READER COMMENTS ON

"Sheriff Dupnik is Right: Radio Lies, Our Culture Dies"

(50 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... Mark Fredrickson said on 1/12/2011 @ 2:24 pm PT...





Pushing an agenda forward over the victims of a deranged killer is disgusting and repulsive. You are an opportunist Brad, and so is everyone who has no sense of decency that you can use the murder of a 9-year old girl among others to push a political agenda, or to get something on people you don't like. The guy didn't watch TV or listen to the radio. And, if he did, it still wouldn't matter. Killings like this happen. Keeping our voices muzzled as if nothing is wrong with the direction of this country and its leaders isn't going to stop lunatics from following the voices in their heads. Face it Brad, you relish this excuse, these murders, to tell those individuals you don't agree with to shut up, or some satan worshipping schizophrenic might interpret what we say the wrong way. That's a tough sell Brad, and makes you look like a fool.

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... Anthony said on 1/12/2011 @ 2:54 pm PT...





Seriously? The Fairness Doctrine? Seriously? The only reason you're even talking about this is Loughner, which is pathetic. Way to push a political agenda via a tragedy. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste" - Rahm Emanuel You people who think this was disgust me!

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... Anthony said on 1/12/2011 @ 3:04 pm PT...





Bring in the speech police, Brad! Let's appoint the good folks at FactCheck.org to police all speech on the radio! People are far too stupid to decide what to believe and what not to! What about the rest of the media, Friedman? Are you going to argue that conservative bullshit POV's saturate OTHER forms of media, other than AM radio? Other than Fox News and CNBC, progressives saturate TV. *cue bullshit statistic to debunk this* Let's be real here. Progressives are generally young. How many young folks listen to AM radio? How many young folks care about talk radio at all? These kids have iPhones and are into podcasting. Should we regulate podcasts now too?

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... IntelVet said on 1/12/2011 @ 4:44 pm PT...





Brad, Thank you for pointing out the problems. I listen to Lush Rimbaugh only to sharpen my abilities to understand a situation. Lush is like Hitler incarnate, according to an aunt of mine who grew up in Germany in the 30's. When Lush gets too idiotic, I take refuge in logical thinking progressive radio. A real relief. Thanks for what you and others do.

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... Billy said on 1/12/2011 @ 5:05 pm PT...





People are having trouble putting a finger on 9/11. For Republicans, everything really did change on 9/11. The Republican Party used 9/11 to teach their constituents that anybody who dared to question their leadership was siding with “the terrorists.” This went on for several years. It’s still going on. If you didn’t support a war based on lies, you were siding with the terrorists. If you didn’t support warrantless wiretapping, you were siding with the terrorists. If you didn’t support torture, you were siding with the terrorists. If you didn’t vote for the re-election of George W. Bush, you were siding with the terrorists. There were hundreds of examples. Even today, if you want Guantanamo Bay abductees to be tried in the United States in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, you too are siding with the terrorists. People truly believe this stuff, you know. It was pounded into their heads by people like George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and Glenn Beck, day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year. These monsters systematically trained simpletons to fear all people who dared to question their version of authority. The Republican Party knowingly dehumanized Gabby Giffords and millions of other good Americans. They made targets of us all. It was done systematically, out in the open, by people who live by no standards of decency. We all saw it happen. We can’t lose sight of any of this when discussing people like Jared Loughner. We have to remember how hard the Republican Party worked to put people of questionable mind in a permanent state of fear. It's only reasonable to assume that some of them are going to strike out.

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 1/12/2011 @ 5:49 pm PT...





