Fri Mar 9, 2012, 09:57 PM
James48 (1,008 posts)
The issue of "Rush on Armed Forces Radio" is a problem that I have a unique perspective on. You see, I served for four years working for Armed Forces Radio, and served a 21 year military career that included multiple assignments dealing in public affairs in some capacity, both as an enlisted soldier, and as an officer.
What to do about Rush is a major problem from a number of angles. First of all, all programming is, and always has been, strictly independent of any political influence. The Armed Forces Network has always prided itself on it's being independent of political direction, and instead, strove by regulation to be representative of all sides of the American political spectrum. Yes, Rush is aired, and was put on after members of it's military audience specifically asked for it to be added to the line up. Others of different political tilts also appear.
The best and easiest way to end Rush is NOT for political pressure to be forced from outside, but rather for those within the military to tell the network that they would prefer Rush no longer be on. I understand some of that is now going on.
Outside political interference is the LAST thing you want to do- because if they took Rush off because of the President or Senator Levin's specific request, then what happens if and when the other side gains political power?
No, outside political influence is the worst answer to the problem. The best is to have men and women in uniform express their views to AFN directly, and then let AFN management decide how best to resolve the situation.
It's been almost a decade since I worked for them, but I can tell you that the AFN leadership most likely is looking for a way to end Rush's broadcast without a lot of fanfare. It's not an easy task.
6 replies, 905 views
Unique problem (Original post)
|white cloud||Mar 2012||#4|
Response to James48 (Original post)
Fri Mar 9, 2012, 10:07 PM
JoePhilly (19,664 posts)
2. Wait just a second ... you said this ...
"First of all, all programming is, and always has been, strictly independent of any political influence. The Armed Forces Network has always prided itself on it's being independent of political direction, and instead, strove by regulation to be representative of all sides of the American political spectrum."
This makes very little sense, particularly given the reality that Rush is a political commentator. He takes a right wing political position EVERY SINGLE DAY.
And so ... to claim that there is not "political influence" which caused Rush to be on AFR is ridiculous.
Or ... can we find an equal voice from a liberal perspective on AFR???
If AFR is not "influenced" politically, then surely Stephanie Miller, or Thom Hartmann also get AFR airtime, yes???
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #2)
Sat Mar 10, 2012, 02:38 AM
progress2k12nbynd (221 posts)
3. Rush has historically been self sustaining...
Liberal radio like Air America barely makes it past its opening day.
I think the bigger challenge is to figure our why America isn't buying what we're selling and to make the necessary adjustments to change that.
Response to progress2k12nbynd (Reply #3)
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 10:56 PM
JoePhilly (19,664 posts)
6. I did not mention Air America.
And you seem confused about how talk radio actually works.
There is no free market in talk radio. Its become a monopoly environment. And its hard to compete when you aren't allowed to get on the field.
And Again ... Rush is political. If he can be on AFR, then certainly some voices from the left should be there.