Monday, March 24, 2008

Savage and Obama: how far is too far?

According to Media Matters for America, syndicated talk-show host Michael Savage said some remarkably incendiary things about Barack Obama on his March 13 show. Here's the most inflammatory:

I think he was hand-picked by some very powerful forces both within and outside the United States of America to drag this country into a hell that it has not seen since the Civil War of the middle of the 19th century.

Obviously, Savage is free to entertain this theory and to speak it out loud. The question is, do the stations that carry his show want to him a platform to do it?

Here in Boston, Savage's show is heard on WRKO-AM. Here's what station spokesman George Regan told me a minute ago: "That's obviously a nationally syndicated show, so we don't have any control over the content. However, we obviously do not go along with Mr. Savage's remarks."

[Note: this was originally posted Friday morning, but then vanished into some weird Internet limbo.]

3/24/2008 3:07:32 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [5] |

Monday, March 24, 2008 3:50:12 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

"That's obviously a nationally syndicated show, so we don't have any control over the content. However, we obviously do not go along with Mr. Savage's remarks."

Boloney. This is typical 'RKO. They know, full well, the kind of things Savage says, and gladly put it on because of the listeners they want to attract, and the response it produces. Now, just because they're getting negative heat from it, they want to try and walk away and say 'not our fault'. Well, it is.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008 7:38:29 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Reason number, whatever, that the Congress needs to re-implement the Fairness Doctrine.

Tony Schinella

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:21:10 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

FREE SPEECH!

Brian F.

Friday, March 28, 2008 3:26:16 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Unfortunately, with free speech we must accept not only the views we hate, but also the views that are completely inane and ill-informed.

Though the constitution only provides for freedom against government intervention, the idea of free speech extends further than that, at least by most people's ideas.

epthorn

Friday, March 28, 2008 11:50:00 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Epthorn, your conception of free speech seems oddly passive. As I said in my post, Savage is free to say what he did about Obama. But those of us who think his comments are unconscionable are free to condemn them, too. And if-- down the road--this condemnation prompted 'RKO (or any other station) to drop Savage as a host, his First Amendment rights would remain intact.

Adam

Comments are closed.