Anthony @ 2 & 3 said: Seriously? The Fairness Doctrine? Seriously? The only reason you're even talking about this is Loughner, which is pathetic. Way to push a political agenda via a tragedy. Thanks for your thoughts, Anthony. For the record, this article was written by Sue Wilson, not me. Though she, like me, has been talking about these issues and the dangerous imbalance on our public airwaves for years. For example, here's my October 2009 piece at Alternet: "Our Media Need a Fair and Balanced Doctrine". It calls out the Democrats and Obama (and Bill Clinton), as I am forced to constantly do, for not serving the people by allowing corporations to take and hold monopoly control over our public airwaves. If you bother to search for "Fairness Doctrine" here at The BRAD BLOG, you'll similar find scores of articles calling for the restoration of our public airwaves to the people who own them. Why you believe the limited bandwidth available to our nation and owned by its people should be ceded to corporations and that they should be allowed to violate their statutory requirement to use them in the public interest is beyond me. But that's up to you. Please feel free to fact check before making such silly claims as you did above. Or not. Up to you. That's what's great about free speech! You are welcome to make an ass out of yourself if you wish. Bring in the speech police, Brad! Let's appoint the good folks at FactCheck.org to police all speech on the radio! People are far too stupid to decide what to believe and what not to! Actually, sounds like a great idea! Unfortunately, though you're hoping to be satirical, the fact is the people are not stupid, they are being purposely disinformed (on our public airwaves). If not, how could it be that a majority of the U.S. thought Saddam was involved with 9/11 and al-Qaeda? Or that he had WMD? How could it be that only 10% of Americans knew they had received a tax cut under Obama, versus the HUGE majority who actually thought their taxes had either stayed the same or had gone up when they went to the ballot box last November? How could it be that a majority of Americans believe the globe is not warming? Or think that the healthcare bill included "death panels"? I could go on and on, but yes, they are being purposely misinformed and disinformed and manipulated by the media --- on our public airwaves, being conned to vote against their own best interests. You're cool with that? Good for you. I'll fight to correct this obscene imbalance, lack of fairness and balance --- and free speech --- on our airwaves, and against the corporate monopoly on our public airwaves whether you like that idea or not. What about the rest of the media, Friedman? Are you going to argue that conservative bullshit POV's saturate OTHER forms of media, other than AM radio? Actually, the problem is not conservative information, it's Rightwing/Republican misinformation (and they are decidedly not conservative.) But what media are you referring to? The public airwaves are, by federal law, to be regulated by the government, since they are owned by the people. I'm sorry you don't believe the Government should do the job they are supposed to do by law. That's not very conservative of you. Or perhaps you were just misinformed about that? I wonder why. Other than Fox News and CNBC, progressives saturate TV. *cue bullshit statistic to debunk this* Don't need to. Apparently you already know what you just said was bullshit. If you do need the empirical, verifiable information to let you know that in fact, you are wrong about "progressives saturat[ing] TV", just let me know. The facts are, of course, the opposite of what you think you know. I wonder why. Let's be real here. Progressives are generally young. How many young folks listen to AM radio? How many young folks care about talk radio at all? These kids have iPhones and are into podcasting. Should we regulate podcasts now too? Why would we do that? We have free speech. Do podcasts use public resources? If so, then we can talk about regulating them. As to your myth that "Progressives are generally young", it sounds like you must be misinformed and not know any better. Or, you've been misinformed, again, proving, as you said, that "People are far too stupid to decide what to believe and what not to!" Don't worry, I'll fight for your country and your media and your right to NOT be misinformed on your own public airwaves whether you wish me to or not. And, as usual, it doesn't take a tragedy for me to do so. I'm sorry you were "too stupid" to know that. Peace!

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 1/12/2011 @ 5:55 pm PT...





Mark @ 1: Pushing an agenda forward over the victims of a deranged killer is disgusting and repulsive. You are an opportunist Brad, and so is everyone who has no sense of decency that you can use the murder of a 9-year old girl among others to push a political agenda, or to get something on people you don't like. Please read my response to Anthony. You appear terribly misinformed about my advocacy to restore fairness and balance to the airwaves, as I have been doing, non-stop for years on end. But thanks for your thoughts there. It'd be nice if you knew what you were talking about before you made them though. (Also, if you noted that the piece above was written by Sue Wilson, not me, though I agree with it on every count.) The guy didn't watch TV or listen to the radio. And, if he did, it still wouldn't matter. Killings like this happen. They do. Sadly, more and more and more recently, thanks to the continuous inctiments toward violence and insurrectionism on our public media. You may wish to review the record of that over the past two years. For some reason, I have a feeling you're unaware of(misinformed about) it. Keeping our voices muzzled as if nothing is wrong with the direction of this country and its leaders isn't going to stop lunatics from following the voices in their heads. Who wants to do that? You seem to be fighting an imaginary battle with someone. Face it Brad, you relish this excuse, these murders, to tell those individuals you don't agree with to shut up Who have I told to "shut up"?? You're shadow boxing, amigo. That's a tough sell Brad, and makes you look like a fool. It would be! If I was trying to sell it. Of course, I'm not. So, short of that, I'm afraid I'm not the one who ends up looking like a fool, Mark. Thanks for stopping by!

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... Larry Bergan said on 1/12/2011 @ 7:33 pm PT...





These people who have been allowed to dominate the public airwaves for decades under strict rules to let corporations run wild know they can't have a debate with anybody unless they have complete control over the format. That's why these shows turn into shouting matches with the opposing voice getting his/her mike turned off when things get a little embarrassing for our chosen "heros" of the radio. All we're asking for is a level playing field where all opinions are given a fair shot at getting out a message. Whoever wins the argument wins the argument without cutting to commercial. The Dick Cavett show is a good template from the past where anything went and the host could handle it. These phonies don't host debates. If they did, it would be interesting instead of just enraging. Great post!

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... Tony said on 1/12/2011 @ 8:00 pm PT...





Always has seemed pretty clear to me: conservative radio is huge because it makes big money. Why does it make big money? Because tons of people listen to it. Left wing radio doesn't seem to work--I assume because the ratings aren't there. This article insinuates that it's not "fair" because all the right wing moguls gobbled up all the "good stations" with all the powerful signals, thus giving conservative talk radio the big advantage. But actually, it's simple equation: tons of people want to hear this stuff. You know what happens to tv shows that nobody watches? They get yanked. Probably sent to the same place as all your liberal radio shows... if there ever were any. As Mike Papantonio and "Ring of Fire" radio why it won't work. He couldn't figure it out, either... and he has more money than Jesus.

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... Billy said on 1/12/2011 @ 8:55 pm PT...





Tony @ 9: The reason right wing radio "works" relative to left wing radio is because right wingers need to be told what to "think." Left wingers think for ourselves. That might seem like a jab, but it's not. Republicanism is a fundamentalist religion. As with all fundamentalist religions, followers must stay true to the script, be it the Bible or the talking points. If Republicans don't attend mass or tune in to Beck or Limbaugh on a regular basis, they lose their religious identity. We liberals do what we want, not matter how good or bad the entertainment is.

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 1/12/2011 @ 9:25 pm PT...





Tony @ 9 said: Always has seemed pretty clear to me: conservative radio is huge because it makes big money. Why does it make big money? Because tons of people listen to it. Left wing radio doesn't seem to work--I assume because the ratings aren't there. Man am I tired of typing this (please, someone else do it for me next time): Where Stephanie Miller (not RW) goes head-to-head against Laura Ingram (RW), Stephanie wins. But Stephanie has 40 affiliates, Ingram has 400. Tell me that "Left wing" radio doesn't work again. "Left wing" radio works fine. It's the corporate system that's rigged. Seen it first hand. Over and over. You know what happens to tv shows that nobody watches? And if that was the case with radio, I'd agree with you. As Mike Papantonio and "Ring of Fire" radio why it won't work. He couldn't figure it out, either... and he has more money than Jesus. But not more than Clear Channel. So good luck finding him on any radio stations.

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... Soul Rebel said on 1/12/2011 @ 9:40 pm PT...





You've probably read the various AP/Reuters/CNN/etc online by now, about Obama's speech and bringing folks together and yada yada (can you yada yada the president? I'm sure Elaine could...) but have you read the comments afterwards? There is some serious serious delusional hate going on among the right-wing/Tea Party mentality crowd. Browse through a couple pages of comments...uncanny. Scary. Regardless of whether Obama is a political phony (somewhat agreed), the lunatic right appears to be looking at this as a call to arms.

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... WingnutSteve said on 1/12/2011 @ 10:18 pm PT...





c'mon soul rebel, I went to the CNN site and checked the first 3-4 pages of comments. There's one nutcase named Josephine123 saying stupid shit.. saying Obama is a good speaker but a bad President, saying we need a new President in 2012, over and over and over. Yeah, that's really scary! I hope you're able to sleep tonight, try a night light.

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... Tony said on 1/13/2011 @ 8:39 am PT...





@Brad #11 Your argument just doesn't hold water. You're trying to convince me that this vast fundamentalist conspiracy is ruling the broadcast content stream so powerfully that even successful programs like Stephanie Miller can't keep their head above water? Whatever... This nation has proven over and over again that capitalism works--if the demand is there, somebody will distribute it. Look at youtube--it doesn't matter what stupid crap people put on there. If it gets 50 million hits, people make tons of money from it, and then make some more of the same. I live in Pensacola, I have a friend who works for Papantonio, and I've been in his studios. Ring of Fire radio on "Air America" or whatever that liberal network was, was clearly a flop. (even Rachel Maddow bailed on it) They couldn't make it work. That was because the powerful GOP broadcast rulers wouldn't let them play?? Come on... they didn't have ratings. If the ratings are there, stations will pick it up. I believe that.

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... Paul McCarthy said on 1/13/2011 @ 11:20 am PT...





Maybe right wing radio is big because those old folks and rural types are the only people who listen to radio anymore.

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 1/13/2011 @ 11:26 am PT...





Mark @1 wrote: Pushing an agenda forward over the victims of a deranged killer is disgusting and repulsive. You are an opportunist Brad, and so is everyone who has no sense of decency that you can use the murder of a 9-year old girl among others to push a political agenda. What utter rubbish. First, Mark, the article was written by Sue Wilson, not Brad Friedman. Second, the occasion in which the 24/7 hate speech has produced yet another tragedy (remember "O'Reilly's 'Tiller the Killer' rhetoric and what that produced?) provides not merely the appropriate but the ideal moment to address the unfortunate circumstance in which billionaire-funded, extreme right wing radio and TV have provided a forum not only for disinformation but dehumanization. Sheriff Dupnik's observation is only partially correct. It is not only the mentally unstable who are influenced by hate speech. I would respectfully redirect readers to Hate Speech and the Process of Dehumanization and Hate Speech and the Process of Dehumanization --- A Follow-Up. Hate speech produces dehumanization --- what Professor Phillip Zimbardo in The Lucifer Effect describes as a process "by which certain other people or collectives of them are depicted as less than human..." Dehumanization transforms "ordinary, normal people into indifferent or even wanton perpetrators of evil….a 'cortical cataract' that clouds one’s thinking and fosters the perception that other people are less than human…to see…others as enemies deserving of torment, torture, and even annihilation..."

COMMENT #17 [Permalink]

... Sue Wilson said on 1/13/2011 @ 11:55 am PT...





