Armed Forces Radio will only let Limbaugh talk to the troops.

[Perknose]

Dunno, I listen to Le Show by Harry Shearer, on which he regularly tears the administration a new asshole. In the credits at the end of each show it's mentioned that it's available on AFN.

On a side note, I first learned that we had over 50,000 American troops in Russia for a couple of years post WW1 fighting against the bolshevics on the side of the whites (tsarists) NOT from any history class but from a notice in Stars and Stripes (the military newspaper) trying to round up vets of same for a reunion. :laugh::shocked:

 

[techs]

Let me clarify a few misconceptions.
Currently the law requires AFR to broadcast the full spectrum of political opinon.
AFR has 33 different radio stations individually programmed.
It reaches troops in 177 countries.
NO one suggested in any way, shape or form that Rush should be taken off AFR. Every piece of legislation has only asked the AFR to follow the LAW which says of AFR "that all political programming shall be characterized by its fairness and balance."

Now I don't care how much you try and claim Rush is fair and balanced he isn't. Just like FoxNews isn't fair and balanced. The troops should hear both sides. And I suspect some might tend to agree with the side that supports them and wants to get them home.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Interesting. The soldiers that I correspond with have complained that most of the programming they get is from PBS and other liberal programs.

One individual told me that they get less than half or Rush Limbaugh's show but that many of them record the show off of the Internet then listen to the recording. When they asked to get the rest of his show they were told no because the programming had to be "balanced" rather than reflect the interests of the listening audience (the soliders.)

I was told that many soldiers have complained specifically about the bashing of soldiers on the liberal shows. Which has gotten them no where. It seems as though the liberal bureaucrats want the soliders to become demoralized.

Of course, we know who they support so such actions are not surprising. Nor is it surprising that the liberals would be bothered by the soldiers hearing that they are supported or be bothered by the soldiers being able to listen to the programs they prefer. After all, to liberals, a dead U.S. soldier is good for their party.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

This is the second Rush thread here, is he getting your panties in a bind?:laugh:

Did any of you realize that the total of 5 hours per week of Rush(one hour a day) is less than 1% of the weekly programming aired on AFRTS?

Does anyone know how they pick the shows they air?

OMG!!!!!!! NPR is on AFRTS? Get Harkin on the phone - STAT!

You people are great entertainment.:laugh:

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Interesting. The soldiers that I correspond with have complained that most of the programming they get is from PBS and other liberal programs.

One individual told me that they get less than half or Rush Limbaugh's show but that many of them record the show off of the Internet then listen to the recording. When they asked to get the rest of his show they were told no because the programming had to be "balanced" rather than reflect the interests of the listening audience (the soliders.)

I was told that many soldiers have complained specifically about the bashing of soldiers on the liberal shows. Which has gotten them no where. It seems as though the liberal bureaucrats want the soliders to become demoralized.

Of course, we know who they support so such actions are not surprising. Nor is it surprising that the liberals would be bothered by the soldiers hearing that they are supported or be bothered by the soldiers being able to listen to the programs they prefer. After all, to liberals, a dead U.S. soldier is good for their party.

As opposed to that overwhelming support given during Kosovo and Bosnia by talking heads like Rush?

 

[aircooled]

Ed Schultz has a good show. Would have been a nice contrast to Rush, and he's not particularly an extreme liberal. He's a "huntin', fishin', SUV drivin'" liberal (his own words).

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Train - this is Armed Forces Radio, tailored by our military for hyping the troops.
It's not commercial and requestline stateside gruel.

So draft dodgers are preferred listening by the troops? Interesting . . .

Not only that, but with no extra charge they get a Drug Abusing Snake Oil Salesman, with an aledged homosexual past.

(don't ask - don't tell):lips:

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: aircooled
Ed Schultz has a good show. Would have been a nice contrast to Rush, and he's not particularly an extreme liberal. He's a "huntin', fishin', SUV drivin'" liberal (his own words).

.. who also never badmouths the troops and what they are doing over there. No you are correct, Ed is anything but a textbook leftie.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
How did I get two posts?

I posted a Rush thread on a different topic.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
This is the second Rush thread here, is he getting your panties in a bind?:laugh:

Did any of you realize that the total of 5 hours per week of Rush(one hour a day) is less than 1% of the weekly programming aired on AFRTS?

Holy crap, that's 5 hours too much. Says nothing about the balance issue

Does anyone know how they pick the shows they air?

OMG!!!!!!! NPR is on AFRTS? Get Harkin on the phone - STAT!

You people are great entertainment.:laugh:

NPR is a neutral news source, which Repubs are trying to use as a Republican mouthpiece.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
How did I get two posts?

I posted a Rush thread on a different topic.

No, I edited out the exact copy of my earlier post. I didn't post it twice but it showed up twice with a post in between.

 

[slyedog]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
This is the second Rush thread here, is he getting your panties in a bind?:laugh:

Did any of you realize that the total of 5 hours per week of Rush(one hour a day) is less than 1% of the weekly programming aired on AFRTS?

Holy crap, that's 5 hours too much. Says nothing about the balance issue

Does anyone know how they pick the shows they air?

OMG!!!!!!! NPR is on AFRTS? Get Harkin on the phone - STAT!

You people are great entertainment.:laugh:

NPR is a neutral news source, which Repubs are trying to use as a Republican mouthpiece.

========================================================
NPR is a neutral news source? better leave the mushrooms alone.

 

[glenn beck]

NPR is a neutral news source, which Repubs are trying to use as a Republican mouthpiece.

huh???

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
This is the second Rush thread here, is he getting your panties in a bind?:laugh:

Did any of you realize that the total of 5 hours per week of Rush(one hour a day) is less than 1% of the weekly programming aired on AFRTS?

Holy crap, that's 5 hours too much. Says nothing about the balance issue

Does anyone know how they pick the shows they air?

OMG!!!!!!! NPR is on AFRTS? Get Harkin on the phone - STAT!

You people are great entertainment.:laugh:

NPR is a neutral news source, which Repubs are trying to use as a Republican mouthpiece.

You may not like Rush( I don't listen to him either) but who are you to say AFRTS shouldn't have him on the air when he is one of the most requested programs by soldiers?

As to your NPR comment, I am sure you believe that NPR is "neutral". Some of us disagree. Should we be able to have our Senator play politics and grandstand on the Senate floor about NPR having too much air time on AFRTS?

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Did any of you realize that the total of 5 hours per week of Rush(one hour a day) is less than 1% of the weekly programming aired on AFRTS?

5 / 168 = 0.029762

Math Major ?

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Did any of you realize that the total of 5 hours per week of Rush(one hour a day) is less than 1% of the weekly programming aired on AFRTS?

5 / 168 = 0.029762

Math Major ?

Don't know much about AFRTS? You realize that they have more than one radio channel, right?

 

[CaptnKirk]

I almost did a stint on Armed Forces Radio - went to the front instead.

There are 168 hours in a week - being on ANY outlet 5 hours a week
constitutes broadcast time for that broadcast.

They run rotating programming on 3 channels, but each area doesn't get all three

They don't do a different show for each location - it's canned programming with an announcer to fill in gaps,
local specific announcements, and flip the switches between three possible format groups.
As far as 'Broascast Radio' goes, I don't see more than 2 in anyplace in Iraq.
All times based on Pacific (Los Angeles) origin.

See if you can even find 'Limbaugh'









(0906 - 1000 M-F, 54 minutes)

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
I almost did a stint on Armed Forces Radio - went to the front instead.

There are 168 hours in a week - being on ANY outlet 5 hours a week
constitutes broadcast time for that broadcast.

They run rotating programming on 3 channels, but each area doesn't get all three

They don't do a different show for each location - it's canned programming with an announcer to fill in gaps,
local specific announcements, and flip the switches between three possible format groups.
As far as 'Broascast Radio' goes, I don't see more than 2 in anyplace in Iraq.
All times based on Pacific (Los Angeles) origin.

See if you can even find 'Limbaugh'

(0906 - 1000 M-F, 54 minutes)

They have 13 channels according to the leftist site Common Dreams

But whether there are 3 or 13, there is plenty of other radio programming on there so for you all to get your panties all bunched up over less than %1 is rather amusing. Not to mention that AFRTS has more than just Radio Programming.

BTW, Tom Joyner is a Bush hater that seems to get a bit of air time on AFRTS. Should I call Harkin?

 

[aircooled]

The problem is not that Rush is on the air, or that there are other options, but that fact that we pay for this, and the government will not allow a progressive/liberal talk show be broadcast that competes with someone like Rush....

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: aircooled
The problem is not that Rush is on the air, or that there are other options, but that fact that we pay for this, and the government will not allow a progressive/liberal talk show be broadcast that competes with someone like Rush....

That is not true. Nothing prevents liberals from being on AFRTS. Liberals just aren't requested by the audience as much, nor do they seem to have the market share here( you have to have over a million listeners or something like that).

So what is more important, this so-called "balance" or audience demand? So if we give liberals less than 1% will that be alright? Harkin's bill wanted this: "AFRTS is intended to broadcast a ?touch of home? by providing programming that reflects a cross-section of what is available to stateside audiences." Seems to me that AFRTS already does reflect a cross-section. Rush has millions of listeners. Can all the national liberal talk shows combined equal his audience of 14 million?

Seems to me that Harkin was just grandstanding and whining. If he really wanted to give the soldiers what they want, they'd get all 3 hours of his show.

 

[aircooled]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: aircooled
The problem is not that Rush is on the air, or that there are other options, but that fact that we pay for this, and the government will not allow a progressive/liberal talk show be broadcast that competes with someone like Rush....

That is not true. Nothing prevents liberals from being on AFRTS. Liberals just aren't requested by the audience as much, nor do they seem to have the market share here( you have to have over a million listeners or something like that).

So what is more important, this so-called "balance" or audience demand? So if we give liberals less than 1% will that be alright? Harkin's bill wanted this: "AFRTS is intended to broadcast a ?touch of home? by providing programming that reflects a cross-section of what is available to stateside audiences." Seems to me that AFRTS already does reflect a cross-section. Rush has millions of listeners. Can all the national liberal talk shows combined equal his audience of 14 million?

Seems to me that Harkin was just grandstanding and whining. If he really wanted to give the soldiers what they want, they'd get all 3 hours of his show.

My argument is that we pay for this with tax dollars. putting Ed Schultz on on is a good balance, I'm not saying we should take Rush off, I think they should play all 3 hours, but also include Ed in their programming..

Nothing prevents liberals from being on AFRTS.

seems like it is being prevented...

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: aircooled
The problem is not that Rush is on the air, or that there are other options, but that fact that we pay for this, and the government will not allow a progressive/liberal talk show be broadcast that competes with someone like Rush....

That is not true. Nothing prevents liberals from being on AFRTS. Liberals just aren't requested by the audience as much, nor do they seem to have the market share here( you have to have over a million listeners or something like that).

So what is more important, this so-called "balance" or audience demand? So if we give liberals less than 1% will that be alright? Harkin's bill wanted this: "AFRTS is intended to broadcast a ?touch of home? by providing programming that reflects a cross-section of what is available to stateside audiences." Seems to me that AFRTS already does reflect a cross-section. Rush has millions of listeners. Can all the national liberal talk shows combined equal his audience of 14 million?

Seems to me that Harkin was just grandstanding and whining. If he really wanted to give the soldiers what they want, they'd get all 3 hours of his show.

My argument is that we pay for this with tax dollars. putting Ed Schultz on on is a good balance, I'm not saying we should take Rush off, I think they should play all 3 hours, but also include Ed in their programming..

Nothing prevents liberals from being on AFRTS.

seems like it is being prevented...

And why do you think it "seems like it is being prevented"? Conspiracy against liberals? :roll:
How about a more reasonable answer to the Ed Schultz issue, like someone jumping the gun and saying things were going to happen before it was finalized?


Anyway, it's always fun to see how liberals get riled up at the mere mention of Rush.:laugh:

 

[aircooled]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

And why do you think it "seems like it is being prevented"? Conspiracy against liberals? :roll:
How about a more reasonable answer to the Ed Schultz issue, like someone jumping the gun and saying things were going to happen before it was finalized?


Anyway, it's always fun to see how liberals get riled up at the mere mention of Rush.:laugh:[/quote]

uhmm, because it was prevented...

edit: jumping the gun? several press releases said it was happining. just google it.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

And why do you think it "seems like it is being prevented"? Conspiracy against liberals? :roll:
How about a more reasonable answer to the Ed Schultz issue, like someone jumping the gun and saying things were going to happen before it was finalized?


Anyway, it's always fun to see how liberals get riled up at the mere mention of Rush.:laugh:

uhmm, because it was prevented...

[/quote]

That doesn't answer my question. Try again.

"And why do you think it "seems like it is being prevented"? Conspiracy against liberals?
How about a more reasonable answer to the Ed Schultz issue, like someone jumping the gun and saying things were going to happen before it was finalized?"

 

[aircooled]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

And why do you think it "seems like it is being prevented"? Conspiracy against liberals? :roll:
How about a more reasonable answer to the Ed Schultz issue, like someone jumping the gun and saying things were going to happen before it was finalized?


Anyway, it's always fun to see how liberals get riled up at the mere mention of Rush.:laugh:

uhmm, because it was prevented...

That doesn't answer my question. Try again.

"And why do you think it "seems like it is being prevented"? Conspiracy against liberals?
How about a more reasonable answer to the Ed Schultz issue, like someone jumping the gun and saying things were going to happen before it was finalized?"[/quote]

I edited my post.
It was said by many press released that Ed was to be on Armed forces radio. It was not jumping the gun.