I've been digging around this issue all week and started a diary at dkos about it. I said to myself Monday I would try to help keep it alive until the indictments came down, and look where that left me, lol. Here is my 5th diary entry, put up there today:
Yesterday I shared the letter Norm Coleman sent constituents explaining why the Ed Schultz show was cancelled from the Armed Forces Radio line up; an alleged DOD "Policy" that a show needed a million listeners before it could be considered for AFR. Today I am looking closer at the history of such DOD "policies" and how they have been applied before. If you read all my diaries this week, and the comment replies, some of this has been posted before. But here it is all nicely repackaged, fortified with new details.
Not popular enough. That is the excuse Senator Norm Coleman gave to constituents for why the Department of Defense had to cancel airing Ed Schultz on Armed Forces Radio Quoting from Coleman:
"The DOD is committed to providing the same variety of radio programming that soldiers would receive at home. However, DOD policy also requires that shows have a minimum of one million listeners per week to be eligible for broadcast over American Forces Radio. According to the DOD, Mr. Schultz's program currently does not meet this requirement."
I, and a host of others I am sure, suspect that the DOD is cooking with stale numbers here. Liberal Talk Radio has been exploding over the last six months, with the most popular programs picking up new broadcast outlets each week. It wouldn't surprise me if all the publicity generated by this censorship fiasco doesn't garner "Big Ed" a million new listeners just by itself. Neat little phrase though, "DOD policy", isn't it?. As if "DOD Policy" is the discussion stopper; "Gee, you make some real good points, but we can't do anything about it. It's against DOD policy." We aren't exactly talking the Bill of Rights here. It doesn't take a two thirds vote of the States to change DOD policy. Who writes this stuff anyway do you figure, a latter day James Madison, or a present day Larry DiRita? (see previous blog entry for more on DiRita). Under the Bush Administration "DOD policies", like everything else, have increasingly been politicized, and those who judge when and how to apply them are those who politicize in the first place. Walk with me through some prior public discussions of "DOD policies" related to Armed Forces Radio:
From the June 2,2004 edition of Wolf Blitzer Reports:
"VOICEOVER: There is no direct liberal talk show counterpart to Limbaugh, but, they point out, no liberal broadcaster has built such a huge audience at home.
BARBER: It's not about conservative or liberal, it's about the full selection of radio programming which is based on popularity here in the states.
VOICEOVER: Still, Howard Stern has millions of fans, and his show is not sent to the troops.
BARBER: Well, his issue is one of content that's not appropriate."
That's Allison Barber by the way, deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs and part time drama coach.
National Public Radio did some excellent in depth coverage of this back on June4th of 2004, where Allison Barber defended Armed Forces Radio broadcasting.
"ALLISON BARBER: The challenge for us is that part of our policy is also that we are prohibited to manipulate or censor, so not only is that something that is aired, because we're not allowed to manipulate to censor programming, we also air news and information where people are sometimes critical of our troops. But the bottom line is the men and women in the military are smart people. They hear that as just some body's opinion. They don't have to listen to it. They have options. They can turn off or turn on whoever they want to.
BOB GARFIELD: Well, not whoever they want to. They can't turn on, for example, Howard Stern, the second most highly rated radio program in America and one that has taken a decided anti-Bush administration turn the last six months. If they can turn on Rush Limbaugh to hear him rant about feminazis, why can't they hear Howard Stern?
ALLISON BARBER: To be honest with you, our troops haven't asked for Howard Stern. We have some issues with some of the sexual content of Howard Stern, just like most Americans do."
By all means read the full transcript:
http://www.onthemedia.org/... It seems to me that Howard Stern would fit the criteria of "the same variety of radio programming that soldiers would receive at home" and no one doubts that he is "popular" enough. But there is that matter of "sexual content", true. I appreciate that today's enlightened Department of Defense opposes programming deemed demeaning to women. One can only imagine what they would do if someone tried to describe United States Military Female Officers as "orificers" over Armed Forces Radio. On second thought, save that brain cell. Rush Limbaugh already did that and nothing happened. He keeps right on broadcasting. It happened in May of 2004 when he was all worked up over "Abu Ghraib" at the time. Not over the scandals mind you, those he compared to "fraternity pranks". No, he saved his scorn for "Liberals" and Female Officers:
"...In fact, William Lindh, who directs the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation writes in a column this week that the apparent breakdown in discipline from the MPs at Abu Grab may relate to the presence of women and especially to the fact that the commander was a woman. The climate of political correctness or to give it its true name, 'Cultural Marxism..."
(Laughing). Well, okay. (Laughing.) "...Cultural Marxism that has infested and overwhelmed the American armed forces makes it almost impossible to discipline a woman, and risky for a man to attempt to do so. Whatever the reason, one theme is clear: Abu Grab was a disaster waiting to happen. Rules on uniforms were not enforced, soldiers wrote poems and other sayings on their helmets..." Oh, really? Are you telling me that these brutes, these brutes who did all these horrible, insulting things to these people, wrote poetry? Come on, how does that happen? Poets are gentle little flowers wilting in the breeze. Well, it might have been limericks, but anyway, so they wrote poems and other sayings on their helmets, saluting of "orificers" was not forced..."
William Lind (correct spelling) whom Limbaugh was quoting did not use the term "orificers", that was all Rush.
Limbaugh was so worked up over Abu Grab that on May 13, 2004 he said, regarding the prisoner abuse photos, that Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) could have Representatives "Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi act them out for him". On May 27, Limbaugh responded to a report that women have been recently appointed as police chiefs in four major U.S. cities by stating, "I guess we can watch out for some naked pyramids among prisoners in these new jailhouses ... because we had a woman running (Abu Ghraib)".
There is more like this, gathered by "Media Matters" at
http://mediamatters.org/... Thank God for DOD policies.
Please join Wes Clark's call for action on this. Generate letters and emails directly to your Representatives and Senators in Congress: :
http://securingamerica.com/node/287 Here is the URL for the full dkos diary with all 5 entries:
http://tom-rinaldo.dailykos.com/
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
