The people who came up with the logos aren’t smart enough to create the basis of various possible conspiracy theories and are in fact dumb enough to create logos that look like other logos some of which are bad and some of which would obviously create conspiracy theories.

Something tells me the crack team of journalists over at Fox & Friends is going to be all over this, if they aren’t already.

Apparently the conspiracy theorists are worried about copyright infringement. Reminds me of a story about some loon, like these loons, wanting to copyright the words “head ‘em off at the pass” so as prevent them from being used in another western movie.

As far as referencing ‘Big Government’ or any other Andrew Breitbart idiocy, don’t bother. His vanity journalism is up there with Weekly World News.

I question whether this is actually a new logo. If you go to the Missile Defense Agency’s website (www.mda.mil), the old logo is still in the lower-left corner. This one appears more like a webpage design element.

Also, the notion that Obama is sitting around doodling new logos is absurd. This was a bonehead move by some DoD web designer or a vendor.

Considering the Missle Defense Agency is claiming this was designed 3 years ago something tells me that “president’s own campaign imagery” looking being similar is just a coincidence. Especially considering the main similarity is due to the colors (USA colors, not Kenyan or Communistical coloring). People really need to find something better to do with their time then try to link a stupid symbol to all kinds of extremest conspiracy theories that only the dull of mind could ever possibly believe.

Actually if you watched Rachel Maddow and not fox news you and that idiot Gaffney would have known this. As Rachel stated, this was done in 2007 under the Bush administration. See, this is why I don’t understand why people watch fox. They constantly misinform but, I guess that’s what they’re going for. Gaffney had to make a correction on that Big Government website. Apparently Gaffney watches Maddow’s show because she covered this on Friday night and yesterday as media matters noted, Gaffney made the correction on yesterday.

And roxie confirms what most thinking individuals already know Fox is Not News and Andrew Breitbart’s organization isn’t either.

This is exactly why Rachel Maddow is losing her audience. She would rather score points against the right on some ridiculous issue of no importance — a logo in this case — rather than cover the real issues of the day. The same happened when she became fixated on the legislative situation in Uganda, day after day.

If a Republican in the middle of the desert belched and she could capture it on video, that would Maddow’s lead story for the evening.

Memo to Maddow: The issues that concern people are jobs, the declining economy, the collapse in their home prices, terrorists who want to blow up planes, the situation of their family and friends serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other pressing matters. But you ignore anything that might reflect badly on the far left, which has led you pretend as if these problems don’t exist.

So, Rachel, instead of mounting this PR campaign to TELL people how smart you are, actually demonstrate it by dealing with real issues and not this game of gotcha with the right that is a total waste of viewers’ time.

Maddow doesn’t have an audience. In order for her show to be considered successful, she has to do what Olbermann does and say “We’re number one, not counting Fox News.” Hilarious. Liberal viewers are just about the most misinformed voting block there is. So I don’t know how they have the nerve to call out other people, especially since the network we’re dealing with here is MSNBC. Do you even want me to go through their track record of lies, misinformation, and under reporting?

That was an amusing report.
Though it might’ve been better, if she had ended before the interview. (see Glenn Beck)

How can you blame Maddow for getting ahead of the story?

The right wing has made stories out of a birth certificate, a provision to provide people with end of life counseling, a teleprompter, the SC Justice Roberts incorrectly swearing in Obama, Stem cells and saying Obama is a eugenicist, the Fairness Doctrine that Obama has denied ever wanting and his FCC appointment also stated, the guns that Obama never even mentioned and he even expanded gun rights, the AmeriCorps and it being so called a Hilter-esque plot.

That’s just some of the stupid things that right wing media have made stories—when they are all absurd.

Until you guys can defend why those were made stories, then I can’t fault Rachel for getting out in front of this.

@ marcus.lewis

The man Obama appointed to the position that deals with that has said that the Fairness Doctrine is not ENOUGH. This is fact, not made up spin from MSNBC, which, it seems, is all you’ve been exposed to.

Well that’s funny because during his confirmation hearing he said he didn’t believe in the Fairness Doctrine. So if you want to make stuff up go for it.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/287044-1&start=-30

Start at 83:29

You can’t change facts. You can have your opinions, but facts and transcripts prove that you are just throwing whatever you can on a wall and seeing if anythign sticks.

@ marcus.lewis

What the hell are you talking about? How am I making stuff up? Do you want the video of the man he appointed to the position saying that the Fairness Doctrine is not ENOUGH? He’s also pushing Net Neutrality. One of the biggest proponents behind that is a guy who is openly trying to destroy our capitalistic system, brick by brick. What great fellows our stutterer in chief surrounds himself with.

Bill Clinton said he never slept with Monica Lewinsky. People don’t admit to what could be harmful to their agenda, genius. If I’m trying to impose a policy that the majority of people don’t want, do you actually think I’m going to be open and honest about wanting it? Smarten up.

Yes I would love to see a video of the FCC Chairman saying that.

