RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Intro: "The tumultuous managerial shakeup at National Public Radio headquarters for trivial verbal miscues once again has highlighted the ludicrous corporatist right-wing charge that public radio and public TV are replete with left-leaning or leftist programming. Ludicrous, that is, unless this criticism's yardstick is the propaganda regularly exuded by the extreme right-wing Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. These 'capitalists' use the public's airwaves free-of-charge to make big money."

Ralph Nader. (photo: TruthAlliance)
Ralph Nader. (photo: TruthAlliance)

Cut Limbaugh and Hannity

By Ralph Nader, Reader Supported News

13 April 11


he tumultuous managerial shakeup at National Public Radio headquarters for trivial verbal miscues once again has highlighted the ludicrous corporatist right-wing charge that public radio and public TV are replete with left-leaning or leftist programming.

Ludicrous, that is, unless this criticism's yardstick is the propaganda regularly exuded by the extreme right-wing Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. These "capitalists" use the public's airwaves free-of-charge to make big money.

The truth is that the frightened executives at public TV and radio have long been more hospitable to interviews with right of center or extreme right-wing and corporatist talking heads than liberal or progressive guests.

PBS's Charlie Rose has had war-loving William Kristol on 31 times, Henry Kissinger 55 times, Richard Perle 10 times, the global corporatist cheerleader, Tom Friedman 70 times. Compare that guest list with Rose's interviews of widely published left of center guests - Noam Chomsky two times, William Grieder two times, Jim Hightower two times, Charlie Peters two times, Lewis Lapham three times, Bob Herbert six times, Paul Krugman 21 times, Victor Navasky one time, Mark Green five times and Sy Hersh, once a frequent guest, has not been on since January 2005.

Dr. Sidney Wolfe, the widely-quoted super-accurate drug industry critic, who is often featured on the commercial TV network shows, has never been on Rose's show. Nor has the long-time head of Citizens for Tax Justice and widely respected progressive tax analyst, Robert McIntyre.

Far more corporate executives, not known for their leftist inclinations, appear on Rose's show than do leaders of environmental, consumer, labor and poverty organizations.

In case you are wondering, I've appeared four times, but not since August 2005, and not once on the hostile Terri Gross radio show.

The unabashed progressive Bill Moyer's Show is off the air and has not been replaced. No one can charge PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer with anything other than very straightforward news delivery, bland opinion exchanges and a troubling inclination to avoid much reporting that upsets the power structures in Congress, the White House, the Pentagon or Wall Street.

The longest running show on PBS was hard-line conservative William F. Buckley's show - Firing Line - which came on the air in 1966 and ended in 1999.

Sponsorship by large corporations, such as Coca Cola and AT&T, have abounded - a largesse not likely to be continued year after year for a leftist media organization.

None of this deters the Far Right that presently got a majority in the House of Representatives to defund the $422 million annual appropriation to the umbrella entity - Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). About 15% of all revenues for all public broadcasting stations comes from this Congressional contribution.

Though he admits to liking National Public Radio, conservative columnist David Harsanyi, believes there is no "practical argument" left "in the defense of federal funding in an era of nearly unlimited choices."

Really? Do commercial radio stations give you much news between the Niagara of advertisements and music? Even the frenetic news, sports, traffic and weather flashes, garnished by ads, are either redundant or made up of soundbytes (apart from the merely 2 minutes of CBS radio news every half-hour). If you want serious news, features and interviews on the radio, you go to public radio or the few community and Pacifica radio stations.

Harsanyi continues: "Something, though, seems awfully wrong with continuing to force taxpayers who disagree with the mission - even if their perceptions are false - to keep giving."

Public radio's popular Morning Edition and All Things Considered are the most listened to radio shows after Rush Limbaugh's, and any taxpayer can turn them off. Compare the relatively small public radio and TV budget allocations with the tens of billions of dollars each year - not counting the Wall Street bailout - in compelling taxpayers to subsidize, through hundreds of programs, greedy, mismanaged, corrupt or polluting corporations either directly in handouts, giveaways and guarantees or indirectly in tax escapes, bloated contracts and grants. Can the taxpayer turn them off?

Here is a solution that will avoid any need for Congressional contributions to CPB. The people own the public airwaves. They are the landlords. The commercial radio and TV stations are the tenants that pay nothing for their 24 hour use of this public property. You pay more for your auto license than the largest television station in New York pays the Federal Communications Commission for its broadcasting license - which is nothing. It has been that way since the 1927 and 1934 communication laws.

Why not charge these profitable businesses rent for use of the public airwaves and direct some of the ample proceeds to nonprofit public radio and public TV as well as an assortment of audience controlled TV and radio channels that could broadcast what is going on in our country locally, regionally, nationally and internationally? (See: Ralph Nader & Claire Riley, Oh, Say Can You See: A Broadcast Network for the Audience, 5 J.L. & POL. 1, [1988])

Now that would be a worthy program for public broadcasting. Get Limbaugh's and Hannity's companies off welfare. Want to guess what their listeners think about corporate welfare? your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+115 # Rev Jimbeau 2011-04-13 21:00
God bless Ralph for telling it like it is as always. We have Ralph and Bernie and yes even Dennis being the only voices NOT owned by the corporate state. Let us leave the two parties in the ditch they dug and vote Social Democrat .....

Now if only we had a candidate!
+33 # Richard, W. Jr Spisa 2011-04-14 02:41
We need to UP the ANTE on pressure from the PROGRESSIVE Community. We are not yet a PARTY. We must enlarge our voice and nourish a national presence of our progressive analysis.

We must issue position papers, on the economy, our media analysis, our international analysis. As long as NPR only reaches out to the Heritage Foundation for Analysis our voices there and our few other media voices, We need a national Progressive Convention. Why wait?
0 # heraldmage 2011-04-19 16:26
Why not rename it from the the bad press I'm not sure what is so progressive about it, a wing of Democrat Party, to something like "We the People" Party?
+49 # Edward Morris 2011-04-14 00:02
How is it that those who are opposed to abortions are protected against paying them by the Hyde Amendment and that people who object to NPR progamming argue that shouldn't be required to pay for it--yet I have no legal recourse to not paying for these wars I oppose?
+8 # eloise wyatt 2011-04-14 13:14
Oh my god, that is the question I keep asking my legislators and I Never get an answer. Its like there never was a question. The answer mus t be something to hear. I cannot wait.
+1 # heraldmage 2011-04-19 16:31
I don't like war so why do I have to pay?
Because our funds go into one large pot that our elected representative knowing the will of his constituents allocates.
The only way we get to choose what is funded or not is either through protest or by election & recall process.
+22 # racejim 2011-04-14 00:07
Thanks Ralph for all you do, and I thought your book "We need a Few Good Billionaires Now" was great . I'm hoping a few listen to you & step up and right the ship .
+36 # Monty Gee 2011-04-14 00:37
One of the weirder wonders of US political terminology is that 'liberal' stands for 'left', whereas in the rest of the world, the two are distinct entities. It goes to show Buckley was acceptable whereas, say , Chomsky, who would be regarded as an outspoken intellectual, or Nader, who has historically protected the American way of life by exposing capitalist failures, are regarded as radicals. Of course, even narrow-minded religious fundamentalists are radicals!
+12 # James R Young 2011-04-14 07:31
I have, at times, thought Nader and Chomsky were too much of the lawyer, or single view "Devil's Advocates", but I have always wanted to hear what they had to say.

I think Buckley also wanted the more complete debate, with views like theirs heard. To not do so would be like having a trial with only one side presenting its view of the case. And, in cases like this, Nader is right on target, with a few simple counterpoints that, to me, completely change the balance of all the high dollar snow jobs produced by people like those that took over my old party.
-4 # Bill Clements 2011-04-14 10:53
We are clearly a right of center country. Even Obama is right of center. This is an interesting website that graphs the 2008 Presidential primary candidates and the presidential hopefuls along with the US state senatorial positions.
+14 # AML 2011-04-14 11:48
I'm not so sure on that right-of center thing. With only 20% of folks saying they're liberal, and 40% saying they're moderate, and 37% saying they're conservative, it's easy to believe your premise. But when you poll them on issues alone, without naming right or left, the country is left of center in what they want.
+11 # 4yourinformation 2011-04-14 15:03
I'm with you AML. Chomsky has shown with verifiable data that this nation is much more progressive than portrayed. Polls and elections are "reported" in skewed ways that distort the perspective of what America really is. For example, complete review of polls in the 80s showed that MOST people hated Reaganomics, but that's not what was reported. Chomsky's book Necessary Illusions dispels the BS we have come to accept about a "center-right" nation.
+8 # wfalco 2011-04-15 07:07
Quoting AML:
I'm not so sure on that right-of center thing. With only 20% of folks saying they're liberal, and 40% saying they're moderate, and 37% saying they're conservative, it's easy to believe your premise. But when you poll them on issues alone, without naming right or left, the country is left of center in what they want.

My argument, unfortunately, has always been that the "centrists" or moderates don't follow politics closely enough to even comprehend or define themselves politically. They are, essentially, without a core belief system-thus easy prey for the right wing. They will slide conservative when pressed about who they will vote for. So it does not matter if they may tally out as liberal on a few issues. Corporate media continues to define the term "liberal" for those of the distracted center. And the definition is largely perceived as negative.
+2 # AML 2011-04-15 12:19
I'm with you on that wfalco. The real problem is to dig out of the media junk and come up with fact-based information. Part of the oligarch program is to keep people so busy and scared they are in survival, and like fast food, they opt for fast info, never really digging enough to verify what they read or watch.
I think the President went a long way into correcting the image of the liberal mindset, but we all, most of all the man at the bully pulpit, need to keep up the pushback.
+1 # heraldmage 2011-04-19 16:37
The only reason we appear to be right of center is the well funded loud month minority spewing misrepresentati on & historical revisions are right of center the majority quietly sits backs thinking they are alone in their views when in truth the aren't.
I guess we need a bunch of loud mouth left of center countering lies with truth
+25 # H.M. Sutton 2011-04-14 01:18
FANTASTIC! What an idea--the public owning the airways--charge rent to use them--like in the real world, when hell freezes over! I'll always bet on the corporate greedheads maintaining control of everything they want to control--and to hell with us common folk. That's where I'd bet my money. Yes, and so sad.
+1 # heraldmage 2011-04-19 16:44
The only way it will happen is if we elect legislators who promise in writing to pass public funding of election with absolutely no private money allowed. Included in their signed platform would be public airwaves usage fee.
If after they are elected they fall to corruption of money they are recalled. In fact the recall petitions should be ready before they are elected.
+6 # Arika 2011-04-14 01:22
Love you, Ralph!
What about Jason Kafouri? Would he run? I would vote for him!
I know you're getting up in years, but I bet a younger Progressive could give f***ing Obama a run for his money. I'd hate to see what would happen after he was elected, probably get blown away. But it might get everyone fired up finally!
+32 # Douglas Bates 2011-04-14 02:01
One tends to forget what a good writer Ralph Nader is.

I have found that I am listening less and less to local station KQED. It has begun to seem like a right wing apologist. It simply doesn't cover many of the international situations I'm interested in. I've noticed that it's possible to find the far right covered in the news, but not even the center left has a presence.

The major media powerhouses seem to view news as soundbites. I heard about the Wisconsin union demonstrations on Pacifica 2 days before I could even find any mention on the standard TV news outlets. I never watch regular television news anymore.

