Did you catch that radio program carried by Aisling Broadcasting here in Boone that dared to question the recent bizarre statements issued by Dr. James Dobson (pictured at right, of course)? You didn't?Three in one day has got to be some sort of record, even for these enlightened cultural leaders-- and for the other fine folks (Aisling Broadcasting) who bring this tripe to us each day.On his radio show, James Dobson falsely suggested that Sen. Barack Obama claimed Dobson "wants to expel people who are not Christians" from the United States. Dobson was referring to a 2006 speech in which Obama actually asked: "And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would it be James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's?"
Rush Limbaugh asserted, "Hamas has endorsed Obama. ... Why do you think they've endorsed Obama? Because they want a very strong ally for Israel in the White House?" In fact, Obama stated his support for Israel in a speech June 4 speech in which he said: "Those who threaten Israel threaten us. ... And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security." Hamas reportedly responded to Obama's remarks by saying, "Hamas does not differentiate between the two presidential candidates, Obama and McCain, because their policies regarding the Arab-Israel conflict are the same and are hostile to us, therefore we do have no preference and are not wishing for either of them to win."
After being asked by a caller: "I want to know how the Republicans don't need Christians and conservatives, and they think we're 30 percent. Twelve percent black people in the population. Ten percent -- they claim -- homosexuals in the population. Rush, honey, when did 30 percent get to be a small number?" Rush Limbaugh responded, "Let me see if I can get your question right. You want to know why the Republicans are willing to say, 'Screw you,' to 30 percent or more of their voters and yet Democrats will bend over, grab the ankles, and say, 'Have your way with me,' for 10 percent and 2 percent of the population?"
Q: What prompted you to weigh in on media ownership and diversity at an FCC field hearing in Chicago (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6480419.html) last year?
A: I strongly favor diversity of ownership of outlets and protection against the excessive concentration of power in the hands of any one corporation, interest or small group. I strongly believe that all citizens should be able to receive information from the broadest range of sources. I feel that media consolidation during the Bush administration has had the effect of eliminating a lot of the diversity of information sources available to persons who have to rely on more traditional information sources, such as radio and television broadcasts and newspapers.
Q: What ill effects has the country suffered from media consolidation, if any?
A: This country’s media ownership rules that both chairman [Michael] Powell and chairman Martin have wanted to dismantle protect us from excessive media concentration. However, even under current rules, the media market is dominated by a handful of firms. The ill effects of consolidation today and continued consolidation are well-documented -- less diversity of opinion, less local news coverage, replication of the same stories across multiple outlets, and others. We can do better.
...
Q: You co-sponsored the Dorgan bill to block the FCC’s media-ownership change, which Martin has argued was a moderate compromise that took into account the input of opponents to consolidation. Why block it?
A: Chairmen Martin and Powell both argued that their previous effort to deregulate the media market was moderate, as well. Both the courts and a majority of the Senate disagreed the first time. And a few weeks back, the Senate disagreed with chairman Martin again. While he argues that the rule is no longer in the public interest, the public response has heavily weighed in against him. And common sense tells us that the consolidation of outlets in local markets will lead to fewer opportunities for diverse expression of opinions.
...
Q: How would communications policy be different under your administration compared to the current president?
A: I think communications policy must be more focused on the public interest, more inclusive of nonindustry voices and analysis, and maximize opportunities for the expression of a diversity of views. These issues go beyond simple economics to involve a set of core principles of an informed and empowered citizenry that need to be recognized in government’s approach to this important segment of our society.
Goodness, gracious. But what about radical cleric James Dobson, heard locally on WATA 1450 AM--seemingly all day long.
Two years ago, 55 percent of evangelicals younger than 30 called themselves Republicans. Now, just 40 percent do, according to a recent Pew survey. The study found that they are more likely than their parents to champion environmental causes, less concerned about gay marriage and more interested in improving health care and combating poverty. According to the Pew study, more than 60 percent of evangelicals younger than 30 say it is worth the cost to do more about environmental pollution and climate change. Only 52 percent of older evangelicals think so. ... Perhaps the cleric knows that he is watching his own passing into irrelevancy. Again, pity.
"[W]hy is it that the people who are being affected by the floods in Iowa and the upper Midwest, why is it that they seem to be so much more capable of taking care of themselves and handling this disaster than were the people of Katrina in New Orleans?" Boortz continued, "I think the answer's pretty clear, is that up there in that part of the country, you find a great deal of self-sufficiency. Down there in New Orleans, it was basically a parasite class totally dependent on government for their existence."
