SALZMAN: KOA needs a Rush counterbalance
News-time commentary raises fairness issue
By Jason Salzman, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published August 1, 2008 at 8 p.m.
If you're listening to Colorado's Morning News on KOA 850-AM radio at about 6:50 a.m. each weekday, you hear a one-minute commentary from Rush Limbaugh, the conservative talk radio host.
On Thursday, for example, during Colorado's Morning News, Limbaugh denounced the "arrogant self delusions" of "meddling liberal tyrants," and he suggested that liberals be voted out of office. He regularly attacks Barack Obama and Democrats.
The Limbaugh commentary functions mostly as a Republican political commercial, with no counterpoint.
Coming in the midst of KOA's flagship news program, Colorado's Morning News, Limbaugh's commentary degrades the entire KOA news department - not because Rush is a conservative, but because there's no regular commentator on the news show representing the left.
You may be thinking, KOA radio is all about broadcasting conservative opinions anyway, with a lineup of conservative talk show hosts ranging from Mike Rosen to Jon Caldara.
Who would expect KOA to be fair?
Actually, basic journalistic standards of fairness and accuracy are not only evident on Colorado's Morning News but in all of KOA's local news reporting, which continues with updates during the day.
I don't mean to say that Colorado's Morning News, airing from 5 a.m. to 9 a.m., is radio journalism at its finest. It's overly chatty, with lots of weather, soft news, and sports, sports, sports.
But sandwiched around the fluff are news and serious interviews about major political and social issues.
So it's bizarre when you hear, "It's time for Rush Limbaugh," and his voice fills the air.
"The contract for Rush requires affiliates to broadcast the commentary in morning drive," Kris Olinger, Director of AM programming for Clear Channel of Denver, which owns KOA, e-mailed me.
Wow. What a clever way for Rush to market his show and, of course, to deliver a political message on more than 600 radio stations across the country when radio audiences are highest - during drive time.
Olinger continued: "Beyond that, Rush is one of our most listened to shows, and the majority of our audience wants to hear the commentary. We don't carry a response because I'm not aware of any short-form commentaries currently available that are compelling."
I asked Olinger, "Does this mean that you will consider short-form commentaries from a progressive perspective to balance Rush, and if one is compelling enough you might use it?"
My respect for journalism at KOA was confirmed when I got her response: "I would consider a short-form commentary if the quality was comparable to what Rush and Paul Harvey provide."
Here's a nationally syndicated radio commentator who definitely qualifies: Jim Hightower, the former Texas agricultural commissioner.
He's about as far to the left as Limbaugh is to the right, and his commentaries are a good match for KOA.
A recent Hightower commentary lampooned Proctor & Gamble and other corporations that try to "dodge their tax responsibilities." Hightower explained that Proctor and Gamble argued successfully in court that its Pringles "potato crisps" aren't really potato products, due to all the junk ingredients, and thus Pringles should not be subject to a British tax on products made from potatoes. Listen to more Hightower at jimhightower.com.
The trouble is, High- tower's comments are two minutes, rather than one, like Limbaugh's. But balance could be achieved by airing Hightower every other day, and KOA could do this for free. Hightower's commentators are underwritten by foundations and other donors.
Hightower looks perfect for Colorado's Morning News on KOA. But maybe you've got a better suggestion. E-mail me yours, and I'll pass it on to Olinger and report back in a future column.
Pollster gods. When reporters ask pollsters to interpret polls, they should insist that they be clear on whether their opinions are based on actual data in the poll - or whether they are just offering an opinion like any other pundit.
For example, in an article about a Quinnipiac University poll in The Denver Post on July 25, arguing that high gas prices are moving voters toward Republicans, pollster Floyd Ciruli said, "Being related to the industry and being able to argue that 'I know production, and we need to get it going' is now a much more positive position to be in for Republicans."
The Post should have asked Ciruli to point to poll data to back up his opinion. Still, The Post deserves credit for finding data in the poll that contradicted Ciruli: Renewable energy is seen by Colorado voters as the best way to solve the energy crisis, by a 54 percent to 21 percent margin over drilling, according to the survey.
Jason Salzman, president of Effect Communications, is the author of Making the News: A Guide for Activists and Nonprofits. Reach him at salzmanj@RockyMountainNews.com.
August 1, 2008
8:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
>her response: "I would consider a short-form commentary if the quality was comparable to what Rush and Paul Harvey provide."
That tears it. There's no one on the Left that bad.
August 1, 2008
11:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
fatheromalley writes:
It was called "Air America 760Am and it went in the tank.. tell me again why KOA should purposely produce a show to lose money?
What of advertising losses because they have someone on their like you to displace a profitable show. Aren't you doing enough decreasing the bottom line of the Rocky? Just because John Templeton is joined at your hip? Doesn't your conscience bother you that your veiws, your writing, your ideology put Air America in the tank..
Then other than KOA the listener has spanish radio, all the FM stations, all the other AM stations, they still have 760 limping along. The American listener (customers that respond to advertising) has ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS, HBO and all of Hollywood the get YOUR message out, but KOA has to lose money for you to be satisfied... How many Americans, viewers and listeners alike is that?
Just the major networks alone have 25 million viewers. That doesn't include NPA, PBS, HBO and Hollywood.. Fox News has about 2.5 million -3.5 million if they are very lucky... and still it is UNFAIR to little "poo-poo"..
Pack up your bags, or go to www.fatheromalley.com and treat yourself to some truly progessive ideas for your next column.... and for god sakes put things in a larger perspective socialist! You might graduate from being one of Lenin's "useful idiots"..
You can also try
www.votesmart.org
www.jihadwatch.org
www.numbersusa.org
www.fatheromalley.com watch the videos and maybe some perspective will come.. who knows. eh?
Now for me scotch.. 15 year single malt.. ah there she is...
Love to you
Father O'Malley...
Just because I ball you out doesn't mean I don't love you..
Have a scotch!
August 2, 2008
3:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrfxx writes:
her response: "I would consider a short-form commentary if the quality was comparable to what Rush and Paul Harvey provide."
Putting Paul Harvey - who is doing (if you will) "fluff" like "the rest of the story" - in the same sentence with Rush - shows just how far to the right the program director is. Harvey's commentary is sometimes intriguing, at least semi-interesting - and NEVER hate-filled bile.
As far as the Salzman's whine that "I don't mean to say that Colorado's Morning News, airing from 5 a.m. to 9 a.m., is radio journalism at its finest. It's overly chatty, with lots of weather, soft news, and sports, sports, sports." GUESS WHAT - it started as a sports station - and I am fairly willing to bet that most of us only turn 850 on during the drive in to check the local news, weather and SPORTS! We listen to Dave (or whoever is filling in for him when his coaching job conflicts) and Lois on the drive home for the same reason.
The drive time shows tend to be moderate - if 850 turns it into an increasing slice of Rush (I can ignore a minute of his bile), I'll only listen when the station is broadcasting a game I want to listen to - and suspect I won't be the same person changing stations.
August 2, 2008
5:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
When rush comes on I change the station or turn the radio off.
August 2, 2008
5:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike846 writes:
Another plaintive cry for "fairness" from the Left of center, who are about the least "fair" on any topic you could find. The regularly savage anyone that doesn't hew to the politically-correct views and language that they espouse, silence dissent with cries of "racist", "sexist" or "xenophobe" because they have no logical arguments in many discussions. "Useful idiots" indeed. What they don't understand is that come the Revolution, they will be the first ones sent to the cattle cars. When you hunt others on the other side to begin with, sooner or later you hunt your own. Ask Trotsky or Rhoem. Mike
August 2, 2008
6:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oh_Wise_One writes:
Jason- So you want to balance a one minute commentary? I want to balance Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, Williams and the rest of the biased national news. When that happens or when hell freezes over, you can have your I presume 'free' minute.
You're the buggy whip maker Jason, find a real job.
August 2, 2008
7:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:
Most of the news breaks on KOA are left of center.
August 2, 2008
7:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:
NPR and PBS are 90% left of center. Democracy now. That is not truth or objective. Frontilne, come on.
AM radio has finally found it's niche, serving the conservative, free market, limited government folks and the lefts pantys are all twisted up in a knot.
Salzman, get some finacial backing (private sector) and start you a radio show.
August 2, 2008
8:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gonzopozo writes:
The one minute of Rush is good - you can hear his same tired old whining then and switch to something interesting for the rest of the day.
Caldera is still around? I thought he left town with Holtzman after they single-handedly got Ritter elected.
August 2, 2008
8:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lemmingsfollowidiots writes:
Once again the lefties want a free lunch. As if it is not enough to have all the major newspapers, broadcast news and courts on their side they want to take away what little conservative programs there are.
Why is the left so afraid to let the conservative voice be heard? Air America proved you can't force people to listen to hate spewed 24/7.
A lefty has no clue of what humor is and how tongue and cheek Rush's comments are at times. Stop thinking everything is about you and laugh every now and then at your self. You might find life is much better than you think it is. Why allow yourself to empower someone else to make you feel good or bad? Take responsibility for your actions, find the proper solutions and enjoy life for once.
For thinking so high and mighty about yourself and allowing other to chid you to the point of anger only shows how insecure you are. Find God and find faith, that is when you'll realize others can't offend you with simple words.
Stop empowering others to Offend you! A good conversation has Two sides. Let the conservatives have their little 10% piece of the broadcast pie while you enjoy the 90% that is left of center.
August 2, 2008
8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Darwin writes:
Salzman, others have said it well regarding the majority of print media and TV. I will wait with "baited breath" for you to make the argument that PBS (large public funding), ABC, CBS, NBC, etc., L.A. Times, New York Times, Denver Post, etc. should give equal time to the conservative point on issues. I don't listen to KOA, but now I might give it a try. You will whine until the left controls ALL media, than will whine that it is not left enough. While I think that as a whole, the Republican party is not much different than the Democrat party when it comes to lack of ethics, pettiness, and self-service (if am registered as unaffiliated), it is interesting that the Democratic party wants to change the "Fairness Doctrine" since it is not serving THEIR best interest.
Though I doubt that I will ever see it, I can still hope that someday there will be a viable third party as both current parties stink. "By the people, for the people" - NOT
August 2, 2008
9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
Froward69: I might be more inclined to accept your opinion as educated and balanced, if:
1) you curtaileD your Use of Random Capitals;
2) You proofread your posts for fragments prior to posting;
and 3) You actually researched what you were saying.
Alan Berg was murdered, not by men of conservative thought, but by totalitarian fascists. These "men" believed, much like Charles Manson, that they were firing the opening shots in a race-based revolution that would leave them in positions of power.
In the words of Ken Hamblin, "They only succeeded in killing one old Jew."
I offer the following observation: Froward and Limbaugh have more in common than not. They each have an overinflated sense of self importance, combined with a view that denies any other side to reality than that on which they have already decided.
August 2, 2008
9:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
Oddly, I find myself defending Jason in this dust-up. I disagree vehemently with the idea that private parties, like KOA, should be forced to offer views in opposition to their own.
However, Jason makes a compelling point that KOA should do this this, in this one instance, as a matter of pride! Kris Olinger, in her response, does not appear to disagree.
August 2, 2008
9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
bxwatso writes:
NPR is the biggest radio network in the country, reaching nearly every citizen. Their moderate left, big government bias is indisputable. I doubt that there is hardly ever a place or time when Rush is on the air that NPR isn't a push button away, so what is the problem?
Does Salzman think people are so helpless that they can't find the dial? Does he think people are forced to listen to Rush by some evil mind control?
No, he thinks that people that disagree with him are stupid and must be forcefully educated to agree with him. Typical left wing arrogance. Nancy Peolsi want's to pass a law requiring fairness (which means the end of talk radio). This is what CO really got when it sent Democrats to Washington 2 years ago.
August 2, 2008
9:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
elmstreet239 writes:
KOA doesn't "NEED" anything. If you don't like the commentators, turn the channel. It's called free market.
Isn't this the problem with the proposed fair broadcasting requirements? It takes media out of free market and makes it "fair". America isn't based on "fair" market principles, they're "free" market principles. Figure it out.
There is another channel, right up the dial that is nothing but equally crazy liberals, try listening to 760am if you don't want to hear Rush. That channel is the anit-Rush. When the free market can support more channels like 760, there will be more channels like 760.
August 2, 2008
9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
mombo writes:
Rush does not need "balance". His comments are purely entertainment. He is a comedian, a bozo. He has created a wildly successful empire based on humerous commentary which is entirely devoid of thought or purpose. Let him sit on the pedestal he created and carry on with his schtick.
August 2, 2008
9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
fntsymtn writes:
Why isn't Salzman pushing for equal time for Rush or Hannity on NPR? He and his kind (like Pelosi) are only begging for balance in places where leftist commentary and programming has proven to fail. As soon as Salzman and Pelosi start pushing for "equal" time for people like Bill O'Reily on broadcast (not cable) networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS) then I'll believe that they are interested in fairness or balance.
August 2, 2008
9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
GetReal writes:
Hey Salzman-
AM 760 is all liberal talk all the time.
Where are your cries for equal time for conservatives on that station, or as have others pointed out, on the taxpayer funded lefty NPR?
I would like to hear your explanation as to why they aren't included in your equal time argument.
August 2, 2008
9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
fcs25 writes:
There is a reason that a counter-remark to Rush has never aired on TV or Radio for the past 20 yrs of his show,he speaks the truth and the liberal left wing dead heads can not respond without using emotional hype and spin.Ex: Bill Clinton;Whenever you corner him on any issue he turns red and begins shouting like a lunatic.Why?He has no valid argument to counter with so he gets mad and uses emotions to make his point instead of facts and reality,a typical democrat.
August 2, 2008
11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Rol1968 writes:
Amen to Joel Salzman’s RMN column on Rush Limbaugh. This is so overdue. Rush’s approach is at the core of why we can’t get good leaders. Character assassination built in parsing misinterpretation, twist and shout about the ideas that come from aspirants should they be of the wrong party. In his case he’s gone drunk on power. Rush is for people who can’t take time to evaluate issues and need someone to give them a simple emotionally satisfying beat-the-bad guys approach. The only problem is that Rush is in business to make money. He’s become filthy rich by not informing but instead fermenting emotional bias based on bending facts and sincerely spouting half truths while he beats on his table. The real pity is that the nation is now in deep trouble because of so-called conservative values and ideologies. Instead of stirring up simple minded hate why doesn’t he turn is attention to what we should be very upset about: failing education system, loss of engineering and science leadership, health care costs driving jobs out of the country and bankrupting people who happen to get really sick, a $2.5 trillion surplus that has been turned into a $7 trillion dollar deficit by the people he loves (or did) love, the menace of terrorism, our loss of respect and trust world-wide, and last but not least the misguided war that is crippling our ability to fix any of these problems.
Ed Shultz would be a good counterpoint because he makes more sense and even sounds like Rush which makes his counter points that much more interesting.
August 2, 2008
11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Rol1968 writes:
And I forgot to mention I don’t just turn off KOA because of Rush, I never listen at all (except for Rockies games of course)due to their conservative bias. I can’t support their pandering to conservative Colorado for ad revenue. I’m all for the free market except when it comes to news. I guess that makes me a commie pinko Lenin loving open borders welfare coddling gun hating effete anti war hippie but so be it.
August 2, 2008
12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
GetReal writes:
roland-
How do you know what Rush says on his program if you don't listen? You must just be interested in getting the skewed Media Matters talking points and carefully selected soundbites taken out of context, as evidenced in your post.
Hell, I even sat through Michael Moore's movies to get a first hand account so I could form my own opinion.
BTW, who is Joel Salzman?
August 2, 2008
12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Landy47 writes:
Salzman
Open your eyes and ears. NPR...MSNBC...CNN all offer what you are seeking. the opposite to Rush. One station views a conservative bent and the libs come out in ddroves whining and whimpering about "unfair...unfair".
Hmmm Al franken is not sit-by-the-wayside purveyour of lib doctrine. He is your face, so stop whining. If you dont like Rush...turn the channel. there are plenty of other spots to feed your left-wing egos and diatribe.
August 2, 2008
12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
ScottbArvada writes:
"Fairness" - wow, you scare me.
Between Obama wanting to decide how much profit companies can make, you deciding what can and can't be aired by a private broadcaster, and Pelosi deciding which House members can and can't speak on the floor and when, it's becoming more obvious that the real America is dying.
KOA is a commercial business, licensed to sell a product. There is no requirement for the content of their show besides decency and other limitations set out in their licensing agreement from the FCC. Does that include 'fairness?' Are they taking tax money and required to be an 'equal opportunity' broadcaster?
KOA chooses their product based on what they think sells, and that's it...your pollyannish view of 'journalism' (unbiased reporting of issues, facts and happenings) hasn't existed, EVER. Don't you know that?
Most of us learned that in college as freshmen. All reporting is biased by the personal position of the reporter and his/her employer. Most of us learn to read both sides and make informed decisions, and those who don't need to grow up.
For you to set up a straw-man of 'fairness' and then judge others by that standard shows your personal position...your naive 'we just want reporting to be unbiased' position is just a slick way of saying 'we want you to do it our way; we want our voice to be equal whether people want to hear it or not; our ideas are valid even if they don't work.'
God help us, that's socialism at it's core.
What is happening to America? What has happened to liberty and the right to say what we think even if someone thinks it's not 'progressive?' What's happened to the right to present an opinion, or sincerely hold a set of beliefs others don't agree with? Why is the left constantly pressing everyone to think, act, spend and do as they say?
If I wanted a balanced opinion I'd switch channels to one of the left-learning channels who play their rants continuously, or go listen to NPR.
In the meantime, please rethink your opinion. If you start telling people what's fair and not fair and pushing people to do as you say from your lofty perch in print, it's only a matter of time before you're the one getting told.
If you use your position to break down the basic structures of personal liberty in our country, there eventually won't be any, and you'll suffer as surely as the rest of us.
August 2, 2008
1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
roland0524: an excellent description of just what Limbaugh does. Although many informed people, including those who self-identify as conservatives, understand him for the blow-hard he is, many others take him all too seriously. You can see it in the several angry, identify everything by its place on a left to right spectrum while denouncing Salzman and anyone else on "the other side" sort of replies here. If I didn't know better, I'd think it was a bunch of 14 year olds talking. Rush appeals to the low and juvenile in all of us.
As to Mr. Salzman's suggestion that KOA put a counterpoint, such as Jim Hightower on, well, that would just give us another one-sided, attack someone, political commercial, wouldn't it?
Let's not forget that KOA doesn't *own* the airwaves. The public does. They operate by license. So KOA has some obligation to the public, and not just to their bottom line. I wish we had more fair political commentary as some of the public radio stations (e.g., am 1340) have. It would support a democratic society, instead of of this large cadre (30 million?) of angry, hateful people who regularly listen to commercial talk radio and those who stir them to anger (Rush et al).
August 2, 2008
1:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Oh, to those who say "turn the dial" it bears mentioning that KOA, unlike most stations, can be heard at great distances. It's the last station I can pick up as I drive east and I can hear it almost all the way to the Nebraska border. When you get outside of Denver, the choice of radio stations drops off dramatically.
August 2, 2008
1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Rbcc writes:
Excellent column. I had no idea that KOA was airing commentary by Limbaugh during its morning "news" show. Yet more evidence that we need to restore the Fairness Doctrine to take the public airwaves back from these radical extremists on the far right.
August 2, 2008
1:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
carlindenver writes:
Oh, pull the plug on KOA...Jason has been offended!! IF you are offended Jason, well simply call in on Mike Rosen's show and using all of your skill and reasoning ability show all KOA listeners how brilliant you are and how "neanderthal" KOA appears. PLEASE...PLEASE Jason just give Rosen a call. Think what a great service you would be giving all listeners of every faith and ploitical persuassion. Go Jason! Go!!
August 2, 2008
2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Chacmool writes:
"The Fairness Doctrine" will also have to apply to the 3 network nightly newscast, the NY & LA Times, and on America's college campuses. Liberals have become intolerant of other view points and are every bit as close-minded as the far right lunies they condemn.
August 2, 2008
3:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
carlindenver writes:
Jason suggests (yes, yes Kommissar!) we need to listen to Jim Hightower. Jim Hightower is the self proclaimed "America's #1 Populist." If listening to KOA is painful JUST SIMPLY move your dial to AM 760. There you can blissfully listen to Jim Hightower, Jay Marvin, Randi Rhodes and rest of Air America. Jason you are an overpaid, petulant and chronic complainer. A near perfect fit in your Liberal politcal gang.
August 2, 2008
3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
Salzman; 850 KOA’s morning show is not political and the drive home is not political. 760 KKZN has no such thing, all the shows all day long and into the night are political liberal/regressive shows. Someone mentioned Ed Schultz; he is on KKZN from 10am-1pm and then, if you like you can here the hateful regressive talk from Randy Rhodes from 1-4pm; these happen to be at the same time as Rush on KOA (noon-3). And don’t forget you can listen to Jay Marvin in the morning instead of having to hear 1 minute of Rush. Also KOA has this guy named John M that gives top of the hour news reports that are slanted left too, shouldn’t that balance out the 1 minute of Rush? And as father O’Malley pointed out there is still those other FM channels that you can listen to music on. Somehow you are forced to listen to the Morning Show, oh yeah, your paid to.
August 2, 2008
5:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
nobozons writes:
Salazman,
What do you propose that the MSM do to counteract their being in the tank for Obama. Limbaugh is small potatoes. Check out NBC, ABC, CBS and MSNBC. In keeping with your bias you will probably contend that the MSN has no bias. Give me the hemlock.
August 2, 2008
6:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jim_in_Erie writes:
I fail to understand why, if the author is so bothered by KOA'S selections, he doesn't just change the station.
Which is precisely what everyone can do if they don't like what they hear.
It's what I do often to Rosen and Limbaugh when they go to far.
But I don't demand for a second that the business of radio seek to fill MY particular interests.
Then again, I don't demand that anyone but me work to satisfy my particular interests.
August 2, 2008
8 p.m.
Suggest removal
daRock writes:
Jason, Rush Limbaugh is a commercial product. The 3 hour program, the promos/ advertising for his daily show and yes, the one minute blip in the morning. It is a package that ClearChannel buys because they can sell that programming to advertisers and make money. They do NOT give that time away, just like they do NOT give Paul Harvey time away. It has nothing to do with political content in either case.
The same thing with their sports programming and support shows.
There is a simple solution, buy a 2 minute spot from KOA to run every week day near the Rush break.
Many left of center or even far left advertisers intentionally buy during the Rosen or Limbaugh show.
Problem solved.
August 2, 2008
8:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
daRock writes:
Another example would be to wonder why KOA has so much airtime, programs, commercials and promos for CU Football.
One could ask why CSU does not get a show like 'The Dan Hopkins Show". Once again, KOA bought a programming package that they bundle and re-sell. It is not about ClearChannel liking CU more than CSU and since there are CSU fans here KOA should give equal time.
They buy programming that appeals to the majority of their listners, sponsors, advertisers allowing them to maximize revenues from the sales of that time.
The goal of commercial radio stations is to sell advertising at the highest price they can while selling out their inventory. The programming between the commercials is what drive the value of the ads.
Call KYGO and tell them they play too much country and they should put in speed death-metal punk rock in the name of 'balance'. See how that works out for ya.
August 3, 2008
7:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
UglyDuck writes:
SALZMAN: Yet another driveling liberal who can't tolerate the success conservative talk radio is experiencing and the fact that all liberal talk shows are dismal failures. People of his ilk whine about "lack of balance" while failing to understand that conservative talk radio is so popular simply because it IS balance. So, here is some liberal advice. If you don't like what you hear, turn it off!
August 3, 2008
8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
Where is the balance to Salzman's whining?
August 3, 2008
1:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
Dave Kopel is the "balance". daRock; its the Dan HAWKINS Show, but good points anyway.
August 3, 2008
1:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Alive writes:
If you can't win fair and square, change the rules. That move works well on the playground, but not so well in mean 'ol real world.
Here is the guarantee that comes with being born a human on earth:
"If you are smart and wary, you may not be eaten."
That's it, the whole thing. Good luck trying to change the laws of thermodynamics.
August 3, 2008
4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
dragonfly writes:
Rush does a superb commentary with half his brain tied behind his back. Perhaps KOA can't a liberal with an entire brain to compete at Rush's level.
August 3, 2008
7:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
spiker77 writes:
Sean Rima at KOA radio says that all of us listeners should write to you and accuse you of being a girly-boy.
If you don't know what a girly-boy is, here are two videos for you to watch.
The first video is by a girly-boy who created the Leave Britney Alone http://tinyurl.com/2weh76 video that s/he posted to YouTube.
The second one is by someone who over dubbed it to make the Leave Barack Alone http://tinyurl.com/68yjow video.
Once girly-boy gets his sex change and is on 24/7/365 Prozac IV, s/he'll lower its carbon footprint, thus contributing to saving the world.
August 3, 2008
8:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles writes:
I suppose KOA could add a one-minute commentary by Salzman to balance Limbaugh, but then how would they get their audience back? I haven't seen Salzman offering Limbaugh half of his space on the Rocky's opinion page.
August 3, 2008
9:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
bobjohnson writes:
Lets see, seven of the last ten national elections were won by Republicans, yet over ninety percent of TV news people consider themselves Democrats, and a like number of college professors. Yet you get bent out of shape by the minute a day given to some blow hard.
August 3, 2008
10:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Castle writes:
The biggest problem to finding a counter point to Rush is finding a left liberial socialist commentater that has the audiance of Rush. No one wants to listen to the left. Even the left won't listen to the left, let alone support their few advertisrs. Except for NPR, and that's government subsidised, no left wing radio show can stay on the air for more then a month or so.
August 3, 2008
11:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Rbcc writes:
Castle wrote:
"Except for NPR, and that's government subsidised, no left wing radio show can stay on the air for more then a month or so."
Who says NPR is a "left wing" radio show? What is "left wing" about NPR? It's the most thorough, objective, and factual source of news and political news on the radio airwaves.
Does reality have a "liberal bias"?
August 4, 2008
9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:
NPR is left of center. To say that NPR only presents reallity is non-sense.
Economics is reality. Anytime you stand in the path of economics you are attempting to distort reality. NPR is constantly standing in the path of economics.
Funny thing is, economics just keeps marching forward with or without the statist. Sure economics gets distorted by market interference but it always marches forward even if slightly perverted by political interference.
August 4, 2008
10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Salzman writes:
I want to be clear. KOA can air all-conservative commentary all the time, if it wants to. And mostly it does.
But during KOA's newscast, when it tries to be fair and accurate, it should air a left-leaning commentary if it's going to air a commentary by a right-leaning commentator like Rush Limbaugh.
That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that KOA needs to air an hour of Jim Hightower to balance every hour of Rush. Listeners can tune to AM760 for this.
But during the KOA's newscast, fairness and accuracy should carry the day, and this means airing a short commentary to balance Rush.
August 4, 2008
11:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Here is a novel idea for Salzman and the other whiners to try...... it's called an On/Off button.
If they don't like hearing what KOA has determined the VAST MAJORITY want to hear, then don't listen to it.
It worked for Air America. Americans turned that clown show off and the outfit of hatemongers went bankrupt. It clings to life with donations from fatcats wanting to continue to fill the airwaves with what 99.9% of Americans reject, but it's their right to do so.
Just like it's KOA's right to reject the same leftist nonsense... since they know it alienates 99.9% of Americans.
August 4, 2008
noon
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
It's amazing to me the number of people who don't realize Limbaugh and his ilk (which includes Air America but not NPR) are pulling their nose. It's not even subtle. They just follow like sheep and repeat, I mean, bleat, whatever nonsensical argument they heard on talk radio that day--the same one they've been hearing for 20 days in a row. Mr. Salzman makes an appeal to fairness and what do we get. Baa! I hate anyone different than me or *on the other side* so watch me heap my scorn upon them. Baa!
August 4, 2008
1:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Gene, don't let your nose get out of joint.
August 4, 2008
4:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Rbcc writes:
Lowtaxes wrote:
"NPR is left of center. To say that NPR only presents reallity is non-sense."
Prove it. What is left of center about NPR's news programming. Where do they air a liberal commentary about anything? Simply because the factual events of the day don't jibe with your conservative worldview doesn't make reporting about them "biased". Perhaps it means you should consider modifying your worldview to accommodate reality.
Further, NPR reporters and anchors speak in a calm, reasoned manner that respects the intelligence of listeners. That is something you almost never get from opinion talk radio hosts.
"Economics is reality. Anytime you stand in the path of economics you are attempting to distort reality. NPR is constantly standing in the path of economics."
That is a hoot. Economics is "reality"? Wow -- that's a sad way to view the world if you really believe that. How is NPR "standing in the path of economics"? What does that even mean?
Let's see -- Limbaugh and his imitators basically are freeloading off of the public airwaves to get their message out. If they really believed in the free market, they would move over to satellite radio where their listeners could pay for the "privilege" of listening.
This is why the Fairness Doctrine is relevant. The American people own the AM and FM radio bands -- it's time that the FCC starting requiring stations to serve the public interest.
August 4, 2008
4:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
imPatrickBateman writes:
First of all, it sounds like Mr. Salzman has mistaken Rush Limbaugh's 1-minute commentary (which, to me sounds more like a commercial or promotion for his show than anything else) as actual news. Second, how would a business benefit by taking a crappy product that no one wants (liberal commentation) and a product that's booming with success (conservative commentation) and combine the two? I would think that by adding liberal commentation you risk alienating the target audience (over 14 million listeners nationwide: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07...). Oh yeah, liberals don't really care about business or the economy, only what's "fair" (in other words, anything that promotes liberal ideology). Speaking of which, does KOA advertise that their news adheres to the "standards of fairness and accuracy" anyway? I only listen to KOA once in a while but can't say I've heard them claim they do adhere to those standards.
If Mr. Salzman truly felt that the "basic journalistic standards of fairness and accuracy" were so important than I'm sure he (or the RMN) would have had someone with an opposing viewpoint write an article in response to this one. Then and only then would I have taken this article (and its author) seriously.
August 4, 2008
4:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
yaakovwatkins writes:
Rush talks about political details. He appeals to a very small group of people. His potential audience is the more knowledgeable of the conservative voters. If you eliminate the non-conservative, (you eliminate 60%), the non-voters (you eliminate half of what's left), and the less knowledgeable (let's draw the line at the upper half), you are down to a potential audience of maybe 10% of the people with radios. Of the people with radio, most are listening to to CDs, MP3s, cassettes, or music stations. Others are carpooling or talking on their phone.
Now we are down to maybe 3%. Is this a problem we need to worry about?
Salzman's problem is two-fold. The first is that Rush outrages much of the press because he gets the story either completely wrong (if you are a liberal) or almost right (if you are a conservative). But the bigger problem for the press is that Rush makes so much money as a talking head that everyone is envious.
Many of us think we would love to be a talking head. (It's more work than it looks like.) Just spout opinions all day long. Hang up on people we disagree with. Get paid millions.
Most reporters barely support themselves. Many have "day jobs". It's not Rush's opinions that bother them. It's his multi million dollar income.
August 4, 2008
4:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Wow. Fair means anything that promotes liberal ideology? Another talk radio parrot seemingly unable to think his way out of a paper bag. Fair has no instrinsic meaning, and no value. It's all about us v. them. Squawk!
August 4, 2008
5:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Actually Yakoov, I'm less concerned about Limbaugh's multi-million income than I am about fairness. The latter is one of those fundamental concepts that's been floating about this republic for 200+ years.
I'm puzzled by your statement that Limbaugh appeals to the more knowledgable conservative voters. Is that really what you meant to say? His show is nothing but propaganda, slightly more sophisticated than a carnival barker. I would think any thinking conservative would not be interested.
August 5, 2008
10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:
Quote: Gene writes:
I would say John M. reading his news updates is the liberal balance at KOA."
Gene that is exactly waht I said in my original response. All of the news breaks on KOA are left of center. The balance is already there.The problem is Salzman does not understand what center is. The center has been moving slowly left for the last 70 years. Sure Republicans lean up against one side of the center wall and Democrats lean up aginst the other side of the center wall but the wall is not in the center. The wall has shifted left ever so slowly.
The news breaks on KOA are left. Hell even Rush is left. Sure he is closer to the center than most but often he is left.
August 5, 2008
10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:
Quote Rbcc
“That is a hoot. Economics is "reality"? Wow -- that's a sad way to view the world if you really believe that. How is NPR "standing in the path of economics"? What does that even mean?”
Economics is reality, means that economics is no different than the law of gravity. Human nature will not change. You can have any theory of economics you want and you can pull any levers you want but there will always be a predictable result. Many people view economics as optional or even mysterious. I do not. Economics is a force that cannot be changed. When government tinkers too much or takes too much the system crashes and then rebuilds.
“Let's see -- Limbaugh and his imitators basically are freeloading off of the public airwaves to get their message out. If they really believed in the free market, they would move over to satellite radio where their listeners could pay for the "privilege" of listening.”
Who ever said the airwaves were public? Did the public create the airwaves? Did the public invent the airwaves? Does the public financially support the Limbaugh show? No, No, No. Rush is simply using resources that were here on the earth before we all came on board. To call him a free loader is a joke.
"This is why the Fairness Doctrine is relevant. The American people own the AM and FM radio bands -- it's time that the FCC starting requiring stations to serve the public interest."
The airwaves do serve the public interest. The most popular content gets the most listener ship. They are playing what we want to hear. We confirm this with our dollar via advertising impact. You are bassackwards if you think they are telling us how to think. They are a mirror image of what we think. AM radio is very popular with conservatives because conservative lifestyle allows them to listen to radio rather than watch TV.
The fairness doctrine is ANTI freedom.
August 5, 2008
11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Low taxes says Salzman doesn't know what the center is, but implies that he does (yet he doesn't define the center and he won't). He says KOA is moving to the left but doesn't offer any evidence. He says Rush Limbaugh is center to left, again without evidence. This is something I've noticed about talk radio--it's nothing more or less than swapping lies and misinformation--the more outrageous the better. Those who listen to talk radio, in turn, tend to engage in the same sort of blustery exaggerations--for example, that Rush is left of center (undefined, and not to be defined).
August 5, 2008
11:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
I figured this might be news to some but the radio spectrum is limited. It is not KOA's private property. Stations operate by license from the government. Somewhere in the law (the FCC act) is a statement regarding their duty to the public.
August 5, 2008
11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Talk radio is popular in part because people are told what they want to hear. The world is unfair to ME, and it's all about ME. As I've suggested before, it appeals to the 14 year old in all of us.
August 5, 2008
4:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
imPatrickBateman writes:
"Wow. Fair means anything that promotes liberal ideology? Another talk radio parrot seemingly unable to think his way out of a paper bag. Fair has no instrinsic meaning, and no value. It's all about us v. them. Squawk!"
You wasted no time assuming that I was just another talk radio puppet based solely on the fact that I made a comment that you didn't agree with? Allow me to rephrase it because it appears that my previous post hit a sore spot with you. Fair means anything that's providing a liberal point of view or perspective regardless of whether or not a conservative one is being provided as well. This is an undeniable fact. If you dispute that fact then google the "fairness doctrine" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness...) and ask yourself why it applies to the only part of the media that conservatives actually have a strong grip on and not the MSM as well. Maybe then you can gain some perspective and...GASP!...realize that people on the left are actually capable of being hypocrites!
If people like Mr. Salzman (who feels KOA should play fair but never thought to have an article to counter his own out of fairness) and politicians believe in this impractical dream of "fairness", then they need to turn their attention to news on the television and newspapers as well, not just the garbage that is spewed on talk radio.
August 5, 2008
5:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:
Anderson,
Please enlighten us all. What is center?
Up until about 1910 the US government has never controlled any more than 12% of the capital. We have slowly escalated to nearly 45% if you combine Federal, State and Local. So yes we are slowly but surely moving left. I guess when progressives use that label they are warning us that they are slowly moving us to a 100% tax rate.
I define center as the government controlling anywhere between 12-17% of the monetary supply.
August 5, 2008
6 p.m.
Suggest removal
Rbcc writes:
The FCC only regulates the "public" airwaves, which consist of the AM and FM radio bands as well as over-the-air broadcast television (essentially channels 1-13). Thus, a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would ONLY apply to AM and FM radio stations as well as television stations broadcasting via over-the-air frequencies (the ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox networks as well as PBS and local independent stations).
A new Fairness Doctrine would NOT apply to cable television channels, such as CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, nor would it apply to the internet or satellite radio.
Obviously, newspapers are irrelevant to the discussion since they are private entities who do not rely on any publicly-owned infrastructure.
The Fairness Doctrine was in place from the 1930s through 1988 as an adopted FCC policy (not a law), and was upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1969 given that the public airwaves are a limited natural resource (like the air and water) subject to government regulation to serve the public interest. When President Reagan did away with the Doctrine in 1988, he did so over the strong objections of many Republicans who viewed the Fairness Doctrine as the only way to guard against opinion programming becoming overly liberal. Three times Congress passed bills to reinstate the Doctrine (this time as law, not policy), only to have the bills vetoed by Reagan and the first President Bush.
Between 1988 and around 1992, the lack of any Fairness Doctrine led directly to the unexpected rise of conservative talk radio. Suddenly, conservatives who had formerly supported restoring the Fairness Doctrine (including Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, and others) now opposed bringing it back.
Today, with all of the alternative media outlets available to most Americans, there is no reason to let the public airwaves be monopolized by one political perspective. There are plenty of private media outlets on cable TV and satellite radio where political opinions can be broadcast without any mandate for fairness or balance. Just as we wouldn't want our public schools, libraries, or museums to be used to promote the political opinions of one select group to the virtual exclusion of all others, so too should our airwaves be balanced in the presentation of political commentary.
It's really not a radical notion.
August 6, 2008
7:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Channels 1 through thirteen are slanted Left, so by Rbcc's standards, there had better be some changes in that forum as well. Tell me PBS and 4, 7, and 9 don't slant Left. And they have just as many viewers combined as Rush has listeners.
Salzman,
Where was the balance when Rather went fishing and caught a whopper with regard to Bush's military service? What about liberal media bias in general (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/...). Rather's producer ran with that story without verifying facts because that is what the television media is looking for. They so desperately wanted it to be true.
Radio is for conservatives what television is for liberals. Liberals have the public television market cornered (with a couple of exceptions), and conservatives have the radio waves cornered.
KOA's daytime (and other select times) listeners tune in for conservative talk. When they want something less politically-slanted, they tune into the morning show and the ride home (I know for a fact that Dave and Lois try to stay neutral, and I would argue that April and her co-host actually chit chat with a slightly left bent).
Remove Rosen and Rush from the lineup, and you just dealt a huge blow to their bottom line because their audience just walked. Put Rush and Rosen on network TV for the evening news to give their Right Winged slant where there was formerly a Left Winged slant, and the evening news will probably lose viewers.
And getting past the media...what about acedamia? Why aren't you moaning about the lack of neutrality there?
August 6, 2008
10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
imPatrickBateman, sorry, you show all the signs of a parrot. "It's an undeniable fact" (your words parroting a talk radio phrase, not mine). Your insistance that the concept of "fair" has meaning only with respect to the Fairness Doctrine (i.e., something you heard discussed on talk radio, not what I was talking about, not what Salzman was talking about). Your use of the talk radio term "main stream media" and insinuation that talk radio is not part of it.
So sad. Civil discussion and a sense that we share the same country has gone by the wayside to be replaced in every instance by "us v. them". Given that talk radio likes to play old rock songs, I'm reminded of one by the Who, that goes something like this (with a little editing of my own). I'll call it Babble O'Reilly:
Radio wasteland.
Radio wasteland.
They're all wasted!
August 6, 2008
11:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
LowTaxes: I never claimed to have a definition of the political center. In fact, that's my on-going criticism of your claim (and others) that there is a center and that you can identify everyone and everything on one side *or* the other. At least you offered a definition (not sure how it's related to politics but you tried).
August 6, 2008
11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
spencerr, why don't you use your education instead of spouting talking points about the liberal slanted media and cherry picking evidence to support your argument.
Salzman has discussed the UCLA study extensively in his column. Speaking for myself, I think it's flawed, among other things, because it takes just a slice of media (as you do) and proclaims it as the whole, not to mention the problems in using an ADA definition as the basis for a center.
What does academia have to do with the media, or Salzman's argument about KOA? Maybe we should start defining parents as liberal or conservative and talk about their kid's "bias". Maybe we could start identifying cities, even blocks, as liberal and conservative and attribute some "bias". What about the birds and the trees? What about the TV commercials they're blasted with all the time? Or Channel 1? As Ayn Rand would say: [blank out].
August 6, 2008
1:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Hey, you're right anderson, I got on a rant at the end.
Why are you so scared of conservative talk, anyway? Are you scared that they will convert some people. I'm not scared of CNN or the rest of the television media?
August 6, 2008
1:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Sorry, I meant to say that last sentence with a period, not a question mark.
August 6, 2008
3:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
spencerr, talk radio would not be of great concern to me except that it's clear that a lot of people (30 million or so are regular listeners) buy the claims made there lock, stock, and barrel. It's not a benign presence. I can see the arguments parroted here every day on these pages at the RMN amongst other places.
No one would reasonably think of such ridiculous, rhetorically-laden arguments on their own. Who could imagine, to give just one example, that people would take umbrage to the concept of a hate crime--unless they're planning to commit one themselves. I'm sure most people aren't, so I figure they're being stirred up somewhere. I know where.
Last year, and the year before, the Senate judiciary committee worked very hard to craft a bi-partisan immigration reform bill. After talk radio fans flooded Congress with their opposition, Senator Trent Lott (Republican) said, "Talk radio is running America". He was on to something.
I believe in working together as a country to make it a better place. Call me an idealist. Talk radio, it seems, is committed to the idea that we are a divided country. Liberal v. conservative. Black v. white. Me v. you. Herr Gobbels would have been pleased. I'd like to think we can do better.
August 7, 2008
6:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Hey, anderson,
Firstly, I would like to let you know that I respect your opinions.
However, I listen to talk radio quite often, and I haven't heard a day-time talk radio host spouting any sort of hate. I think you are referring to the Greeley transgender thing, right? No. The fact is that, while most anyone would not do the same thing if they wound up in the same situation, most of us can understand having that sort of emotion.
And conservative talk radio pushes hard for markets, strong borders, and success in Iraq. These are things that are missing largely from the traditional television media. The media goes on and on about failing social security and kids without healthcare. The answer...government bailouts and universal healthcare. I have not once seen a market-based answer to healthcare televised, and there are reasonable market based answers. The media was all over us failing in Iraq three years ago. Where are the success stories now that we are seeing success?
So...maybe I have convinced you that there is a niche that radio fills left by a void in televised programs???
Furthermore, while the airwaves are public, they are not public in the sense that PBS is public. They are a business, and they are filling a demand in the market place in order to make a buck. I have listened to 760 during the day, and it is a very liberal counterpart to KOA. Why doesn't Salzman give us his take on radio with that in mind?
August 7, 2008
6:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
By the way,
Making reference to the Righties in talk radio as fascists is akin to making reference to Lefties as communists. Both groups were very different politically, but they both resorted to government strongarming in order to control society.
I guarantee that todays conservatives aren't using government to strongarm anyone with the exception of terrorists. It is our American Left that is attempting to use government to control what we can and cannot listen to over airwaves that no one owns. Our media might as well be the Chinese propaganda machine if people like Salzman get their way.
August 7, 2008
7 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
And BTW, nobody, not Rosen or Rush, has ever put a thought into my head. Rosen is an economics genious and is good at bringing clarification from an educational standpoint when he talks about it...so he has contributed to my vocabulary, not my beliefs.
Rush, on the other hand, is just grandstanding to people who already think the same way he does. Yes, ninety percent of his listeners already agree, and while he has the ability to persuade about 0.5% of the voting population to register as Democrats and vote Hillary, that is about as far as his influence goes.
You always argue that 18-year-old college freshman are not that impressionable and are capable of thinking for themselves, despite usually being in an academic arena that is biased, to one degree or another, to the Left. Why not give conservative radio listeners, who number most between the ages of thirty and sixty, the benifit of the doubt with regard to their ability to make rational choices and think independantly.
It's not like inexperienced college freshman, with relatively little knowledge, have some sort of magical advantage over people who have spent significant amounts of their lives in the workforce and political world already.
All due respect, but I think you are being hypocritical when you poo poo any arguments about Left in the visual media or Left in academia, and then you make a huge deal out of a relatively small conservative niche. I would argue, that for you (and many liberals), it is about suppressing conservative thought and allowing for the free proliferation of liberal thought, so that we can have one conformist population of American quasi-liberals.
August 7, 2008
11:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
BTW, Anderson,
I listened to most of a show on 760 this morning, and the same goes for that show as you state in your last post. The host completely ignored legitimate conservative talking points.
And she and her guests have somehow got it into their heads that Republicans have anything to do with making this election about race. McCain has gone there, but by and far, it is Obama who keeps throwing out the card...and Hillary may have gone there, but then, that is a completely different topic.
Anyway, my point is that the people calling in were listening to this lady as if she were their beloved ice queen, and she completely omitted anything that turned her arguments on their heads. They took it lock, stock, and barrel, and most of the listeners, and her, sounded like complete drivel-spewing populism and socialism-loving, take the wealth from those rotten rich, morons.
August 7, 2008
11:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:
anderson writes:
LowTaxes: I never claimed to have a definition of the political center. In fact, that's my on-going criticism of your claim (and others) that there is a center and that you can identify everyone and everything on one side *or* the other. At least you offered a definition (not sure how it's related to politics but you tried).
Anderson what do you think that this is all about? What do you think politics is all about? Control of capital. Do private citizens control the fruits of their labor or does the government. There is no in-between and there is nothing else. As the government taxes us more and controls more of the capital we move towards fascism, socialism, communism, totalitarianism and as the government taxes us less we move towards freedom, individualism, limited government, private property, Laissez Faire Capitalism, Liberty and finally anarchy (self government).
So my center can always be defined by tax rates. Any politician or media person who advocates higher tax rates is moving us left, any politician or media person who advocates lower tax rates is moving us right.
On the far left you have communism on the far right you have anarchism. Where do you stand?
August 7, 2008
11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:
The only fair solution is to let the consumer decide. If a media outlet fails then what they are preaching is not what the customer wanted to hear. They deserved to fail. That is perfectly fair.
Now on the other hand if the government comes on board and forces the consumer to listen to politics that they do not want to hear then that is the opposite of fairness.
The free market is really a beautiful thing and guarantee you that with minimal effort you can find a media outlet that meets your needs and desires.
Why must you attempt to control what my needs and desires are? You try to control me in the name of the fairness doctrine.
August 7, 2008
12:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
spencerr, my reference to Gobbels (maybe a poor choice) was not to insinuate that talk radio is fascism (I don't think that), but just to name the most famous propagandist. Talk radio is largely propaganda. It is engaged in the *purposeful* dissemination of misinformation. It uses all the tools and techniques of the propagandist. The straw man. The red herring. The glittering generalities. The exaggeration. THE EXAGGERATION. The single point of view. I heard a guy the other night (Lou Fame?) say (and this is a typical comment): "I wish someone would explain to me how...(proceeds to set up and cut down another's view)"--when he really wanted no explanation at all--for he will never allow a different point of view to be expressed. Talk about conformity.
Another example: a couple weeks ago, I heard Bob Newsome say, over and over, that Obama had proposed some civilian police force that would be more powerful and cost more than our current armed forces and that they would engage in warrantless search and seizures. If people can't see through this sort of bs, there's probably not much I can say.
Yes, they engage in hate. Again, if you don't see it, there's probably nothing I can say. I mean, there are a lot of people (and they get this sort of idea from talk radio) who deny that there is a racist element to the anti-immigrant movement, or who implicitly deny that racism exists altogether. Whatever. I'm still waiting from the memo from the White Committee that Runs America (of which you and I are members) to identify some manifestation of racism in America. It ain't gonna happen.
Academia (which you compare talk radio to), by and large, is not a disseminator of propaganda. That is not their mission.
Your claim that "if Salzman gets his way" (an appeal to KOA to broadcast another point of view) we would see something akin to "Chinese propaganda" is disingenuous.
As you often do, spencerr, you make general statements, always based on the idea that the world is divided into two camps, ever at war with each other--e.g., (paraphrasing) "The American Left (who??) wants the government to control what we listen to". And like PBateman, above, you turn this whole conversation into something about the Fairness Doctrine instead of engaging Salzman's point, as is.
August 7, 2008
12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
I've said this before: there is rational radio out there--generally on the public radio stations. Talk radio is largely propaganda. I've *repeatedly* said here that 760 or Air America is propaganda too, but right wing talk radio fans apparently are not listening--I guess because of what it implies about what they listen to. I'm looking for one brief shining moment, when we can take this discussion outside of left v. right. I acknowledge there is a spectrum from left to right. I acknowledge it may be useful in some instances to identify political views on a spectrum. That does not mean that every claim, every argument, such as an appeal to fairness on the radio, has to be framed as a war between left and right.
If you know of a conservative radio program that is not propagandist in nature, please let me know. There may be some out there and I just don't know about them.
August 7, 2008
12:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
LOL, Low Taxes. Your appeal to freedom, individualism, limited government, and liberty is the classic definition of liberalism. Not that you will hear that on talk radio.
No, despite your theoretical claim, the free market does not provide what I want to hear on the radio. I listen almost exclusive to public radio stations because it's the only place that has any decent music.
August 7, 2008
12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Oh, taxes may be your litmus test, but it is not for everyone. Before proclaiming that such and such media is left or right based on taxes, don't you think there should be some sort of consensus?
August 7, 2008
12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
One day I heard Savage call Limbaugh a "liberal Republican"--which supports my idea that, for talk radio, "liberal" (or any of it's manifestations) has no real meaning save for "someone I oppose" or "someone who opposes me".
August 7, 2008
12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:
anderson writes:
Oh, taxes may be your litmus test, but it is not for everyone. Before proclaiming that such and such media is left or right based on taxes, don't you think there should be some sort of consensus?
Anderson what is your litmus test? Please answer so this discussion can move forward.
Consensus? I do not understand you point/question?
August 7, 2008
1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:
anderson writes:
"LOL, Low Taxes. Your appeal to freedom, individualism, limited government, and liberty is the classic definition of liberalism. Not that you will hear that on talk radio."
I understand what the classical definition of liberalism is and how the communist have perverted the meaning of the word liberal. Conservative talk radios does sometimes mention this discrepancy but they avoid it as to not confuse the issue. They also avoid it because they do not always advocate classical liberalism but rather some hybrid of fascism. See Anderson it does not matter what label they were, if they want the government to expand for any reason(other than to defend liberty) they are no friend of liberty.
"No, despite your theoretical claim, the free market does not provide what I want to hear on the radio. I listen almost exclusive to public radio stations because it's the only place that has any decent music."
Sure the free market can provide you with what you desire. Are willing to pay for an Ipod? Pay for CD's? Pay for high def radio? Pay for xm?
Oh I see you thought free a market means free. Which NPR is not free , we all pitch in so you can free load.
August 7, 2008
1:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:
anderson writes:
One day I heard Savage call Limbaugh a "liberal Republican"--which supports my idea that, for talk radio, "liberal" (or any of it's manifestations) has no real meaning save for "someone I oppose" or "someone who opposes me".
There is such a thing as a left leaning Republican. Rush is like Rosen, they are conservative or limited government on many issues but then on other issues they are willing to grant government the right to grow limitlessly. Hence liberal Republican
Hell even Savage is guilty of which he speaks, Savage is quite the moral collectivist.
August 7, 2008
1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:
Just the other day Rosen said that government subsides for oil were a good thing when oil was near 10/gallon. He also insinuated that subsidies were good in other situations. Mike does not realize that his attitude is the exact problem. Who is to decide which subsidies are good? The prudent approach would be to say that all subsidies are bad regardless of intent. The market is king.
August 7, 2008
1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Like I said before, I don't have a litmus test for the center. Some views in media are, by consensus (general agreement), on the left (The Nation) or right (National Review) but there is an amorphous middle. So I guess my test if anything is consensus. When someone proclaims, just to give an example, that CNN is "leftist", I think it's rather disingenous, because I don't think there's anything close to a consensus on that, and, besides, CNN reminds me a lot of Fox.
Before moving forward, I have a question: why do we have to draw a line and classify the media as left or right? How about more informative or less informative? How about more objective or less objective? More in depth? Or less? I guess Mr. Salzman drew a line in his column, but I'm not much of a line drawer.
August 7, 2008
1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
fyi, I don't listen to NPR--pretty much since the time they were lock, stock, and barrel in support of the invasion of Iraq (when it happened).
I don't buy your "market is king" ideology for a second. The market works well for a lot of things, but not for everything--which is why we have public services like highways, a police force, public education, and clean water.
August 7, 2008
1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Anderson, America has been listening to Rush for the last twenty years. No one has comitted any crimes in his name. And they don't spread hate. They spread their message.
If you have listened lately, the two afore-mentioned hosts are quick to point out that conservatives have not been playing the race card. Is there racism in America. You betcha, and it goes both ways between minority and white, and people on both sides exhibit it, with the possible exception of conservative blacks.
As far as the immigration issue, you are right to an extent. Some of the people don't like seeing hispanics horn in and possibly take over America. I and most conservatives don't care about this. Demography is what it is, and if, when my daughter is sixty, hispanics outnumber whites, who cares, as long as the hispanics in this country are non-cheating participants in our economy. These people are outside the argument and pick the conservative side because it fits their agenda.
There is also the rest of the coalition against ILLEGAL who despises illegals because they take American jobs or the issue can be seen as a security issue.
I am happy to see immigrants move in at a pace that is economically sustainable, and in employment sectors where there is a shortage of workers...including both ends of the educational spectrum...we need engineers and grape pickers.
There are no untruths, even in the Lefty BS I heard this morning. There are strawman arguments (and excuse that I don't know what a ...herring is). There are omissions. For instance, the lady this morning went on a rant about how Hoover, the Republican, didn't end the depression, but FDR did. She left out two things; FDR took 16 years to eliminate the depression, and WWII and the high levels of production and technology resulting from it are what actually pulled us out, not the populist and collectivist policies. You could just as equally make the false assumption that war fixes recessions and should be used as a solution for recession.
August 7, 2008
1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
BTW, Anderson,
In your last post to lowtaxes, you mention a lot of public goods, where there are market failures if government does not step in. Military is another one. Most tax haters will readily admit that taxes are necessary for those things.
Where the rest of us get bent out of shape is with the progressive scheme and when taxes are used to finance programs for the sake of redistributing wealth and quality of life.
August 7, 2008
1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:
anderson writes:
“Before moving forward, I have a question: why do we have to draw a line and classify the media as left or right? How about more informative or less informative? How about more objective or less objective? More in depth? Or less? I guess Mr. Salzman drew a line in his column, but I'm not much of a line drawer.”
More informative or less is okay, this would require paying it’s staff more and requiring a higher level of insight and understanding.
More depth or less depth is okay as well.
How do we define objective? This will all come down to your core values and how you think the world really works. Sure facts are facts such as body counts and fiscal numbers but what else is really objective?
In our quest for fairness are we going to mandate that Religious folks get equal air time? Those that believe in a theocracy form of government?
How about hardcore libertarians such as Murray Rothbard? What about anarchist? Are you willing to mandate that KOA gives equal time to those who justify complete and immediate abolition of the state? Complete privatization, even of the roads and judicial system?
August 7, 2008
1:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
And Anderson, for your purposes of arguing with me about actual issues, forget the social issues and military issues. Those don't get me going as much as the economics. The one place where conservatives are rock solid is economics. Their economics, assuming a correction by government for market deficiencies, are good economics.
The lady this morning, Erin something or other, is completely confused about economics to the point where she stated that increasing taxes on the rich will actually increase jobs. To be fair to her, she said, "I think." Yeah, you will create some government jobs, but you will lose net productivity, which means net jobs.
However, when Rosen tells you about economics, listen. He is absolutely correct. Where you and he can disagree, and he doesn't include this in his arguments much, is that by taking his approach, you watch traditionally liberal safety nets, such as social security and medicare (and other ludicrous policies such as affirmative action) march out the door. He doesn't talk much about the loss of these programs, which is the only real point of attack.
August 7, 2008
1:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:
Anderson wrote:
"I listen almost exclusive to public radio stations because it's the only place that has any decent music."<