k wrote:
] I thought it was bad enough letting Fox and Clear Channel buy
] up as many stations as they could afford. From this article
] it clearly sounds like those heading up the Armed Forces
] Networks are taking sides and forcing their views on the
] troops and their families.
]
] Gee, wasn't there a movie made about this?

I'm not sure how I think about this.

On the one hand, people in the armed forces are likely to be conservative, and they are likely to enjoy Limbaugh. Denying it to them because its partisan is probably inappropriate.

One can see an arguement that they might not want to have a commentator who is furiously opposed to the government and what is going on in Iraq, and such commentary is likely to be unpopular with people who are actually working over there, not to mention its effect on morale.

I wonder if Rush was on their radio back when Clinton was president. I wonder if he talked smack about Clinton on Armed Forces radio?

Decius wrote:

] On the one hand, people in the armed forces are likely to be
] conservative, and they are likely to enjoy Limbaugh. Denying
] it to them because its partisan is probably inappropriate.
]
] One can see an arguement that they might not want to have a
] commentator who is furiously opposed to the government and
] what is going on in Iraq, and such commentary is likely to be
] unpopular with people who are actually working over there, not
] to mention its effect on morale.
]
] I wonder if Rush was on their radio back when Clinton was
] president. I wonder if he talked smack about Clinton on Armed
] Forces radio?

Well the whole point is that they are only showing one side of the picture. I think that Rush has a right to speak, but they should also let someone on the other side speak as well. The argument that NPR is as far right as Rush is far left is crazy. If left to right is an integer from -10 to +10, Rush is a +10 and NPR is closer to a -1. That leaves the overall message skewed heavily towards the right.

If tax money is going to support the stations, then those stations should try to be as fair as possible - not completely in the middle, but also not tilting heavily towards another side.

Dolemite

Dolemite wrote:
] If tax money is going to support the stations, then those
] stations should try to be as fair as possible - not completely
] in the middle, but also not tilting heavily towards another
] side.

I'd argue that it ought to be up to the people in the military to determine what they want to listen to, rather then the taxpayers at large. Obviously this radio station has an influence but this isn't a complete mind control system. Its a way of entertaining and communicating with a large troop deployment. You shouldn't use it to shove your views down their throats. If you do, no one will pay attention, at it won't serve its original purpose.

Does the left have entertaining radio personalities? Not really. If it did, people in the armed forces would probably be interested in continuing to listen to them. This radio station has to do with being connected with one's culture while being stationed overseas. If left wing talk show hosts were a part of that culture, there would be demand.

In fact, if that demand existed, and the military was refusing to meet it, this would be a very different story. Thats not the case. This appears to be stateside liberals trying to wedge themselves some airtime.

Somewhat hypocritical really. Reminds me of church groups complaining about rock and roll. Certainly the military shouldn't be polluting our young people's minds with smut while they are overseas!

Air America is a very recent experiment. I'm sure that Al Franken would love to increase his listener base by getting covered on Military radio, but making that happen by making it a political requirement rather then by creating demand from the soldiers themselves is the cart leading the horse.

Traditionally, liberal perspectives haven't really lent themselves to pundit talk shows because those shows are all about talking shit, and liberals are all about intellectual reasonableness. The left equivelent of Rush Limbaugh is certainly an anti-american anti-WTO type liberal who is (similarly to Limbaugh) a short step removed from people who've got their basement filled with pipe bombs.

Such a personality wouldn't work on a military radio network in the same way Limbaugh does for reasons previously discussed. (As long as the Reps are in the Whitehouse, again if the Dems were in the Whitehouse the situation would probably be reversed.) But, of course, there aren't any radio personalities like this to choose from. These people write...

(So, I finally decided to actually read the article. It didn't really change my mind. But I'll add two thoughts.

1. Clearly Limbaugh was brought in under political duress in absense of demand. That was wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.

2. Is Paul Harvey "ultraconservative"!??!?)

Decius wrote:

] Does the left have entertaining radio personalities? Not
] really. If it did, people in the armed forces would probably
] be interested in continuing to listen to them. This radio
] station has to do with being connected with one's culture
] while being stationed overseas. If left wing talk show hosts
] were a part of that culture, there would be demand.

According to what was mentioned in the article, the troops aren't asking for Rush, either. They want more tunes, plain and simple. It sounds like one view here (Rush) is being pushed without demand, yet the programmers are citing a lack of demand for balancing out the points of view.

Dolemite wrote:
] According to what was mentioned in the article, the troops
] aren't asking for Rush, either. They want more tunes, plain
] and simple. It sounds like one view here (Rush) is being
] pushed without demand, yet the programmers are citing a lack
] of demand for balancing out the points of view.

That survey was from 1993.

Decius wrote:
] Dolemite wrote:
] ] According to what was mentioned in the article, the troops
] ] aren't asking for Rush, either. They want more tunes, plain
]
] ] and simple. It sounds like one view here (Rush) is being
] ] pushed without demand, yet the programmers are citing a lack
]
] ] of demand for balancing out the points of view.
]
] That survey was from 1993.

Then I think we both agree that they should find out what the troops and families actually want to hear, rather than just pushing an agenda. They should then adjust the programming accordingly.

Dolemite wrote:
] Then I think we both agree that they should find out what the
] troops and families actually want to hear, rather than just
] pushing an agenda. They should then adjust the programming
] accordingly.

Indeed.

] Two wrongs don't make a right.

But 3 lefts make a right, go figure.

Decius wrote:
] k wrote:
] ] I thought it was bad enough letting Fox and Clear Channel buy
] ] up as many stations as they could afford. From this article
] ] it clearly sounds like those heading up the Armed Forces
] ] Networks are taking sides and forcing their views on the
] ] troops and their families.
] ]
] ] Gee, wasn't there a movie made about this?
]
] I'm not sure how I think about this.

[ Just for the record, that part of the comment wasn't me, but the original poster. Of course, if that's the case, i should've recommended it with my own words, instead of leaving intact, so I guess in a sense i let them be mine.

I'll clarify here tho... I don't think, necessarily, that anything should be explicitly forbidden from the soldiers in the field, and i don't think anything should be implicitly sanctioned by way of no options.

There are considerations regarding commentary which undermines morale or calls into question the chain of command. I guess my feeling there is that these are adults, and if hearing Rush slander Clinton or Al Franken demonize Bush is going to undermine your oaths, then perhaps soldiering wasn't for you in the first place. I'm not trying to be insensitive here, and I know there's a lot to be said for positive reinforcement, but I think it should come through other avenues, or, at least, i think it should be *available* through other avenues.

If you like Rush, fine, listen to Rush, but there should be an alternative for those soldiers who'd prefer not to hear the slavering of comfortable political animals back home (of either ideology) while they're being shot at. -k]