Hello, Gentlepeople, I am sorry if my piece seems that I am trying to make political hay from a tragedy; that is not my intent. But Sheriff Dupnik brought this critical concept into the national consciousness, and so I feel a responsibility to educate people about the backstory in the best way I know how. As I wrote in my piece, the Tuscon rampage was the act of a madman. I do not know whether he listens to Rush or the rest; given his age, I sincerely doubt it. But consider that a sheriff, any sheriff of any county, understands when a mob mentality starts to take hold. Dupnik knows that people in his community came very close to that during the summer of 2009 health care debate, and the more recent passage of AB 1070. I believe Dupnik's point is that six radio stations in his community are fanning flames into fire. That creates a climate which is difficult for law enforcement, doesn't it? My point is not just that people - on the right and left - should willingly tone down their rhetoric for the good of the country, but that we need to get back to real facts and real debate. Listening to each other, rather than shouting at each other. Two way conversations on the radio, not just one sided diatribes. (Remember, we all own the radio airwaves, it's different than cable TV. Stations are licensed only if they serve the public interest. That's a fact that broadcasters really don't want us to understand.) So let's all have our say... on blogs like BradBlog, and on the radio, too. Thanks for commenting. Peace.

COMMENT #18 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 1/13/2011 @ 3:39 pm PT...





Tony @ 14 said: Your argument just doesn't hold water. You're trying to convince me that this vast fundamentalist conspiracy is ruling the broadcast content stream so powerfully that even successful programs like Stephanie Miller can't keep their head above water? Whatever... No, not "whatever". It's a fact. If you are able to demonstrate otherwise --- or even offer an alternate explanation for why someone with better ratings is on fewer stations --- feel free to do so. This nation has proven over and over again that capitalism works--if the demand is there, somebody will distribute it. Actually, also not true. Capitalism has proven, over many decades, that unless trusts (monopolies) are busted, they will serve only themselves, not the people. When you have one or just a few such huge corporations, they collude, price fix, put their thumb on the scale. It's why this nation has, time and time and time again had to bust up such corporations. It's also not "capitalism" when one company is subsidized over another (as in the oil industry vs. the renewable energy industry, or in the broadcast business when only large corporations are given licenses to stations which have the bandwidth to be heard). There is, by and large, no competition in radio. Especially in talk radio. Captialism doesn't work without competition. That's exactly what we have in the talk radio industry. I work in it. I see it first hand. Look at youtube--it doesn't matter what stupid crap people put on there. If it gets 50 million hits, people make tons of money from it, and then make some more of the same. Because anybody is allowed to post (to "be heard") on Youtube. The same is not true for the nation's limited public airwaves. "Air America" or whatever that liberal network was, was clearly a flop. It was. For a number of reasons. One being an unworkable model put together by people who knew nothing about the radio industry, another being they were limited from being able to broadcast on most of the nation's airwaves. (even Rachel Maddow bailed on it) Actually, no she did not. She worked for them until the day they went out of business. they didn't have ratings. If the ratings are there, stations will pick it up. I believe that. Because you don't have any idea what you're talking about. (For the record, Stephanie Miller is not, and has never been involved with Air America. Just so's ya know, since you seem to be lacking in actual information about the company.)

COMMENT #19 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 1/13/2011 @ 3:40 pm PT...





Paul McCarthy @ 15: Maybe right wing radio is big because those old folks and rural types are the only people who listen to radio anymore. I wish that was the case. It isn't. "Right wing radio is big" because the corporations that "own" the airwaves are quite happy in putting only corporatist radio on the airwaves. Why would they want to give voice to those who don't believe they should be allowed to continue with their unregulated monopoly control of our airwaves? That would just be bad business. (Which is why the government is supposed to be, by law, regulating the airwaves --- but they don't.)

COMMENT #20 [Permalink]

... Joyce McCLoy said on 1/13/2011 @ 5:23 pm PT...





Here's link to Brad talking about AZ tragedy on Allan Handelman Radio show in NC on Jan 11. Arizona tragedy: the BradBlog perspective(TUESDAY 1/11/11) Allan discusses the shooting massacre in Tucson with political blogger Brad Friedman, founder of BradBlog.com



[ED NOTE: The link above is to "Hour 1". I was actually on "Hour 2" and "Hour 3". Those links, respectively are here: Handelman Hour 2 and Handelman Hour 3. -BF]

COMMENT #21 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 1/13/2011 @ 7:30 pm PT...





Thanks for linking that up, Joyce. If I'm not mistaken though, it looks like Allan doesn't have the right MP3 audio file posted there. He has the first hour or so of his show, but I didn't appear until hours 2 & 3. I've dropped him a note to let him know, and will update here (and maybe post the full audio as its own item) after clearing that up.

COMMENT #22 [Permalink]

... Tony said on 1/13/2011 @ 8:19 pm PT...





@ Brad #18 Still not buying it. Here's an quote from a programmer of "OBAMA 1260" in DC that shut down in 2009 because the ratings tanked with their liberal format. If you can't keep liberal talk radio afloat in Washington with Obama and the dems ruling a gargantuan majority, how can it ever be done?? http://newsbusters.org/b...l-obama-1260-talk-format And your argument about Air America lacking the game plan and radio savvy to make it is weak. You don't have to own 250 stations to make a format successful. One rich liberal guy (you all DO have a rich guy on your side, I'm pretty sure) with one solid station should be able to find your audience. But it continues to fail. Here's my take: A decent majority of Americans are still morally conservative, politically right leaning people who "generally" agree with conservative talk hosts. Like me. Yes, Rush is arrogant, Hannity is annoying, and Beck is creepy and ridiculously dramatic. But in general, I agree with most of their philosophy. No all the craziness, but the general moral line. I don't know what the number is, but I truly feel like more than half of Americans are in this camp. The rest are in one of two slots: 1) intelligent, well-educated, morally liberal activists like yourself and Ernest. or 2) total idiots who couldn't pass a 2nd grade history test or tell you how many houses of congress we have. This country is FULL of these people who honestly could not name 3 of our founding fathers. And all those people are the "unfortunate ones" you and all your liberal elite are trying to protect. Good luck with all that... Thanks for your smart ass setting of the record straight on Steph Miller not being part of Air America. I never said that anyway. Sorry I couldn't pass your factual accuracy exam for that failed network. All I know is it died and it had plenty of money behind it. So I do know what I'm talking about.

COMMENT #23 [Permalink]

... WingnutSteve said on 1/13/2011 @ 8:32 pm PT...





Clear Channel would eat their young if there was profit in it because the #1 thing to those folks is moneymoneymoney. If there were a profitable progressive talk show out there to be broadcast on 400 different stations I don't think Clear Channel would give a rats ass what their politics were. I'm telling ya Brad, just like I said yesterday, in a center right country Randi Rhodes ain't gonna make it in nationwide syndication. For proof, google Randi Rhodes.

COMMENT #24 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 1/14/2011 @ 3:08 pm PT...





WingnutSteve & Tony - Your comments make clear that you guys really don't understand how the radio business works. (Nor do you seem to understand how the RW propaganda machine works, it seems, since you are doing little more than repeating that propaganda word-for-word in your comments.) So, I'll continue to try and help you here. Tony said @ 22 said: If you can't keep liberal talk radio afloat in Washington with Obama and the dems ruling a gargantuan majority, how can it ever be done?? While I don't know the precise situation behind OBAMA 1260's shut down, it's a very low frequency (just 5k watts), which means it can't be heard very widely, nor in most places at all after sunset (when station's like that, unlike the big 50k watt "clear channel" stations running RW talk radio, must power down). Nonetheless, if you select the failure of one station, no matter how little power it had, or advertising dollars to push listeners towards it, as a sign that something can't succeed, I guess Glenn Beck is a failure in radio as well, since his New York affiliate (one of his largest) just dropped him for low ratings. Glenn Beck is clearly a "failure" on radio! Nobody wants to listen to that format, I guess! And your argument about Air America lacking the game plan and radio savvy to make it is weak. Actually, it's right on the money, as that failure plagued AA from the jump as everyone even remotely involved in the talk radio industry knows and will tell you. (Note: That doesn't include the RW propaganda website "newsbusters" who you cited as your "source" on the OBAMA 1260 story, of course.) You don't have to own 250 stations to make a format successful. One rich liberal guy (you all DO have a rich guy on your side, I'm pretty sure) with one solid station should be able to find your audience. But it continues to fail. Again, you reveal your cluelessness about the radio business. There are, of course, many single local progressives stations doing just fine. But a nationally syndicated radio show cannot survive if it is on just one station, no matter how successfully there, or even 5 or 10 for that matter. Nationally syndicated shows make money by selling national ads. They give away their programs for free to the local stations in return for minutes on the "clock" where they put their national ads. National ads can only be sold, essentially, once a nationally syndicated program has X number of affiliates in Y number of the top 5 or 10 markets. One station, no much how much money they had invested, no matter how powerful the signal, no matter how successful the programs on that station, has absolutely nothing to do with the national viability of Progressive (or even RW) talk radio. Here's my take: A decent majority of Americans are still morally conservative, politically right leaning people who "generally" agree with conservative talk hosts. Like me. Thanks for your "take". Funny that it's the same one Rush, Sean, Glenn, Clear Channel and all of those who have a stake in you believing that "take" have. Unfortunately, the facts, if you ever bother to actually examine them, defy that take. You, of course, are entitled to your own "take", but not your own facts. I agree with most of their philosophy. No all the craziness, but the general moral line. And, at another time, I'll bother to spend time debating with you who actually holds the flag for "the general moral line", RW radio versus Progressive radio (and, again, it's not what the RW propagandists who call for illegal wars, illegal torture, ignoring of the U.S. Constitution, ignoring the Rule of Law etc. would like you to believe.) The rest are in one of two slots: 1) intelligent, well-educated, morally liberal activists like yourself and Ernest. or 2) total idiots who couldn't pass a 2nd grade history test or tell you how many houses of congress we have. Well, would you like to know which crowd is the least educated of all RW radio and cable news listeners/watchers? That info is easy to find as well: 10/15/10: A new survey of American voters shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources. This country is FULL of these people who honestly could not name 3 of our founding fathers. Yup. Wonder why. Sorry I couldn't pass your factual accuracy exam for that failed network. All I know is it died and it had plenty of money behind it. So I do know what I'm talking about. Except it didn't. And you don't. WingnutSteve @ 23 said: Clear Channel would eat their young if there was profit in it because the #1 thing to those folks is moneymoneymoney. Right. That's why they operate as they do in "buying up" and then "locking up" the "Progressive" shows in all of the major market. Eg. I work at Clear Channel's progressive station in L.A. from time to time. It's often impossible to pick up the signal after dark even in the parking lot, and from 3p to 8p (in the largest media market in the country, as the only commercial progressive station), they play informercials during the afternoon drive-time. About 20 feet down the hall from that station is Clear Channel's RW station. 50,000 watts, can be heard in about a dozen states, and it's the #1 station (not just talk station, but #1 radio station!) in all of Los Angeles. That #1 title is *incredibly* valuable to them for ad sales on that station. Now, I'll ask you, would YOU want to risk the incredibly profitable #1 status of that RW station by aggressively advertising for the Progressive station and risking taking listeners away from the RW station and, with it, it's "#1 Station in LA!" profitability? That would, of course, be stupid for Clear Channel if, as you say, they "would eat their young if there was profit in it". Therefore, the progressive station is not marketed, has almost no staff at all, and features not a single hour of locally produced programming. Now why would that be? If there were a profitable progressive talk show out there to be broadcast on 400 different stations I don't think Clear Channel would give a rats ass what their politics were. Again, you don't know the radio business. Add to all of that, of course, the nations RW corporations who join Clear Channel, and other RW syndicators in working to keep Progressives off the air. What, you don't know about that? Here's some help. A 2006 memo of nearly 100 major U.S. corporations instructing ABC that they will not allow their ads to be played on Air America shows that ABC stations featured: + http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2983

+ http://query.nytimes.com...3FF935A35752C1A9609C8B63 The list , totaling 90 advertisers, includes some of largest and most well-known corporations advertising in the U.S.: Wal-Mart, GE, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Bank of America, Fed-Ex, Visa, Allstate, McDonald's, Sony and Johnson & Johnson. The U.S. Postal Service and the U.S. Navy are also listed as advertisers who don't want their commercials to air on. But I guess McDonald's think progressive radio listeners don't buy hamburgers? Exxon Mobil thinks they don't drive? Or is there another reason they don't want to be heard on progressive talk shows? It's certainly not for money reasons, since they pay (essentially) "per listener", so they're not losing money by paying to advertise on those shows. Now why would corporate America have an interest in NOT supporting Progressive talk radio, I wonder? BTW, not long after the memo noted above was sent, Air America filed for bankruptcy protection. I'm telling ya Brad, just like I said yesterday, in a center right country Randi Rhodes ain't gonna make it in nationwide syndication. For proof, google Randi Rhodes. Whenever you feel like posting your evidence that we are "a center right country", I'll look forward to seeing it, and offering you actual evidence that you are wrong. Even though 24/7 RW talk radio and cable news enjoys misinforming you (and the rest of America) otherwise. And you are gullible enough, it seems, to have fallen for it (like the rest of America, or anybody who is brainwashed with false info 24/7 would be.)

COMMENT #25 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 1/14/2011 @ 3:31 pm PT...





In response to Joyce McCloy @ 10 above. Here are the correct links to my appearance on Allen Handelman's radio show on N. Carolina's FM Talk 101.1 WZTK this week: + Handelman Hour 2

+ Handelman Hour 3

COMMENT #26 [Permalink]

... WingnutSteve said on 1/14/2011 @ 3:58 pm PT...





http://www.gallup.com/po...-Ideological-Group.aspx# Gallup says it, the number of people who identify as moderate or conservative outnumber those who identify as liberal by nearly four times. I know, the polling is wrong because you disagree with it.. go figure

COMMENT #27 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 1/14/2011 @ 5:05 pm PT...





WingnutSteve @ 26? Oh? Fun with numbers? Whaddaya know, the number of those who self identify as moderate or liberal also outpaces number of those who identify as conservative. Of course, much of that could be due to fact that "conservative" actually has a definition (though it's definition is ignored by those in media and in office calling themselves "conservative") and "liberal" doesn't actually mean anything to my knowledge. But that said, those numbers have nothing to do with anything other than the labels those asked questions about it put on themselves. Now, go examine the specific positions on specific issues important to our country and see where the country actually is on them. Go check their positions on healthcare, medicare, social security, Afghanistan War, "Don't Ask Don't Tell", raising taxes on rich, gun control, abortion, corporate accountability, and the other major issues of the day, and then come let me know how "center Right" the country is.

COMMENT #28 [Permalink]

... WingnutSteve said on 1/14/2011 @ 6:41 pm PT...





Most Americans feel that stricter gun laws wouldn't have mattered in the AZ shooting and that the left wing rhetoric from people like you is just trying to make Republicans look bad: http://tinyurl.com/45o3sdj Most Americans don't favor stricter gun laws: http://tinyurl.com/6d2qsnu Most Americans oppose Obamacare: http://tinyurl.com/2gyx6hh Ignore the moderates (those in the center).. hell, the politicians do.. and you have about double the number of people who identify as conservative as those who identify as liberal, or progressive, or whatever the hell you want to call them.

COMMENT #29 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 1/14/2011 @ 10:06 pm PT...





WingnutSteve @ 28: Do you even bother to read the URLs you post here before you post them? Sigh... Let's run through your "evidence"... Most Americans feel that stricter gun laws wouldn't have mattered in the AZ shooting and that the left wing rhetoric from people like you is just trying to make Republicans look bad: http://tinyurl.com/45o3sdj Okay. Remember, your charge was that this was a "center Right" country. I challenged you above to take a look at the actual positions of the nation "on healthcare, medicare, social security, