Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“I would remind you that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. And let me also remind you that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”     Barry Goldwater

May 2, 2007

Virginia Legislators Target Neal Boortz

by Doug Mataconis

It seems that several Virginia legislators are seeking to have Neal Boortz removed from the air in Blacksburg, Virginia due to comments he made about the Virginia Tech massacre:

Scott Stevens knew Neal Boortz was a “hate monger.” But he had only received a single, generic complaint about Boortz’s remarks regarding the shootings at Virginia Tech. Now, Stevens says WFNR AM 710 in Pulaski will strongly consider pulling Boortz, a nationally syndicated talk show host, from their 10 a.m.-12 p.m. time slot after being made aware of the severity of Boortz’s remarks by a letter from Virginia delegates.

Two weeks ago, Boortz criticized the victims of the April 16 shootings for “standing in terror waiting for (their) turn to be executed.” All eight Virginia stations that syndicate Boortz were sent a letter Monday afternoon signed by Democratic Delegates Stephen Shannon, Jim Shuler and Chuck Caputo. The letter called the radio host’s remarks “hateful” and the radio stations’ responses “disappointing and meager.”

“I feel (Virginia radio stations) have a sense of public responsibility in the immediate aftermath of this tragedy to exercise some restraint. What they did was let this broadcaster peel off outrageous assertions that somehow it was the fault of the students and the faculty members who were killed or injured…There’s simply no place for this out-of-state radio host to make such claims on Virginia’s airwaves immediately after this tragedy has taken place,” Shannon said.

(….)

“The ultimate goal is to have them sit down and reconsider the wisdom of allowing this particular radio host to assert outrageous claims, and in the future perhaps they would have some protocols so they would not turn a blind eye to use of the airwaves immediately after a tragedy in such a hurtful manner,” Shannon said.

If WFNR decided on it’s own to stop carrying Boortz’s show, or to impose a punishment on him in some other way, they are, of course, perfectly within their rights to do so. What’s disturbing here, though, is the fact that they are being prompted to do anything all solely due to the “urging” of a group of state legislators. Other than their letter, the station had only received one complaint — and if any station in America that air’s the show would’ve been expected to receive complaints, it would have been the one in Blacksburg where the tragedy occurred.

If the only people complaining are politicians, then where’s the problem here ?

H/T: Hit&Run

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/05/02/virginia-legislators-target-neal-boortz/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

7 Comments

  1. Hell, when politicasn AREN’T complaining, I start getting worried.

    Besides, Boortz was right. Deep in what passes for their little politician souls, they know it; and are angry at him for exposing them for the cowards they are, nothing more.

    Comment by Chris — May 2, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
  2. The complaint is bogus. Here is what Mr. Boorz said on-line, “Lambs for the slaughter

    One more thing. I have a question here. No answer .. just a question. Why didn’t some of these students fight back? How in the hell do you line students up against a wall (if that’s the way it played out) and start picking them off one by one without the students turning on you? You have a choice. Try to rush the killer and get his gun, or stand there and wait to be shot. I would love to hear from some of you who have insight into situations such as this. Was there just not enough time to react? Were they paralyzed with fear? Were they waiting for someone else to take action? Sorry .. I just don’t understand.”

    http://boortz.com/nuze/200704/04172007.html

    I believe the same question was raised here. Simply put, “Why did no one fight back?”
    This is not hate mongering.

    Comment by tkc — May 2, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
  3. The complaint is bogus. Here is what Mr. Boor(t)z said on-line

    When has that ever stopped a politician?

    Comment by Kevin — May 2, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
  4. Now if only the Dixie Chicks would fly to London and talk about Boortz being censored. That is the problem here. Individual stations can decide to stop carrying a show; the government cannot.

    Comment by trumpetbob15 — May 2, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
  5. If you want to hear Mr. Boortz’s many disgusting comments on this matter, go to my web site. On it you will be able to read, listen and view a video.

    http://nukular-waste.tripod.com/Boortz/Boortz.htm

    Sincerely,
    Oscar Lewis

    Comment by Oscar Lewis — May 3, 2007 @ 8:03 am
  6. Thanks for the link Oscar. I’ve been contacting all those advertisers and asking to keep on sponsoring Neal’s radio show.

    While I think he could have been a little more “diplomatic” in his comments, I also think he was right on target. America has become “wussified” in that we are taught to rely on someone else in times of crisis.

    Women are told, in the event of a rape attack, “don’t fight back, better to be a live victim.” Yet, studies show, those who fight back have a better chance of surviving, even if they lose the fight. They also have a higher level of self esteem.

    We are always told, if someone is after you, trying to kill or maim you, call the police. Sure, go ahead, dial 911, while someone is breaking down your door. The police will probably show up in time to clean up the mess.

    Even if only 10 students had rushed the homicidal maniac, they had a pretty good chance of taking him down. And if only ONE student had been legally armed, we would not likely be talking about 32 victims, but most likely, a much lower number, and a hero.

    Instead, we have 32 “good victims,” which does include a few heroes who stood their ground so others could run away.

    Comment by Big Gay Al — May 3, 2007 @ 9:11 am
  7. Boortz’s comments were not disgsuting but I believe I can explain the actions of the students and it’s quite a simple matter: through thirteen years of primary and secondary education students are taught that when assaulted they should stand by and wait for the authorities to arrive and handle the situation. The students do this because school authorities will punish the perpetrator and the victim equally if this is not done. Why? Because it is easier for the administrators to be a disservice to their students than it is to handle these incidents fairly. The students did exactly what they were taught to do and they paid dearly for it.

    Comment by Kevin Damon — May 3, 2007 @ 10:38 am

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML