are given a license to operate public airwaves -- free! -- in order to make a profit, yes, but also, according to the terms of their FCC license, "to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance." Stations are not operating in the public interest when they offer only conservative talk.

Again, the only goal is to make a profit. NPR doesn't need to make a profit so they can air all liberal radio all the time. Just like the BBC, tax dollars pay for it. If NPR or PBS were forced turn a profit, they too would be all conservative because that's what people want to hear.

Press is bitter because no one wants to hear what he has to say. So, he advocates making radio less free and more restrictive. This is what we have to face y'all and it's not going to stop at radio. Pretty soon it will affect TV, the Internet including this blog and every other news source.

Heavyweight Title Fight: Obama vs. Limbaugh

The odds-makers put it at even with Obama holding a trump card--he can re-implement the Fairness Doctrine pretty much at will:

President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

No, what that White House official was actually saying is that with all the problems we face, it's a bit un-presidential for a new chief executive to be calling out an entertainer--essentially what Limbaugh is. Imagine the back-lash on the Democrat side if President Bush had gone after Alec Baldwin, Randy Rhoads or Al Franken. It;s beneath a real president to do that.

Limbaugh is playing a political and PR game here and the supposedly brilliant Obama bit hook, line and sinker. Well played by Rush methinks.

Obama does have the Fairness Doctrine as a threat and it's not quite gotten any traction as yet, but that could change and to implement that now would make Obama look vindictive and petty--traits I think he possesses (see the rest of the linked piece where he commented "I won") but he would be providing Rush, Hannity, Levin and Ingraham loads of ammo and increase their rating to unforeseen levels.

Rush has a loyal listener base--more than Obama can count on paying attention to him daily--and that base is active and vocal. I think this was a bad move for Obama and will come back on him.

The best part about this is that Obama's minions are falling into this. They are power-hungry and think we are punch-drunk and on the ropes. What they don't quite understand is that we've accepted the loss and didn't curl into a ball like pussies and cry or go see a therapist because of some inane, made-up psychotic condition (labeled PEST) like they did in 2004 ( a condition for which we mocked them incessantly). We're ready to battle and as the left saw over the last eight-years, the minority power tends to have the troops who are most mobilized and avid about the cause while the incumbent tends to get lazy and complacent.

For the record, the next candidate won't be a RINO but a true Reagan Conservative.

Dems Itching to Reinstate Fairness Doctrine

And by fairness they mean competely unfair.

The Dems are going hard for what has been a bastion of conservatism: talk radio:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday defended the so-called Fairness Doctrine in an interview on Fox News, saying, “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?”

...Asked if he is a supporter of telling radio stations what content they should have, Schumer used the fair and balanced line, claiming that critics of the Fairness Doctrine are being inconsistent.

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

Note they are only bringing up talk radio but what about TV? Turnabout is fair play so I figure that MSNBC will have to move Olbermann (or team him up with Tammy Bruce) and install Jonah Goldberg betweeen Matthews and Maddow. Or better yet, remove Jack McCaffery and put Laura Ingraham in his place. As anyone with half a brain can figure out, Fox would not have to do anything about Hannity and Colmes and they can just insert some other half-wit liberal (but I'm redundant) beside O'Reilly and they'll meet the standard. Brit Hume already has Juan Williams and that lady from NPR so they meet the doctrine.

And my local radio station already has Michael Smerconish who voted for Obama as well as Beck and Limbaugh so they would only need some clueless lefty--say Randi Rhodes at 1:00 AM to balance it out.

If it wasn't such a gross violation of the 1st Amendment it would be kinda fun.

So we have a preview of the next four years. If liberals can't win on merit, they'll do it by decree. I can't wait until this goes to court and the Daily Kos is forced to accept Ace or Allah on the team. Even better, how about Michelle Malkin and Mary Kay Ham on the op-ed pages of the NY Times. The lawsuits over this should be a blast to follow.

Oprah's Palin Decision Not Making Fans Happy

Oprah has decided that she doesn't want to politicize her show even though she's had Barack Obama on twice, attending his acceptance speech and held fundraisers. Now that Governor Palin is officially the latest mania sweeping the nation, you'd think she would want to book the GOP VP selection. You'd be wrong.

Her fan base is not real happy about her choice and have been pretty damn vocal about it.

Click here, here and here for a taste of just how upset they are

Granted, this has been on Drudge for hours and the people may be Palin supporters but Oprah draws viewers from a large variety of women in America and one has to believe that many watched Palin and were taken with her immediately--maybe to the point of supporting her.

Business-wise, probably not the best of choices for a woman of Oprah's caliber.

One last thought: Does anyone know Oprah's opinion on the Fairness Doctrine?

The Latest Rush Limbaugh Non-Scandal

John Amato at Crooks and Liars really needs to get a life or at least the beginnings of a clue. He attacks Rush Limbaugh for his comments about an Inuit who broke down on the stand while testifying before Congress about global warming and the effects she says are occurring.

The headline that C & L uses is "Limbaugh Attacks" and the mindless moonbats will click that link faster than any other with exception of "Cheney Impeached". They hate Limbaugh in every fiber of their being and obsess over every word.

Listen to the statements and tell me if that is the definition of "attacks." Now consider that the woman is an adult and is testifying in front of Congress. All Limbaugh does is rebut her claims, which is the right of any private citizen (and yes, Rush is a private citizen). That, in the eyes of liberals, is attacking. Hell, we're seeing it with the way they are going bonkers over Hillary being questioned by Tim Russert--they've gone so far as equating Russert with Nazi's for crying out loud! That is how they play the game--respond to any questions with over-the-top incredulity (and the usual whining and screaming) that someone would actually take an opposing viewpoint. That's how we know they are getting beaten upside the head repeatedly in the arena of ideas.

Let's be honest with one another, every slam at Limbaugh is just another worthless attempt to get him thrown off the air ala Imus or to revive the insidious "Fairness Doctrine"--maybe the single biggest threat to free speech in America. Liberals can't win on ideas so they have very few options with which to counter conservatives. They either call a reasoned rebuttal an attack or they try to get the pundit off the air through un-American legislation.

If this is the best that the amateurs at C & L can do, I am heartened that our enemy is so simple-minded as to be a non-issue in the debate of serious topics.

Update: Note in the comments that it takes only two entries to get homosexual references into the "debate". Serious debate requires two intelligent sides--unfortunately, us on the right have no one of significance to wage a verbal battle and judging by the comments it seems as though we won't have any serious opponents for some time.

Update 2: Now it's not just the girls, the Silky Pony is getting testy about pertinent questions being asked. These people are so touchy, I'm sure al-Zawahiri is paying attention to these whining wussies.