How can freaks like Mike Reagan have a radio show

[blues90]

And say such sick things when going back to the 60's a AM radio music DJ on WLS Chicago said " if the skirts get any shorter they will have two more cheeks to power" and far that he was fired that day?

Is this just what the people now allow and find acceptable because of grown hate , is it because these freaks like Mike Reagan are backed by corporations. Or have the people of the US completely lost all sense of right and wrong or conscience?

[slackmaster]

1. Because there are people who will listen to him, which allows radio stations to make money

By selling advertising time slots.

[blues90]

9. That's true yet I was making a comparison of what was once

not allowed even though the DJ was a great DJ and made money for WLS for decades and was popular yet a hateful freak like Mike Reagan can get away with this.

[slackmaster]

11. I for one am glad that the prudishness exemplefied by your example has gone by the wayside

Talk radio in general is a relatively new phenomenon.

[MiniMe]

2. Because he is a son of an ex-President

[blues90]

5. adopted son . nt

[Maat]

29. Reagan's eldest son ...

my daughter is my daughter - period (yes, she was adopted).

[Sebastian Doyle]

3. The name "Reagan" got him the job.

Fortunately, the same can be said for Reagan's other son, whose radio show is actually listenable.

[proteus_lives]

4. Is this another DU call for censorship?

Just turn the knob if you don't like what's on.

[blues90]

7. I don't listen to him , I heard what he said on Malloys show .nt

[slackmaster]

17. How about an example for people who don't listen to Reagan or Malloy?

Please.

[defendandprotect]

8. It's calling for sanity -- and that's why we need Fairness in Broadcasting Doctrine reinstated...!!!

Turn "off" isn't the answer when so many are swayed by these lies --

Right wing propaganda does work -- that's why it was not previously allowed to

hold sway!!

[proteus_lives]

15. And they would call our views propaganda.

Even assholes have a right to speak.

If they're not breaking the law then no one has a right to silence them.

Protest, write letters, give response to what people say if you disagree with it.

[defendandprotect]

20. Yes they would . . . "up is down" according to those who want to destroy --

however, the Nixon administration was studying Nazi/Hitler propaganda --

it is destructive and damaging -- and it works!!

If you buy a car, you get a booklet most of us call "propaganda" --

or a washing machine -- or a TV --

They would say that the truth about Social Security which used to be presented to

all employees of large corporations was propaganda.

If we sit around worrying about what the right wing idiots will say, we'll become idiots!

What you are saying is a very old response which hasn't worked in decades --

It's been tried --

We have to reinstate the Fairness in Broadcasting Doctrine --

It is only since that doctrine has been eliminated that we've seen the rise of professional

right wing propagandists like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, etal. And it is worsening

every day. Think of Gordon Liddy actually having a show -- he does!

This isn't freedom of speech -- this is freedom to lie to the American public . . .

and we have to change that.

[proteus_lives]

25. I don't know if I agree.

All those people you listed would say the same thing about you or the people you listen to.

Isn't it up to the audience/people? People are allowed to make a choice.

You make it sound like that they have no other options. In this age of the computer, they are only a google away from a different opinion on a issue.

I'm not trying to be snarky but you change-up the names and code-words in your last post, it's a freeper post complaining about "the liberal media".

Let people make their own choices.

[defendandprotect]

27. You mean you don't know the difference between right wing propaganda and truth . .

You couldn't tell the difference between right wing propaganda and someone

speaking of democratic ideals?

Where's the confusion?

YES ... the right wing would say that the truth about Social Security was "propaganda" . . .

And again you continue to worry about . . . "what will the right wing say?" --

The people don't always know that they are being lied to --

Even many intently listening to news these days and seeking alternative sources often can't

possibly know unreported truths. For instance, the wiretapping story of the Bush administration

which the NY Times held and didn't print until AFTER the elections!!

I also think you have some misunderstanding of what the Fairness in Broadcasting Doctrine

does . . . it simply means that BOTH sides of an issue have to be presented.

If you are discussing abortion, for instance -- you don't spend the entire program discussing

the "pro-life" side . . . you also acknowledge the "choice" side and give time to the arguments

on BOTH sides. It doesn't mean that anything is "censored." On the contrary . . . it means

that FULL information has to be given.

Yes -- if you are on the internet you can select the material you want to read -- but in

looking you will also be aware that there are probably many OTHER sides to any issue.

When radio first began, responsible individuals wanted to reserve a minimum of 37% of commercial

free time for "news" and issues of public interest. The corporations fought that until now we

pretty much have 100% advertising on the people's airwaves. And, I want to stress that . . .

corporations are using OUR airwaves. And without proper ennumeration to the public account.

Again -- it is when more than ONE side is heard that people can make up their minds.

The Fairness in Broadcasting Doctrine stood for 60 years -- people heard something of BOTH

sides of an issue; sometimes even more than two sides.

And, if you post here regularly, I think you probably well understand that even if you have

a particular outlook, you still have to read counter-opinions in order to understand the issue

fully and to understand what the other side is saying in order to intelligently address the

issue. Could anyone intelligently address any issue after listening to Rush or Glenn Beck?

Or even O'Reilly -- or Fox? Obviously not because that's what right wing propaganda seeks

to do -- i.e., block truth.

The right wing myths are like a mirror -- a small pebble of truth can shatter them.

[defendandprotect]

6. When these things make absolutely no sense ... like right wing religion . . .

look for right wing $$$ supporting it --

more right wing fake "reality" . . .

Like Buchanan . . . often sponsored by CIA with right wing $$ from any source, including KKK$$!!

[LaPera]

10. Corporate sponsors...corporations want the airwaves filled only with the corporate republican

point of view...that supports deregulation and that's what the sponsorship expects and that's what republican ideology is all about...corporations-business over peoples needs, people should fend for themselves....government should only be there for corporate interest....and guys like Limbaugh Reagan and the rest know what their job is, they are corporate whores and happy selling out the people because they are getting the corporate sponsors big bucks!

[defendandprotect]

21. And, the CIA certainly has a controlling hand in all of this . . .

this is corporate/fascism -- with the added zing of "national security" re CIA --

and it's been going on for decades --

[fascisthunter]

12. because freaks like the money he makes them

and they get to push a fucked up philosophy at the same time.

[Canuckistanian]

13. Because it's the real freaks keep them in power

Decency, moderation and common sense mean nothing to them. Just their narrow, loyal audience.

They've picked their audience and decided to milk them for all they're worth, despite their being a vast minority of the American people.

Unfortunately, there's enough of an audience to guarantee the real freaks a healthy profit through advertiser revenue.

Liberals COULD do the same, but they have scruples, morals and limits.

Ron Reagan Jr. is an example of the latter, refusing to go into extremist territory, merely to profit from radicalism.

[GReedDiamond]

14. "...cheeks to powDer," right?

I used to listen to WLS back then, I don't remember this incident. Do you recall the deejay's name?

I have only heard a few sound bites of Michael Reagan, and he was extremely offensive and thoroughly repugnant. In fact, he was an unapologetic, venal, corrosive, evil little fuckhead, cheering on (or maybe even calling for!) the killing of Muslim babies, cuz they grow up and become muslin terra-ists.

I wonder how he and his fellow talk show host, his civilized step-brother Ron, get along, assuming they may encounter each other occasionally at "family gatherings"?

[blues90]

23. I can't recall now , we used to listen on the high school bus

It was either WLS or WCFL and near 1963 or 1964. I recall the comment , I still have a few friends left who remember it to . Could have been Art Roberts .

[JI7]

16. his son is a criminal

[sabrina 1]

18. His father was a criminal too. But he has a wonderful brother and

pretty cool sister. It's strange the way that worked.

[Quantess]

19. RON Reagan is an excellent radio host, though.

I'm not familiar with Mike Reagan.

[defendandprotect]

22. Patti Reagan was also tremendously courageous re "October Surprise"

and trying to alert us to what was actually going on there --

Haven't heard anything about her recently --

but ironically and happily Patti and Ron are interested in fairness, justice -- democracy!

[Quantess]

24. Ron Reagan

I listened to him on the way home. No matter what he's talking about, he always sounds pleasant. Even when he's ripping apart conservatives, or anything else, no matter how distressing or negative the topic, he always sounds calm and rational.

[Bobbieo]

26. I thought that 'If the skirts get any shorter' quip was attrributed to Bob Hope in the 1940s.

I think I remember it when I was in college. Skirts got pretty short at the end of WW2, too

[blues90]

28. I was refering to mini skirts. nt