If approved, the new rule would require the ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox affiliates in the top 50 markets to make their files on political advertising available online immediately. Other stations would have a two-year grace period.

In the meantime, the mighty giants of broadcasting have been fighting back. A number of senators serving the industry have spoken up against the proposal and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) — led by their top lobbyist and president, the frozen food millionaire and former Oregon Republican Senator Gordon Smith – have been meeting with commissioners urging them to scuttle its proposal or at least water it down until it means nothing.

As Jeffrey Rosen of The New Republic magazine wrote:

“The arguments against transparency offered by the networks show that, having experienced the windfall of advertising dollars that Citizens United unleashed, they have little interest in meeting their legal and ethical responsibility to serve the public interest.”

The FCC is scheduled to vote on their proposal on April 27, and on Monday its chairman, Julius Genachowski, walked into the lion’s den – the really nice one in Las Vegas – and addressed the NAB’s annual convention. He noted that, “Using rhetoric that one writer described as ‘teeth-gnashing’ and ‘fire-breathing,’ some in the broadcast industry have elected to position themselves against technology, against transparency, and against journalism.”

He added, “[T]he argument against moving the public file online is that required broadcaster disclosures shouldn’t be too public. But in a world where everything is going digital, why have a special exemption for broadcasters’ political disclosure obligation?”

Whatever the result on the 27th, those negative attack ads already are cluttering the airwaves like so much unsolicited junk mail and it’s only going to get much, much worse as the super PACs, political parties, the moguls and tycoons, many acting in secrecy, lavish perhaps as much as three billion dollars on local stations between now and November.

But now there’s something new in the mix, especially appalling to anyone who truly cares about public broadcasting. On April 12, by a vote of 2-1, two of three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of KMTP, a small public station in San Francisco, and struck down the federal ban against political and issue advertising on public TV and radio. For decades there’s been a rule against turning those airwaves over to ads for political campaigns and causes. Now the court has ruled that the free speech rights of political advertisers take precedence.

Imagine if you turned on your TV set someday soon and were greeted by “Sesame Street,” brought to you by the letter C, for “creeping campaign cash corruption.” Perhaps that’s a bit of a stretch, but as the late William F. Buckley, Jr., used to say, the point survives the exaggeration.

If ever there was a camel’s nose under the tent, this is it – and we don’t mean one of those humped creatures that show up on PBS’ “Nature” or an episode about backpacking through Egypt on “Globe Trekker.” The current public system was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson in 1967. “It will get part of its support from our government,” Johnson said, “but it will be carefully guarded from government or from party control. It will be free, and it will be independent — and it will belong to all of our people.”

The Public Broadcasting Act uses the word “noncommercial” 16 times to describe what public television and radio should be. And it specifically says that, “No noncommercial educational broadcasting station may support or oppose any candidate for political office.” We’ve taken that seriously all these years, and most of us who have labored in this vineyard still think public broadcasting should be a refuge from the braying distortions and outright lies that characterize politics today — especially those endless, head splitting ads.

But in its majority decision the court wrote, “Neither logic nor evidence supports the notion that public issue and political advertisers are likely to encourage public broadcast stations to dilute the kind of noncommercial programming whose maintenance is the substantial interest that would support the advertising bans.”

Sorry, your honors: This is the same so-called “logic” that led the U.S. Supreme Court to issue its notorious Citizens United decision, the one that opened all spigots to flood the political landscape with cash and the airwaves with trash.  “To be truthful” one former PBS board member said, “it scares me to death.” Us, too.

The court decision did uphold the ban on public broadcasting selling ad time for commercial goods and services, although, as corporations and others cover the cost of programming through what’s euphemistically referred to as “enhanced underwriting,” public TV already is close to the line of what differentiates it from commercial broadcasting.

And understandably, with our stations always in a financial pickle, frantically hanging on by their fingertips, it won’t be easy to turn down those quick bucks from super PACs and others. But hang in there, brothers and sisters in the faith: If ever there was a time for solidarity and spine, this is it.

Stations KPBS in San Diego and KSFR, public radio in Santa Fe, have said they won’t do it. If enough of you say no, this invasion might be repelled. And viewers, they need to know you’re behind them.

Many people, including my actual parents, think I turned out pretty OK. And Flanagan, whose book “Girl Land” I reviewed here, usually restricts her professional vocation of annoying feminists to print. So what was I doing defending my very existence on the radio?

