FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Dr. Laura quits: One less right wing talk show host





handfleisch
This is great news, another victory over the extremists polluting US politics

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/17/AR2010081706418_pf.html
Quote:
'Dr. Laura' to end radio show over racial controversy

By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 18, 2010; C05

Laura Schlessinger, the blunt-spoken, sometimes controversial radio talk-show host whose racially charged comments drew widespread condemnation last week, said Tuesday that she will end her radio career at the end of the year.

The announcement by the host of the "Dr. Laura" program was a stunning denouement after a week in which Schlessinger was widely criticized for describing an African American caller to her program as "hypersensitive" for taking offense at a neighbor's racial taunting. To illustrate her claim of a racial double standard, she said that black comedians often use the N-word on TV without criticism, but the word is forbidden for white people. She used the racial epithet, unexpurgated, 11 times in five minutes, despite her caller's protests.

Schlessinger later apologized for the remarks, saying she said "the wrong thing" on the air. On Tuesday she went further: During an interview on "Larry King Live" on CNN, Schlessinger said, "My contract is up for my radio show at the end of the year, and I've made the decision not to do radio anymore."

She added: "The reason is, I want to regain my First Amendment rights. I want to be able to say what's on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry, some special-interest group deciding this is the time to silence a voice of dissent and attack affiliates, attack sponsors. I'm sort of done with that."


Notice how the author of "Stop Whining, Start Living" is whining about being a victim there at the end, which the right wingers used to accuse everyone else of doing. Now she thinks she's a victim getting silenced, the poor thing. Notice also how she fundamentally misunderstands the First Amendment, since it protects her from government stopping her speech, not from the public rising up and saying Get this Jerk Off the Air, or her own sponsors saying they want nothing to do with her anymore. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Voodoocat
I thought she had a call in psychology talk show, not a political one?
liljp617
I don't really care about her either way, but I would just like to have a chuckle at this once more:

Quote:
She added: "The reason is, I want to regain my First Amendment rights. I want to be able to say what's on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry, some special-interest group deciding this is the time to silence a voice of dissent and attack affiliates, attack sponsors. I'm sort of done with that."



So she's asking for the right to say whatever she wants even if it's obviously offensive (whatever, that's her right), but she doesn't want others to speak out against her when they're offended. She's promoting the very right that she's opposing. Classy Very Happy Always fun to see.
deanhills
Voodoocat wrote:
I thought she had a call in psychology talk show, not a political one?
I was also surprised. I also thought she was into psychology. I checked up however, and looks as though she branched into politics on the radio by default and that that was the undoing of the show as well:

Source: Wikipedia
Quote:
At its peak, The Dr. Laura Program was the second-highest-rated radio show after The Rush Limbaugh Show, and was heard on more than 450 radio stations. In May 2002, the show still had an audience of more than 10 million, but had lost several million listeners in the previous two years as it was dropped by WABC and other affiliates, and was moved from day to night in cities such as Seattle and Boston. These losses were attributed in part to Schlessinger's shift from giving relationship advice to lecturing on morality and conservative politics. Pressure from gay-rights groups caused dozens of sponsors to drop the radio show as well. In 2006 Schlessinger's show was being aired on approximately 200 stations. As of 2009, it was tied for third place along with The Glenn Beck Program and The Savage Nation.


Does anyone know whether she was fired however? I thought she resigned from the show.
Bikerman
I'm interested in this sort of case because it has resonance with something I'm doing.
I too believe strongly in freedom of speech, so to that extent I am obviously in support of her right to be heard (which is obviously not the same as her 'right' be be broadcast - there is no such right).
What I'd like to know is has she exercised this freedom in a way which is likely to damage her or her interests significantly? Did she know that her job was on the line before she started lecturing on morality? And is the job a significant loss to her? If yes to both, then I'd be inclined to support her in principle.
I'm currently risking a fair bit speaking out about rights to free speech, and I find that lots of people talk about their right to free speech, and then turn round and criticise the media or some other person for saying things that THEY don't like. That I find insupportable behaviour.

So if she has exercised her right to free speech then fine I'll support her, but I would expect her to be equally ready to support anyone with a radically different view to her own - whether it be supporting gay rights, advocating a local gay and lesbian centre from public funds, or whatever else might seriously wind her up - and I'd hope that she would say what she believes regardless of threats or personal financial interest, and not 'selectively' to earn personal reward.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Did she know that her job was on the line before she started lecturing on morality? And is the job a significant loss to her? If yes to both, then I'd be inclined to support her in principle.
Her show was losing a lot of ratings, mostly because of her public position on being anti-gay and gay groups gunning for her. She had already moved the show to her own home, so I imagine she thought it was time for something new, perhaps before she started to speak out. She has quite a background of being opportunistic, hence probably also the dramatic announcement during the Larry King Show. I get the feeling of inconsistency, almost like another version of Palin, so it would be difficult to figure out whether "Dr." Laura is concerned about others' right of free speech. More likely preoccupied with her own brand of "free speech" and what it looks like to the audience she wants to impress.
AftershockVibe
Deanhills wrote:
I was also surprised. I also thought she was into psychology. I checked up however, and looks as though she branched into politics on the radio by default and that that was the undoing of the show as well:


Even more bizarrely, her doctorate is in physiology! (Not psychology).
handfleisch
liljp617 wrote:
I don't really care about her either way, but I would just like to have a chuckle at this once more:

Quote:
She added: "The reason is, I want to regain my First Amendment rights. I want to be able to say what's on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry, some special-interest group deciding this is the time to silence a voice of dissent and attack affiliates, attack sponsors. I'm sort of done with that."



So she's asking for the right to say whatever she wants even if it's obviously offensive (whatever, that's her right), but she doesn't want others to speak out against her when they're offended. She's promoting the very right that she's opposing. Classy :D Always fun to see.


There was another chuckle-worthy moment recently when one particularly vile right wing talk show host in San Francisco, who was known for his union bashing, was fired and then immediately and publicly turned to his union for help. Hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness seem to be main characteristics for these extremist shills.

Quote:
Why deposed union-bashing conservative talker Lee Rodgers is getting help from...a union...?

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=57791#ixzz0xQhW6XNU
Da Rossa
Quote:

This is great news, another victory over the extremists polluting US politics


You can't say ideas opposing to yours are pollutants. This is what democracy is all about. Also, every defender of right-wing-oriented theses is flagged as an extremist. Why is that anyway?

IMO, anyone who has his/her right to free speech violated is a victim.

Doesn't mean I'm pro-racism; I think should stay a crime, but with penalties after the facts, with criminal and civil responsibility, not before.
liljp617
Da Rossa wrote:
Quote:

This is great news, another victory over the extremists polluting US politics


You can't say ideas opposing to yours are pollutants. This is what democracy is all about. Also, every defender of right-wing-oriented theses is flagged as an extremist. Why is that anyway?


No, you shouldn't do this solely on the basis that their views oppose your own. That doesn't mean everybody gets a free pass -- some people are "pollutants" based upon what material they present and how they present that material.

Quote:
IMO, anyone who has his/her right to free speech violated is a victim.

Doesn't mean I'm pro-racism; I think should stay a crime, but with penalties after the facts, with criminal and civil responsibility, not before.


As was pointed out by Bikerman, the right to free speech does not equate to the right to be broadcast. She isn't a victim of anything except her own misjudgments and misunderstandings.
Da Rossa
Quote:
She isn't a victim of anything except her own misjudgments and misunderstandings.


But this is exactly what has to be the object of discussion. She puts her ideas, you say something, I say something. Why should someone be stripped of the right to say and/or be held criminally responsible for it?

About the speech vs. right to broadcast: freedom of speech has absolutely no meaning if the information has no means to be spread. "I have the right to say everything, but I can't carry this information any further." <-- this is to void the effectiveness of the freedom of expression and, hence, the core of democracy.

Edit: changed "anything" to "everything"
liljp617
Da Rossa wrote:
Quote:
She isn't a victim of anything except her own misjudgments and misunderstandings.


But this is exactly what has to be the object of discussion. She puts her ideas, you say something, I say something. Why should someone be stripped of the right to say and/or be held criminally responsible for it?

About the speech vs. right to broadcast: freedom of speech has absolutely no meaning if the information has no means to be spread. "I have the right to say anything, but I can't carry this information any further." <-- this is to void the effectiveness of the freedom of expression and, hence, the core of democracy.


She wasn't stripped of the right to say anything. She's free to walk down the street using derogatory terms if she pleases -- that's her right (she probably won't have many friends, but hey, that's the price you pay).

She can't walk in a radio station and demand to be heard on the basis that it's "her right." A radio station has no requirement to broadcast people who would misrepresent the views the radio station desires to promote. Sponsors have no requirement to sponsor people who promote views they feel would damage their reputation as a company.

If a person can't find someone who wants to broadcast/sponsor their views, they're left to fend for themselves -- start your own radio station, Youtube (maybe, I'm not familiar with their leniency with regards to things like derogatory/racist videos), get a blog, print flyers, etc. A person has a right to do those actions; they don't have a right to have other people broadcast them.

In your example: "I have the right to say anything, but I can't carry this information any further."

You can take your information further. That doesn't mean you have some right to have other people (radio station/sponsor) promote your information alongside you.
Da Rossa
Quote:
A radio station has no requirement to broadcast people who would misrepresent the views the radio station desires to promote. Sponsors have no requirement to sponsor people who promote views they feel would damage their reputation as a company.


Quote:
You can take your information further. That doesn't mean you have some right to have other people (radio station/sponsor) promote your information alongside you.


Sorry, I think I didn't understand well the issue. You're right about this.

I was refering to the right to broadcast 'in abstract', but not the right to broadcast with a specific radio station or news editor that don't condone with those points of view. I was talking about the right to broadcast "as is".
ocalhoun
Yes, freedom of speech includes the freedom to get as many people to hear you as you can, which is why freedom of the press was included, it being the only mass-media of that time.

That freedom means the government shouldn't stop you from broadcasting, but it doesn't mean the government needs to help you either. It's up to you to obtain the means to broadcast your message.

Just like your right to bear arms - the government shouldn't stop you, but it doesn't have to provide you with any either.
Da Rossa
I would agree, if wasnt for the fact that, here in Latin America, the censorship is made subtly, by the government having participation and business with the major TV Networks. For North America I agree completely.
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
I would agree, if wasnt for the fact that, here in Latin America, the censorship is made subtly, by the government having participation and business with the major TV Networks. For North America I agree completely.
Think in North America it is almost the other way round. The top business guys more or less own all the media. When one searches the Boards of the large media companies, you find the same names listed almost everywhere. They are also connected with Government on a more subtle level though, perhaps through sponsorships.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
They are also connected with Government on a more subtle level though, perhaps through sponsorships.


Sometimes the connections to government aren't subtle at all... Just look at campaign donations by media outlets, and look at former politicians in high places within the media, as well as former media executives becoming politicians, and especially former politicians becoming lobbyists for a media outlet... The old 'revolving door'.

Though, to be fair, nearly all large industries have a revolving door in Washington.
Da Rossa
But in North America we have the guarantee that the government will cycle.... while here @ Latin America.... I don't know.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
They are also connected with Government on a more subtle level though, perhaps through sponsorships.


Sometimes the connections to government aren't subtle at all... Just look at campaign donations by media outlets, and look at former politicians in high places within the media, as well as former media executives becoming politicians, and especially former politicians becoming lobbyists for a media outlet... The old 'revolving door'.

Though, to be fair, nearly all large industries have a revolving door in Washington.
I guess subtle is a subjective term. For someone as subtle as you it would have much greater meaning than someone who does care what "subtle" means. For a seasoned reporter and people with lots of know-how and savvy "the revolving door" has to be as unsubtle as it comes.
ocalhoun
Da Rossa wrote:
But in North America we have the guarantee that the government will cycle.... while here @ Latin America.... I don't know.

Oh, yes, we have a guarantee that the government will cycle... but the other side of the cycle is just as bad, and the two sides have conspired nicely to prevent any other 'sides' from getting in.

It certainly makes things look better, but it doesn't actually make things better.
Da Rossa
Quote:
Oh, yes, we have a guarantee that the government will cycle... but the other side of the cycle is just as bad, and the two sides have conspired nicely to prevent any other 'sides' from getting in.

It certainly makes things look better, but it doesn't actually make things better.


Do you feel you live in a not-so-democrat country, in any way?
ocalhoun
Da Rossa wrote:
Quote:
Oh, yes, we have a guarantee that the government will cycle... but the other side of the cycle is just as bad, and the two sides have conspired nicely to prevent any other 'sides' from getting in.

It certainly makes things look better, but it doesn't actually make things better.


Do you feel you live in a not-so-democrat country, in any way?

It's democratic, of course.
But the democratic process has been corrupted rather badly.
(Much like dictatorial 'republics' that just happen to elect the same, unpopular ruler in every election, only not quite that bad yet.)
Da Rossa
Well, I can't tell you to DWBH (don't worry be happy) saying we live, here in Brazil, in the edge of a new autocracy, but you're in a MUCH more safer situation. I wish I could have a place in the US to move. But I don't know if I'm 'talented' to get the right.
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
Well, I can't tell you to DWBH (don't worry be happy) saying we live, here in Brazil, in the edge of a new autocracy, but you're in a MUCH more safer situation. I wish I could have a place in the US to move. But I don't know if I'm 'talented' to get the right.
"Talented" is something you found in yourself that you are good at doing, with the right state of mind, lots of initiative and with plenty of passion added to it. I think you are talented enough to make it. I really like the United States and have family there, but don't think I would want to settle there. Think my next stop will be an island either off the East Coast of Africa or maybe even off the East Coast of South America, or the East Coast of Italy ..... Smile
Da Rossa
deanhills wrote:
Da Rossa wrote:
Well, I can't tell you to DWBH (don't worry be happy) saying we live, here in Brazil, in the edge of a new autocracy, but you're in a MUCH more safer situation. I wish I could have a place in the US to move. But I don't know if I'm 'talented' to get the right.
"Talented" is something you found in yourself that you are good at doing, with the right state of mind, lots of initiative and with plenty of passion added to it. I think you are talented enough to make it. I really like the United States and have family there, but don't think I would want to settle there. Think my next stop will be an island either off the East Coast of Africa or maybe even off the East Coast of South America, or the East Coast of Italy ..... Smile


Thanks for the "talented enough to make it"! But many people, latins in particular, are seeking the right to move and stay. And, in the American's perspective, it is not conveninent, for a good reason: latins take over the job positions for a lower salary. Then the natural Americans get unemployed. Olavo de Carvalho, a Brazilian philosopher that moved for good to the US, got his green card for the nature of his activities: intellectual production. Yes, that one with that "lousy" (is that the word you used?) website: www.olavodecarvalho.org Very Happy

Where do you live after all Dean?
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
Thanks for the "talented enough to make it"! But many people, latins in particular, are seeking the right to move and stay. And, in the American's perspective, it is not conveninent, for a good reason: latins take over the job positions for a lower salary. Then the natural Americans get unemployed. Olavo de Carvalho, a Brazilian philosopher that moved for good to the US, got his green card for the nature of his activities: intellectual production. Yes, that one with that "lousy" (is that the word you used?) website: www.olavodecarvalho.org Very Happy

Where do you live after all Dean?
I don't think that is an accurate statement. That may be politics talking, but immigration is the life blood of both Canada and the US, as both of them have populations with a majority percentage of older people. So basically they need you. All you have to do is to believe that you can make it, and if you do, and are prepared to fight for it, then I'm sure you would stand a good chance. The United States in particular make it difficult for anyone to emigrate into its country. And not only Latinos, but all people, just because of the immigration system it has. My cousin however just kept working at it for example. And he did not even have great shakes qualifications. With the US it is important to just get in, and then to find yourself a good lawyer so that you can stay in. Eventually as the years keep passing, you sort of get a natural right that can lead to citizenship. If too difficult, you could try Canada first and if you manage to get in, then make your way to the United States? Or to Australia? With Canada it is easier to get a landed citizenship. I have friends who emigrated to Canada, and then found it so cold that they were soon on the road to Australia. Imagine the guts they must have had to have gone through the whole hoops, in rewriting all of his lawyer exams in Canada, and to do all of that over again in Australia. But he and his family are now much happier in Australia.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Da Rossa wrote:
Thanks for the "talented enough to make it"! But many people, latins in particular, are seeking the right to move and stay. And, in the American's perspective, it is not conveninent, for a good reason: latins take over the job positions for a lower salary. Then the natural Americans get unemployed. Olavo de Carvalho, a Brazilian philosopher that moved for good to the US, got his green card for the nature of his activities: intellectual production. Yes, that one with that "lousy" (is that the word you used?) website: www.olavodecarvalho.org Very Happy

Where do you live after all Dean?
I don't think that is an accurate statement. That may be politics talking, but immigration is the life blood of both Canada and the US, as both of them have populations with a majority percentage of older people. So basically they need you.

This is the way it should be. The US should welcome all immigrants.
That's better for the people who live here, better for the immigrants, and most of all, better for the cause of freedom.
That's not the way it is though, and it is a great injustice that the 'land of the free', 'land of opportunity' turns away people, and restricts its borders.

(Few are actually 'denied', but if you're deemed undesirable, you'll just be put on an impossibly long waiting list.)
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
That's not the way it is though, and it is a great injustice that the 'land of the free', 'land of opportunity' turns away people, and restricts its borders.

(Few are actually 'denied', but if you're deemed undesirable, you'll just be put on an impossibly long waiting list.)
Technically, it looks that way, but there are still a great number of people who do get into the United States and eventually make it to citizenship. Regrettably it is not easy to get into the United States from an immigration point of view, as you correctly pointed out. For example Canada has a good system where one can apply for landed immigration status, and then enter the country and find a job. Whereas with the United States one is virtually forced to enter the country on a student or visitor visa, and then get a job illegally, and then bit by bit with the help of expensive lawyers work on fighting for a "green card". Ironic that the US immigration system encourages people to look for jobs illegally, as without a job they can't get a green card. Or it is just too complicated and onerous to apply for a green card if one is not an out of the ordinary specialist or achiever in a field that the United States would like to have more citizens in.
Da Rossa
That's a very dangerous road to walk. Immigrants can be convenient in the POV for supporting the senior citizens, but how many of them does the State have knowledge? I'm talking more about the illegal ones. Those are less likely to pay taxes like the legal do.

Not to mention that the immigrants do not have the US basic education therefore they are more likely to violate some moral commands, which is poisonous to the society and to the values the Americans want for themselves.

Besides, most felonies in the country are thanks to them. Or am I going beyond the truth?
gandalfthegrey
I always found her to be too over the top.
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
That's a very dangerous road to walk. Immigrants can be convenient in the POV for supporting the senior citizens, but how many of them does the State have knowledge? I'm talking more about the illegal ones. Those are less likely to pay taxes like the legal do.
Exactly. And we often think that the illegal ones are only the poor ones, but there are quite a large number of immigrants who prefer to be as invisible as they can be.
Da Rossa wrote:
Besides, most felonies in the country are thanks to them. Or am I going beyond the truth?
I don't think that is entirely true, but it may be an interesting exercise to look up the statistics.
Da Rossa
That's the problem. First because I'm really unaware of the good statistics sources for US phenomena, and, since this is a sensitive political matter, this would be even more difficult since the democrats would bring statistics dissociating the crime from the illegal immigrants, while the most conservative republicans (not all of them) would bring statistics that would endorse it.
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
That's the problem. First because I'm really unaware of the good statistics sources for US phenomena, and, since this is a sensitive political matter, this would be even more difficult since the democrats would bring statistics dissociating the crime from the illegal immigrants, while the most conservative republicans (not all of them) would bring statistics that would endorse it.
You've got it exactly right. Earlier in the evening when I was researching the statistics, there were your obvious extreme right people who used the statistics one way, and the ones more to the left, who were defending their position with statistics. One would probably have to search deeper to get to articles or papers on a more objective study of the facts. And then how does one really do a proper study of illegal immigrants, when illegal immigrants obviously would not want to be studied or questioned and the only real source would be prison records? And then again, would they not immediately deport those who get to prison once they have discovered that the immigrants are illegal?
Da Rossa
Then it's like trying to study the wind in a given position in an 0.1 sec interval of time.

BUT the prison records give an idea of the problem. Why can't them be used to draw a sketch of this issue? They would constitute a small percentage of whats out there.
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
Then it's like trying to study the wind in a given position in an 0.1 sec interval of time.

BUT the prison records give an idea of the problem. Why can't them be used to draw a sketch of this issue? They would constitute a small percentage of whats out there.
I sometimes think that statistics that are focussed on one source only, like a prison for example could be misleading enough to come to the wrong conclusions.
Da Rossa
True, because in prisons they form "sub-societies" that are not likely to be found among the free people, such as nazis and black-racists (towards white), just for them to feel comfortable in a group.

But the important part is the records of those prisioners. Where do they come from, and what crimes did they commit? This is supposed to be a good basis. However, it is a difficulty thing to find accurate statistics. Who would be interested on producing them? This is the thing.
Related topics
NY Times: A perfect example of lieberals spreading...
Your favourite Comedians?
Radio Talk Show gone wrong
Join the fight against right wing hate radio!
Right Wing Terrorism out of control and on the increase?
Things only a Republican could believe
ACORN Funding
Can a website help ease right wing hysteria?
Can a website help ease right wing hysteria?
Obama fails to win the Olympics.
Right wing fringe Tea Partiers taking over GOP?
Ayn Rand: sad sicko heroine of right wing & libertarians
Eight fake scandals. What next for FOX / GOP / right wing?
98 advertisers pull ads off Limbaugh + Hannity-Levin-Beck!
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.