I always regarded the Pacifica Network stations as radical left, but now I find myself listening to find out what's happening on the stories that are not presented on the other stations

I've recently heard several people ask the question I've been asking myself, "Am I really moving so far left, or is the country moving so far to the right that it only seems that way?"
+8 # Bill Clements 2011-04-14 10:56
Maybe some of the former, but definitely a lot of the latter.

Al Jazeera is worth checking out, too.
+8 # AML 2011-04-14 11:56
Immediately after the '08 elections, only 19% of those polled would identify themselves as Republicans. Then the economy did not improve, and the right wing media cranked up to delegitimize liberalism by calling it 'socialism'. Now only 20% will call themselves liberal, as if it's some form of leprosy. If you ask the right questions, you find out that most people want the same things, short of the social issues like freedom of choice.
+1 # J Johnson 2011-04-18 11:15
My tip-off happened a long time ago. I paid attention to the little advertising tags before and after the NPR programs. Practically all of them are bankrolled by the corporatists. It's been that way for years!
+1 # J Johnson 2011-04-18 11:17
My tip-off came years ago. I started paying attention to the little advertising tags before and after the programming. Most of what I heard were plugs for the corporatists who have bankrolled "Public Radio" for years.

Broadcasters, like all businesses follow the money.
0 # heraldmage 2011-04-19 16:48
You also might want to try and they are both excellent. or you can get them and many others through which also has foreign language stations.
+32 # Ralph Averill 2011-04-14 04:11
I like the idea of charging for-profit use of the airwaves to support non-profit use of the airwaves. Another idea; free air time for candidates for public office. Most of the millions raised for campaigns goes to purchase on-air advertising. It would certainly level the playing field given the Supreme Court's opening of the floodgates of corporate cash.
+11 # James R Young 2011-04-14 07:44
As far as I can tell, over $4.5 billion was spent on the last (off year, but critical census/Gerryman dering control) election, which changed about 691 seats to radical "conservatives/ libertarians" (an amazing, to me, $6.5 million for each seat in the changed balance). I compare many of them to those that supported what Herbert Hoover bemoaned as "anarchical capitalists." Like many Americans, today, they seemed to have an idealized view, assuming, as Hoover did, that most,if not all significant capitalists were of very high moral character, and would act in the best interest of the country, at least as much as for themselves.

I'm not as cynical as Henry Adams, but I do think we are shooting ourselves in the foot with this lopsided debate.
+6 # urban kohler 2011-04-14 11:40
Is France still on a short election cycle with free and equal airtime instead of ads paid for by campaigns?