“Do you know about Quakers? They try to find the good in everyone, and I felt you tried to do that in Flanagan’s book,” the producer at NPR’s “On Point” told me, as he tried to convince me to take part in the on-air discussion. (If you read my review, you’ll see this says more about the laceration Flanagan received elsewhere than any unusual empathy on my part.) I told him I was reluctant to engage in something that could turn into a catfight, but was persuaded that the thoughtful tone of the show and its host would prevail. Ultimately, too, I didn’t want to shy away from a fight that I thought was important.

My other worry was that Flanagan would use the first half-hour, which she had exclusively to herself, to moderate her message and preempt any criticism, leaving me to lamely disagree. Others had also seen her analysis as dangerously nostalgic, a fantasy of sheltering precious girls that seemed divorced from real girls’ lives and totally ignored the lives of boys. Turns out I needn’t have worried.

After all, this is a major component of what people pay her for: Trolling, plain and simple, a Michele Bachmann-esque disregard for facts, only better-read and better-written. What could possibly induce her to stop?

On the air, she went even further, by suggesting several times that women and girls are solely responsible for whether men treat them like princesses (as one caller said she suggested to her daughter while watching princess movies, which Flanagan cheered) or like sluts, and whether those men stick around to parent, too. When the host, Tom Ashbrook, politely accused her of setting up a false dichotomy between parents who cared about their daughters in the culture and those who didn’t, she replied, “I think there are, you know, people who are very comfortable with their daughters being part of a culture where they’re servicing boys and they’re even comfortable with their girls performing oral sex on boys they don’t know very well. There are a lot of moms like that and I accept that.”

And then she turned on me. I had first taken issue with how she seemed to demonize boys or imply that they weren’t hurt by gender norms. When I talked about the need for information about safe sexuality and healthy boundaries, she responded, “I think as far as information, what I’m seeing is that girls have lots and lots of information about sexuality. I can show you lots of eighth-grade girls who know how to roll on a condoms because they’ve learned that in school. And I think all of that may be fine for some girls, to send them out into this pornified culture with that information, probably best that they have it.” Some girls, meaning those slutty girls who will never get a man to love them! In any case, when I called her out for that bizarre conflation of porn and sex ed, she got personal.

I’d pointed out earlier that I’d had the Internet in my bedroom as a teen, something Flanagan specifically wants parents to ban. I also described my adolescence not as the dreamy withdrawal she’d described, but as “a very fertile time where I was really lucky to have a supportive community that allowed me to pursue intellectual and creative pursuits.”

Never mind those things. “Let me ask you a question, Irina,” said Flanagan. (The host had already said my name, Irin, correctly.) “Did you have a boyfriend in high school?”

Then I made a mistake — I answered. “I dated some guys who were probably not great guys but I was lucky that nothing really bad …”

“What could we adults have done to you to help you with your dating relationships?” she persisted. We went to commercial before I could sputter a reply. (Nothing could have been done “to” me, and like I said, nothing really bad happened.)

Flanagan had the floor when we got back, at which point she used me as an example of a cautionary tale of how girls who are “empowered” and have Internet access allow themselves to be abused by men. Or something. “My book ‘Girl Land’ is asking, What could we have done differently for Irin, so that in addition to the IM and the Internet and the sex-ed classes, she also had something that would help her interact with boys where she could find a way that boys would treat her kindly?” Flanagan cooed.

Never mind that Flanagan writes in her book about a more traumatizing adolescent experience than I ever had, an assault that took place on a conventional date and without Internet in her bedroom and without “hookup culture.” Was that her fault for not demanding more of men?

“Caitlin, I so much appreciate your concern for me,” I replied, “but frankly, my adolescence was fine … I think that making mistakes is part of adolescence and how you figure out how to partner with people.” I also said, “I don’t think this should be about me, nor should it be about you. This is really about what’s going on in the American culture.” (I lost that battle.)

Ashbrook asked, sensibly, “Is that the measure of a good adolescence, whether they had a good boyfriend in high school?” It wasn’t of mine — I said that for me the measure was that ”I emerged feeling happy and connected and with healthy relationships, got into the college of my choice, have a career that I am happy about, where I get to debate Caitlin Flanagan about female sexuality.”

I’d gone into said debate with the idea of maybe seeing the good in her, or at least seeking a thoughtful discussion of where we diverged and why. That’s where I really went wrong.

Too dull even to hate: That is the essence of “adult contemporary.” What adds even more sting to the indictment is that these acts are not just reasonably successful within the low-expectations parameters of indie rock, but are well-respected and well-loved as lifers and innovators who have developed distinctive sounds and personas over the years. Indeed, Wilco and Radiohead could be considered the reigning elder statesmen of the American and U.K. underground, respectively. Abebe wonders if these older artists will spark a backlash in younger generations, much the same way the indulgences of ‘70s prog and singer-songwriter fare spurred the back-to-basics fire of punk. However, the relationship between these two generations proves much more complicated than that.

But first: Wilco, adult contemporary? Really? “Adult contemporary” originated in the early 1960s as a radio format aimed at older listeners alienated by the harsher sounds of rock and R&B. Over the decades, it has fragmented into hot AC, soft or lite AC, urban AC, and many other permutations. It’s essentially an umbrella term that has historically covered acts as diverse as Pat Boone, Roberta Flack, the Carpenters, Duncan Sheik and even such country acts as Martina McBride and Lee Ann Womack. It is the pasture to which older acts like Rod Stewart, George Michael and Cyndi Lauper are relegated, often with standards or roots albums; the only reason such artists have continued to prosper is because their audience belongs to a generation that still buys albums. In general, however, the term connotes a smooth, sometimes slick, serious and usually unobtrusive aesthetic — perfect for office visits or dinner parties.

Perhaps dinner parties have changed fundamentally over the years, because if acts like Wilco and Feist are truly “adult contemporary,” then they may be the most adventurous generation of adults in the rock era, not bound by any one genre or any one idea of how music should sound or how it should age. Abebe, again aiming for easy provocation, compares today’s bands to Sting’s safe, toothless solo career, somehow finding common ground between “Russians” and “Bull Black Nova.”

And anyway, amid their experiments with motorik beats and fractured song structures, Wilco actually embraced the equally derogatory and silly term “dad rock” on their new album, “The Whole Love.” “If you won’t set the kids on fire, well I might,” Tweedy sings on “I Might,” the first single. It’s a telling moment in the band’s catalog, a reassertion of their musical mission as well as a complicated bit of household politics. Feist’s music is never quite so self-conscious, but the understated quality of her blues-derived pop songs should not be mistaken for easy listening. Instead, her latest, “Metals,” is more often clenched like a fist or braced for the next unimaginable tragedy. Perhaps the only thing she has in common with Wilco — or with Malkmus, Radiohead or Neko Case — is age. Their audiences may overlap, but the music remains distinctive, different and mostly compelling.

However, the concept of “audience” is a moving target, since groups of listeners are constantly fragmenting and subdividing against acute lines of genre and taste. The idea of “adult contemporary,” then, seems like a relic, only slightly more obsolete than rock radio itself. Even the kneejerk pejoratives Abebe associates with the market seem oddly dated: Starbucks has curtailed not only the number of stores in the United States but also the amount of music it sells, and this year NPR has streamed and discussed a wide range of albums, including punk supergroup Wild Flag, Beirut, young jangle-popsters Real Estate, Fucked Up, Hammers of Misfortune, head-bangers Giant Squid and Ohio thrashers Skeletonwitch. It’s hardly the bastion of middlebrow, good-for-you, let’s-go-crazy-in-the-Volvo music, if it ever was.

To be called “adult contemporary” is to be dismissed as old, out of touch, irrelevant. Adults are the establishment — the very thing kids are meant to rebel against. Abebe admits that it’s unlikely, as “the music world is now fragmented enough that we have the luxury of ignoring things we don’t like, rather than rebelling against them.” However: “One great sign about new independent rock bands, over the past few years, has been a noticeable uptick in the number whose names are vulgar jokes, or deliberately inappropriate — in other words, mission statements that tasteful professionalism and the approval of sober-minded adults are not among their interests — and who play music that’s abrasive or adventurous enough to match.”

But unprintable names in rock music have been around longer than A— C—, and something about that idea — of young musicians embracing abrasive noise as a response to the music of their elders — seems to be as antiquated as “adult contemporary.” It imagines a fairly conventional form of rebellion, one based on a historical model that employs aggression in response to the establishment. If an obnoxous name is real rebellion, give me Neko Case any day. If anything, this current generation’s form of rebellion is new and specific to itself, perhaps nodding to the fact that today’s adult rockers in no way resemble the adult rockers of the past. In fact, arguably the best punk band of the moment is OFF!, a Los Angeles quartet led by Keith Morris, who may be older than 50 but still flails and jumps as maniacally as he did with his former band the Circle Jerks 30 years ago.

Perhaps the latest form of rebellion in music has nothing to do with volume or tempo or band names and everything to do with style and history. Reared on the Internet, where vast archives of music are only a few clicks away, younger artists today rely heavily on the past for inspiration. Yet, few generations have been so savvy about the past as this one, and in surveying the music of previous generations, they are discovering and rehabbing sounds and styles once dismissed. And some of what they’re looking to is the adult contemporary. Saxophone solos, once universally derided, are now centerpieces in songs by Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, and Foster the People. Anthony Gonzalez of the French act M83 continues to plumb the New Romanticism of the early 1980s to craft synth-pop anthems with an overwhelming melancholy, while Dan Bejar of Destroyer (who is old enough to be “adult contemporary”) reimagined ‘80s lite rock, with its flanged drums and slick keyboard sound, as an almost avant garde framework for his musings on the state of North American pop music. Both of their albums — “Hurry Up We’re Dreaming” and “Kaputt,” respectively —are album of the year contenders.

In that regard, the most divisive song of the year isn’t by Fucked Up or Danish destructo-punks Iceage, who have both released excellent albums this year; nor is it by Tyler, the Creator, the California rapper whose much-discussed sick jokes sound like empty provocations. Instead, it’s by Bon Iver, whom Abebe includes among his list of “meh” and “adult contemporary” acts. The Wisconsin-born indie folk singer embraces AutoTune and even worked with Kanye West, but his most controversial act was adding a Korg M1 keyboard to “Beth/Rest,” the final track on his second album, “Bon Iver, Bon Iver.” Although it adds a subtle anthemic quality to the song, the waterdrop sound of that keyboard is more closely associated with the likes of Bruce Hornsby and Steve Winwood than with indie-folk. Many listeners wrote it off as cheesy or ironic, but Vernon has repeatedly asserted his love of the instrument and the genre with which it has been linked. Along with namedropping Hornsby and covering Bonnie Raitt, that approach has established Bon Iver not as “adult contemporary,” but an act that plumbs old “adult contemporary” for new inspiration. That may be the ultimate rebellion: finding new uses for the music adults once rejected, embracing the uncool as the newly subversive.

Michael Woodward comments, below the story:

Kevin Dawes was not a “medical aide worker” he is a self styled medic who taught himself the “skills” through youtube. He has no firearms training and is suffering severely from delusional and paranoid behavior. He is a danger to himself and others. In other stories about him, it is said even that battle hardened rebels are afraid of him and think he is crazy. This story is not researched and needs to be fact checked. I am sure that if you do search for some of his old screen names (try Caro)you will find some of his postings. Also, check out his blog and youtube channel- you will find he is not what this article portrays him to be.

Dawes has been repeatedly permanently banned from the rowdy Internet forum Something Awful for being not just a troll, but a troll widely assumed to be suffering from a possible severe personality disorder due to his insistence that he was the victim of a far-reaching conspiracy involving the San Diego police acting in league with forum moderators. (Upon one banning, moderators advised him, “seek professional psychiatric help and get back on meds!”)

Regardless of his history of trolling SA, he is still performing medicine — operating on people, according to one YouTube video that he’s since made private — without any sort of professional medical training at all, which shouldn’t be encouraged even when it’s not done by unbalanced war tourists.

This isn’t to say that he wouldn’t make a fascinating subject for an in-depth profile, but … his claims probably shouldn’t just have been taken at face value.

NPR has deleted at least a few comments pointing out Dawes’ online history, though others remain.

Simeone, a former weekend host of NPR’s “All Things Considered” show, had not worked directly for the network since 2002. As a freelancer contracting with WDAV, a music and arts station in Davidson, N.C., she hosts NPR’s “World of Opera” program.  NPR and WDAV released statements today saying they are “in conversation” about Simeone’s future.

[UPDATE 2:35 pm. Scott Nolan, station manager of WDAV, tells Salon that Simeone will remain as host of "World of Opera."

"Her activities outside of the job do not violate anything in our employee code and have in no way affected her job performance," Nolan said in a phone interview. "She's a terrific host and we look forward to working with her."]

Simeone has been active in a group called October 2011 which has occupied Freedom Plaza in downtown Washington since Oct. 5. The group planned its action last spring before the Occupy Wall Street movement emerged. The October 2011 group has since joined forces with the Occupy DC movement based a few blocks away in McPherson Square.

The Daily Caller is using Simeone’s exercise of her First Amendment rights to beat up on NPR for its liberal ways. The conservative Web site said yesterday:

The political advocacy Simeone has displayed also appears to be an affront to what incoming NPR CEO Gary Knell has said he’d like the network to be: “It’s about journalism, it’s about news,” Knell, who starts on December 1, told the Associated Press after he got the job. “It’s not about promoting one political agenda or another.”

The problem, says Simeone, is, “I’m not an NPR journalist. I am not paid by NPR. I don’t do news. I don’t do analysis. And I have never talked about the occupation movement on the air. I do this entirely in my free time.”

Simeone said she was fired Wednesday night by Moira Rankin, executive producer of “Soundprint,” a weekly documentary program that Simeone hosts. The program, independently produced, airs on NPR stations around the country.

“It was bewildering,” Simeone said. “She started by quoting all these reports from the Daily Caller, and I didn’t know even what that was. She said, ‘Are you involved with this organization [October 2011]? I said, ‘Yes, I was one of about 50 people who helped put this together.’ She said, ‘That’s a problem because I’m getting all these calls. I think you violated the NPR code of ethics.’”

“I said, ‘Can you explain how?’” Simeone went on. “Scott Simon writes Op-Eds. Cokie Roberts [is paid] tens of thousand of dollars in fees talking to business groups. Mara Liasson goes on Fox TV to express her opinions. They all report on the issues — which I don’t do.  I finally said, ‘Are you firing me?’ She said yes.”

As the Daily Caller has reported, NPR’s ethics policy for journalists forbids them from “engag[ing] in public relations work, paid or unpaid.”

The code allows for exceptions in cases such as “certain volunteer nonprofit, nonpartisan activities, such as participating in the work of a church, synagogue or other institution of worship, or a charitable organization, so long as this would not conflict with the interests of NPR in reporting on activities related to that institution or organization.”

Simeone says there is no conflict.

“I’ve never hid my views and my opinions have never leeched into what I do on NPR. People can listen to all my shows. When I was talking about ‘Tosca,’ I could have talked about the relevance today of Cavaradossi, the tenor who is a political prisoner and who is tortured. I didn’t mention it. It’s a show about opera, for God’s sake.”

Simeone called the spread of occupation movement in recent weeks “a wonderful flowering of citizenship” and said she had no regrets about supporting it , despite the fact that she lost a job.

“I’m really, really lucky,” she said. “I’m married to man with a good job and my home is paid for. I’m way luckier than millions of people in this country. I’m not complaining.”

Juan Williams, again, works for Fox News. The closest Fox News gets to a regular minority presence is brunettes. (And Geraldo, I guess.) It’s the channel of aggrieved white people who think they don’t count as “elites” because they don’t … listen to NPR.

“NPR editors and journalists found themselves caught in a game of trying to please a leadership team who did not want to hear stories on the air about conservatives, the poor, or anyone who didn’t’ fit their profitable design of NPR as the official voice of college-educated, white, liberal-leaning, upper-income America,” he writes.

Yes, well, you are significantly more likely to hear stories about “the poor” on NPR than you are on Fox, unless Fox is reporting on how ACORN is stealing elections by registering poor people to vote.

Which is not to say that Juan Williams is totally wrong about NPR! It is, indeed, white and elite. Its target audience is largely white, and elite. But NPR is also a news-gathering organization with professional standards of objectivity and traditional journalistic ethics. Everything NPR produces is informed by its elite institutional bias, but it’s not defined by a specifically partisan bias, like Fox. (And NPR is not owned by a multinational media organization currently under fire for a widespread culture of breathtaking corruption, but that mostly came out after the book went to press.)

Williams is still either purposefully or ignorantly confusing NPR getting embarrassed by the dumb things he constantly said with NPR “censoring” him due to “political correctness.” It’s not really worth trying to argue with Williams’ claims, though, because everything he’s done since making his idiotic anti-Muslim comments has proved that he is essentially a buffoon. And, if the eagerness with which he jumped into the role of professional victim is any indication, not even a self-respecting one.

But he is happy, I guess, with his million-dollar contract and his new best friends in the conservative movement, who actively and passionately work every day of their lives to destroy everything “liberal” Williams supposedly believes in.

According to Newsmax, even Williams’ wife, Delise, is happier with Juan at Fox.

Williams’ wife says everyone at NPR was mean to her all the time, and says her and her husband were the only black people at NPR parties. That’s probably mostly true! But she goes on to say that Fox is a regular rainbow coalition.

“The Fox gatherings are much diverse,” she says. “They have both African-American and whites. It’s great because when I sometimes go down to Fox and wait for Juan in the green room, they all speak to me as if they know me and are very friendly. I feel very comfortable there. With the NPR people, I did not feel comfortable.”

Here is a brief description of Williams’ Fox-hosted book party, by the way:

At Juan’s book party given by Fox News anchors Bret Baier and Shannon Bream and others, Fox News contributors Charles Krauthammer, Stephen Hayes, and Baier all expressed their esteem for Juan despite their often differing views.

Diversity in action!