@ marcus.lewis

I didn’t see “Chairman,” I was referring to his FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd. His Chairman, if I’m not mistaken, has also made some rather troubling statements about possible reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

“What we are really saying is the Fairness Doctrine is not enough.” – Mark Lloyd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OKuerNCHbY

Okay first you say the guy in charge of the FCC said that, and now you’re saying—well it was it wasn’t actually the guy in charge but a guy underneath him—but the guy in charge i think somewhere might have said it. If the guy in charge said it, then prove it because he stated under oath that he doesn’t believe in it.

Secondly a youtube video that is chopped up and spliced from many different interviews? Have you heard the entire interview? Because if you have you may realize that he said they don’t care about the fairness doctrine one way or the other, and the conversation was about the lack of diversity in radio programming because of the corporate control of the majority of the radio stations in the local community.

@ marcus.lewis

You’re a liar. I never said he was in charge of the FCC. Here’s the exact quote: “The man Obama appointed to the position that deals with that [as in the FCC, which Mark Lloyd is apart of] has said that the Fairness Doctrine is not ENOUGH.” Point out to me where in that sentence I said he was the leader or chairman? You can’t. My point has been proven. Obama appointed a man to the FCC that wants something even stronger than the Fairness Doctrine instituted.

Moron; I listened to the interview. He flat out said that the Fairness Doctrine isn’t enough. Meaning they want to do more to stamp out freedom on the airwaves. He also says that someone else needs to step down so that someone else can have the power. That’s so American.

I love how left-wingers always accuse others of taking comments out of context and then fail to actually prove it. Please, marcus.lewis, put “What we are really saying is the Fairness Doctrine is not enough” in its proper context. He’s speaking in clear English, no uh’s or um’s like you get from Obama.

“the conversation was about the lack of diversity in radio programming because of the corporate control of the majority of the radio stations in the local community.”

And what exactly do you think the Fairness Doctrine is about?

LOL, you are a funny. You don’t get it. Mark Lloyd is not the person who deals with issues like the Fairness Doctrine. That would be the FCC chairman. Mark Lloyd is in the FCC office of general counsel whose main purpose is to act as the chief legal adviser to the FCC. Mark Lloyd in no way makes the decision of the fairness doctrine.

Also, that youtube clip is not all one interview. That is bits of interviews all spliced together. You did not listen to the interview because in that interview he does not talk about someone needing to step down so someone else can have the power. He was talking about community radio and that there is importance of local ownership, and that the fairness doctrine has nothing to do with local radio. When he says you would have to do more, he is refering that in order to get more diverse locally owned community radio.

If you really think you listened to the interview then where is the full interview posted at?

@ marcus.lewis

You don’t even know what you’re talking about. Mark Lloyd is Obama’s FCC Diversity Czar. The Fairness Doctrine and “diversity” go hand in hand. What do you think the goal of the Fairness Doctrine was/is? I’m listening to two different videos of that same guy. In one of them, he does talk about one person needing to step down in order for someone else to have power. Are you denying that he ever uttered those words?

Mark Lloyd, Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer

And if you are listening to “videos” of him, then you are listening to all of his comments out of context. If you wish to listen to bits and snippets from audio then that’s your prerogative, but you aren’t able to make a legitimate argument when you listen like that.

What are you proving by quoting his title? Question: Do you even know what the purpose of the Fairness Doctrine is? And I’ll repeat my other question: Are you denying that Mark Lloyd ever said that someone has to step down in order for others to have power? I’m waiting for an answer.

You are calling him some type of czar and I don’t think you know what that means. He is not even the General Counsel, he’s an associate. How can he possibly have this great power when he isn’t even in charge of the OGC of the FCC?

Yes, I know what the fairness doctrine is. It required broadcasters to cover controversial issues in the community and to allow a reasonable opportunity for opposing viewpoints. It also stated that if a person was personally attacked during the presentation of the controversal topic, they need be allowed rebuttal. It also had required broadcasters if they endorse a cnadidate to allow their challengers reasonable opportunity to respond.

To answer your other question, provide me a full audio to the Conference on Media Reform: Racial Justice that took place in May 2005 and I can listen to the whole thing. I’m not goign to believe youtube clips just because they are there. I have found that in order to get accurate information you should go to the source and not just links that someone has picked and choosen from.

Nice straw man. No one is claiming that he wields this great amount of power within the FCC. Please, learn how to read. I said that the man who Obama appointed to the FCC wanted something stronger than the Fairness Doctrine; he said this himself. Nowhere in that sentence do I say that he, Mark Lloyd, is going to make that happen. My point is, if you have no plans on re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine, why are you appointing a man to a position that deals with the very concerns that the Fairness Doctrine did (i.e. “diversity”).

Bwahahahahaha! I love it. Did you even know who Mark Lloyd was before today? Earlier, you were telling me that I needed to listen to the entire audio to understand the full context. And here you are asking me to provide you the audio so you can listen to it. I assumed you already did based on the way you were talking.

@ marcus.lewis

You still haven’t shown me where I said that the “guy in charge of the FCC” said he wanted to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

By the way, here’s what YOU originally said: “his FCC appointment also stated” You didn’t specify who exactly you were talking about till later on. Mark Lloyd was appointed as well. So saying “FCC appointment” is vague.

You said he was a “czar”. If you know the definition of czar then you would understand that a czar in the context used would have great power or authority, and he really doesn’t have great authority. He’s not even at the top of his rung, he has to get everything he decides okay-ed by someone. He didn’t say he wanted something stronger than the fairness doctrine, he stated that the fairness doctrine wasn’t enough to allow for increased control over radio stations by individuals in local communities.

I do think you have to listen to the full statements/shows to understand what the conversation is discussing before making an informed decision. That’s why I don’t like mediamatters, as its easy to pick and choose what you want to call out without providing what was said before or after that.

I have listened to the full audio for the comment he made about fairness doctrine, it can be found here:

http://www.fair.org/audio/counterspin/CounterSpin070607.mp3

So you are trying to say I didn’t know who Mark Lloyd was, yet you assumed he was the head of the FCC who has great control over whether the fairness doctrine could get implemented. I haven’t been able to find any audio or transcripts for the “step down” comments, which is why I am skeptical.

@ marcus.lewis

“He didn’t say he wanted something stronger than the fairness doctrine, he stated that the fairness doctrine wasn’t enough to allow for increased control over radio stations by individuals in local communities.”

Nice job contradicting yourself. Stop playing semantics. Stronger, in this context (hey, I used your word), means to allow for more of something. So yes, if he’s arguing that the Fairness Doctrine isn’t “enough,’ then he is arguing for something stronger; a more effect means of getting what he wants, which is more control over what’s heard on the radio.

@ marcus.lewis

“So you are trying to say I didn’t know who Mark Lloyd was, yet you assumed he was the head of the FCC who has great control over whether the fairness doctrine could get implemented.”

Wrong. You’re still repeating the same lie. I never once said he was the head of the FCC. What are you even arguing now? Mark Lloyd, Obama’s FCC appointment, said that the Fairness Doctrine is not enough. That is exactly what he said, and that’s all I said he said.

Not what he wants, but what would be needed if one was to allow for people who live in the local community to be owners of broadcast stations.

Anyways, enough for tonight. You and I just don’t agree with the context of what he said. It happens, things get said and its possible for people to understood what was said in different ways. I didn’t find anything horrid about what he said, you did. So that’s that.

But my larger original point remains, with all the conspiracy theories out there I don’t see how its possible to blame rachel for getting on top of this stupid issue of the iranian connection.

@ marcus.lewis

This is from “Fair.org,” the website you just linked me to. Apparently, it’s also apart of the organization that did the interview with Mark Lloyd.

“The Fairness Doctrine : How we lost it, and why we need it back (January/February 2005) By Steve Rendall”

Uh-oh! Seriously, stop arguing. It’s embarassing. The facts obviously don’t support what you’re saying. Let me predict what you’re going to say: “Yes, Mark Lloyd was being interviewed by an organization that wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine (or something similar), but that doesn’t mean that Mark Lloyd supports those policies.”

He stated he does not support the policies if you listen to the full audio.

@ marcus.lewis

Give me the exact time where he says he doesn’t.

8:13

@ marcus.lewis

Are you even listening to the audio? Listen to the language. He’s saying that the Fairness Doctrine IS NOT ENOUGH, which means he wants something that accomplishes even more. Why does he think it’s not enough? Because unless you really “put some teeth into it” and put some “hard, structural” rules in place that RESULT in fairness, you aren’t accomplishing what you wanted with the Fairness Doctrine. This isn’t difficult to understand. He does support the policies of the Fairness Doctrine; he just sees it as an ineffective means of achieving the main goal and wants even more control.

The analysis was that the fairness doctrine would not fix what the report studied, and that is the lack of locally owned broadcasters.

@Narutoboy

You keep screeching that Obama appointed Mark Lloyd to his position in the FCC. Well he didn’t, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski did. Do you actually think the President appoints everyone that works in all the Federal agencies?

@ marcus.lewis

“The analysis was that the fairness doctrine would not fix what the report studied, and that is the lack of locally owned broadcasters.”

Good grief. Localism is the newest means of achieving what they could and could not achieve with the Fairness Doctrine. They all have to do with the same thing.

@ real john t

That’s even worse. The chairman, who claims he’s against the Fairness Doctrine, appointed a man that is on record wanting something even stronger. Thanks for correcting me.

“simply reinstating the Fairness Doctrine will do little to address the gap between conservative and progressive talk unless the underlying elements of the public trustee doctrine are enforced, in particular, the requirements of local accountability and the reasonable airing of important matters.” – from Mark Lloyd

If you can read that and come away thinking that Lloyd does not support Fairness Doctrine policies, you’re just stupid. Any intellectually honest person can see that he’s not arguing against it or against its goal, but rather the effectiveness of it all. He wants something bigger and better; something more effective.

“Any intellectually honest person”

Well, that disqualifies you.

@ real john t

Wow, I didn’t expect that one. When you have a factual argument, let me know.

*PHEW*

Wow, that seemed like forever! But I knew Mediaite would fluff Maddow before long.

You guys are nothing, if not horribly horribly predictable. Oh, and biased… don’t forget biased.