I lived there 20+ years ago the candidates all got equal time (not soundbytes) and nobody paid. (we could require our networks to provide this free airtime for qualified candidates --qualified NOT by money raised, but by volunteer grass roots campaigning --getting voters to sign up behind candidates, and restore truly democratic choice. I think the media in France at the time belonged to the government and my impression then was that the government belonged to the voters, who knew they could organize and always had a selection of a dozen presidential candidates and the selection (narrowing the field to two)was not controlled by the corporate system.
I hope France is still that way and has not been corporatized also.
+3 # Jared Moore 2011-04-15 17:11
Most of the Millions? The President is on track to accumulate $1B in his re-election effort. Do you think that amount of money is coming from free thinking individuals such as yourself?
+2 # Ralph Averill 2011-04-17 03:57
+1 # heraldmage 2011-04-19 16:55
Re-instating the Fairness Doctrine will take care of half the cost. Requiring that the reporting of news & current events be done as a public service & free from government & sponsor influence would not only take care of candidate comments but would provide the public with uncensored news. The Fairness Doctrine allows opposition candidates to rebut comment without charge.
+25 # Ralph West 2011-04-14 05:53
I really think the best thing any person can do is tune out these mediocre jackasses. For a brief period, I listened to Limbaugh, just to get a sense of the inanities he spouts. Now that I've got it, I regularly ignore him and Hannity, et al. Incidentally, I note that the bland Jim Lehrer all too often gives respectful air space to the effeminate and pseudo-intellec tual David Brooks -- a sort of tepid right winger shill. Anyone who watches CNN, as I do, only occasionlly, when working out at the gym, can see that they run an inordinate number of Republican attack ads, which have absolutely no credibility with me.
Let's hope that Mr. Obama follows through with his stated intentions on the budget (in yesterday's speech) and doesn't follow the speech with cave-ins. If he is pereceived as a fighter (and he has to be, in this case, as the Republicas are hopelessly rigid, selfish, and unccaptable), I think the Democrats have a good chance of really slamming the G.O.P. in the upcoming elections. He needs to take them and their corporatist hacks like Ryan on and abandon this nonsense about bipartisanship. They aren't worth compromising with.
+13 # DaveW 2011-04-14 10:55
Ralph West, Agree that CNN runs too many GOP attack ads and I, too, see them at the gym. Lehrer is akin to chewing on cardboard in the age of news/infotainme nt. I'd like to see him at least "act" as though he realizes the perniciousness of what he must report once in a while. Cronkite eventually condemned Vietnam. As for Obama, who I campaigned for, sent money to and cried the night he won, well,I get the distinct impression now he's just sticking a moistened finger in the political wind and saying what he thinks will get him re-elected. His record on LIberal/Progres sive/Democratic issues speaks for itself. He's SAYING the right things NOW. He said them before too and we all know what we got. And when regarding Democrats we musn't forget that a "Democrat" in Louisiana or Florida or Wyoming is not the same as one in California, Oregon or Massachusettes. A Republican however, in no small part to the ubiquitous Tea Party MUST tow the party line without deviation. My Dad, who died in '74, was a LIBERAL Democrat and a longshoreman. He wouldn't recognize the Democratic party of today but would have been unsurprised at where the Republicans have ended up. It's what they had planned all along. They've just had a little more help. From...Democrat s. Nader is a smart man who unfortunately has been smeared too often by those who can't match his intellect. America has suffered for it.
+7 # 4yourinformation 2011-04-14 15:07
Amen! I, too am so sick of the Leher-Brooks love affair, and any other that gives Brooks undue praise.
+19 # todd williams 2011-04-14 06:51
Now I vividly recall why I voted for Nadar for president over Gore. And was I ever lambasted by my so-called liberal friends for "handing the election to Bush." Ralph has always been the voice of sanity in an insane world. Again he's right on spot for this essay on the Public Airwaves. Make everyone pay to use them. Right on, Ralph!
+12 # violet martin 2011-04-14 10:06
I agree. Try to imagine how much better off the world would be had we had Mr Nader for President. I have no confidence that there are enough thoughtful people out there to vote for him or someone like him.
Why is it that the best ideas are regarded as "extreme" in this world?
+5 # 4yourinformation 2011-04-14 15:10
I voted by mail in 2008, and posted a picture of the ballot with my vote cast for Nader on Facebook! I'm still proud of it today. Love ya' Ralph.
+16 # Feral, Priscilla 2011-04-14 07:36
Yes, right on, Ralph, but missing in your list of people who should be on anyone's interview list are ~females~
for heaven's sake. Couldn't you think of a single name of someone with two X chromosomes?
+8 # violet martin 2011-04-14 10:12
I know. This is the one area of Mr. Nader's being that is so lacking. Sad!
+18 # PGreen 2011-04-14 08:04
An extremely insightful commentary that appropriately contradicts the establishment media paradigm of NPR as "liberal press." However, it may be that right-wing and left-wing polarities now have less significance than "Criticism of Establishment Power" versus "Support of Power." Though Ralph cites examples of a few (dare I say "token") dissenters who have achieved some degree of media exposure, NPR clearly comes down on the latter side. Commentators such as Friedman are sometimes considered "liberal," though their support of the establishment is immense. When the details within a narrow range of acceptable opinion are all that reach the level of public debate, then democracy is in trouble. This is especially true when a dissenter presents a cogent argument that represents the opinion of a large number of people, or points out the moral or practical flaws in the reasoning of an established policy. But exposing the lies of the oligarchy, disrupting its narrative, in any significant way, is taboo to the establishment media. Unfortunately, our institutions work in support of the privileged few, rather than the public majority.
+5 # Bill Clements 2011-04-14 11:00
Excellent post. All decisively true!
+6 # JD 2011-04-14 09:33
"Something, though, seems awfully wrong with continuing to force taxpayers who disagree with the mission - even if their perceptions are false - to keep giving."

Can I stop paying for wars then?
+5 # ruthee 2011-04-14 09:44
thanks, r.averill, for your notice of the supreme court, source of significant American reposititory of inequality and big business rot in our government.Only the women on that court seem inclined to fairness at this juncture. Will they, too, be intimidated by the Washington culture of fear and ignorance? I never thot they could intimidate our wonderful Obama!
+4 # Flesh and Blood Pers 2011-04-14 10:21
Certainly Ralph Nader has good Ideas and is well meaning but he has lost the support of the vast majority of the Electorate and has demonstrated in the 2000 election that he has no idea of the consequences of his actions. He could have pulled out of the 2000 election when his poll numbers were so pitiful, but he ignored them and put the US through 8 years of the worst administration since Buchanan or Harding. Ralph should realize by now that writing is his forte'and search for those who can do a better job and get elected.
+7 # snot snail 2011-04-14 14:29
Bush stole that election from everyone, including Ralph and the people who voted for him.
+5 # Arika 2011-04-14 18:32
You never LISTEN, do you? Ralph did NOTHING to the 2000 election!! He got as many R voters as D voters, and Bush's cohorts STOLE that election!!! CNN announced Gore the winner, but FOX announced Bush, and everyone thought they missed something and went along with it! Thousands of votes were changed by computer, in many states!! Read the truth!! Stop blaming Ralph!!!
+4 # Buckles 2011-04-14 10:36
Naders right the corporations who under write NPR do get their right wingers views on more than the liberal side, The FCC gave our air waves to the corporations, no more fairness doctrain. When Limbaughs brother was allowed to spew his book filled with garbage a week before the election on morning talk show, my e-mail comments were disregarded.
+5 # 4yourinformation 2011-04-14 15:13
More registered Dems in FLA voted for Bush than voted for Nader. Gore's winning votes were stolen by Bush...NOT Nader!!!
-21 # Shaun Hough 2011-04-14 10:58
This is pretty warped logic. So because the left are criticized for hijacking publicly supported radio, in which they use not ONLY the public airwaves but their radio broadcasting and studio fees are all paid by the public then the right should be charged to use the public airwaves, despite the fact that they pay all of their radio broadcasting and studio fees?

Sorry Mr. Nader but it's that sort of logic that is the reason no one likes to listen to liberal radio and why it's an utter failure.
+5 # Robert Griffin 2011-04-14 14:45
The left are the major support of publicly supported radio. CPB and NPR are, according to the article and based on what I've heard when listening, NOT hijacked by the left but often tend to court right-of-center viewpoints.
+5 # 4yourinformation 2011-04-14 15:19
The left do continue to support NPR and PBS while the corporations call the tune via their much larger donations held as extortion. The views do reflect a center-right perspective in most cases.
+4 # billy bob 2011-04-15 00:41
I think what Shaun is refering to is the fact that left-wing opinions CAN be heard on public broadcasting (even though they're usually drowned out by the right). The problem the right has is the simple fact that the left has ANY voice at all that can be heard anywhere.
+5 # 4yourinformation 2011-04-14 15:17
+4 # Bill Clements 2011-04-14 11:07
Well articulated, Mr. Nader, and spot on! Excellent solution to the GOP's problem with funding PBS and NPR.
-12 # RVEARL 2011-04-14 11:46
+6 # don emilio 2011-04-14 14:32
Actually, I "...DON'T HAVE THE SLIGHTEST IDEA..." what you are talking about. Might you care to explain?

Also, although I think I understand the theological implications of the term, please explain what you mean by "...SO CALLED FREE SPIRITS..."
+5 # 4yourinformation 2011-04-14 15:21
I'm going to guess that A) you haven't taken your Prozac today and B) you hate Nader. That's ok, I hate sellout Bluedog Democrats who compromise away my future.
0 # Gary Ray Pierson 2011-04-29 08:17
Quoting RVEARL:

I fought for this country in another war with no meaning or worth to it for the general populace.. Spent too long in Vietnam and know bullets don't zig zag in midair as the Warren Commission pawned off on septic tank brains like yours. I'd call some one to clean out all that elephant crap from between your ears. And who were you with and where did you fight so valiantly? Ft. Dick? Cpl. Pierson 101st Airborne, Vietnam and you make me sick... print this RSN. Send these guys some money too. All those magazines and papers they get their news from cost money ya know, or do what they do. Read a lot. RVERAL, stay in your RV.. Keep America Beautiful Pissed of Vet. garyray
-23 # Martintfre 2011-04-14 12:17
Hannity and Limbaugh already are defunded by the government, it is time NPR does the same.
+16 # 4yourinformation 2011-04-14 15:24
Wrong! Corporations who take my tax dollars via subsidies and tax breaks give money to Fox and EIB without my ability to prohibit it. Where's MY Hyde amendment that prevents THAT???
+4 # billy bob 2011-04-15 00:37
+3 # buddhaman 2011-04-14 15:37
Not sure about the hostile Terri Gross reference. Is she hostile or her Fresh Air show? Hostile in what way? To whom? I can't imagine she wouldn't want to interview Ralph. In fact, I'm surprised she hasn't.
+2 # Mark Proulx 2011-04-14 17:45
Thanks for making this comment, as I was perplexed by it as well. (FWIW, I'm not a huge Terry Gross fan, mostly because she can't stifle her tendency to add an upward inflection to her voice at the end of a question.)
+5 # mortsandy 2011-04-14 21:42
Elrushbo goofed one day when one of his
admirers asked him to come speak locally.
Elrushbo told the poor soul on the radio
that his speaking fee was $50,000.
With that kind of money, he can afford
to smoke those big cigars while some
people have trouble buying food and
+7 # SouthBrun 2011-04-15 06:37
Possibly we could keep Limbaugh and Hannity....Just let them do their broadcasting from the Fukashima power plant. Put Rush in there, he could plug that leak
+4 # fredboy 2011-04-15 08:43
Thanks, Ralph.

Your Ego (correctly capitalized when referring to yours) made all of this possible--Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Iraq, 9/11, etc., etc., etc. And gave birth to this national eruption of distrust and hatred.
+2 # Elder Berry 2011-04-15 23:10
Mr. Nader, you are right on the money. And if people like you really could be elected President of the US, this would be a much better country.
0 # Schub58 2011-04-19 01:15
Charlie Rose did have Sir James Goldsmith on with another guest economist. Of course hindsight is 20/20 and NAFTA/GATT is now much more than a giant sucking sound. It's almost like we are all Koch suckers now. The corporate raider is dead, the chalk board voice wench teaches and the Charlie's was sister in law gets fed money via helicopter drops or "palm healing" or wtf. Hannity teams up with that great American Iran-Contra drug smuggler Oliver North. Edward Bernays is laughing in his grave. Perot has a caption under his high school year book picture stating "Life Size".
0 # Inspired Citizen 2012-03-05 17:31
Don't forget that Beck attacked her first along the same lines:
0 # Inspired Citizen 2012-03-07 18:32
Cut Beck too. He actually assaulted Fluke before Limbaugh did:

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.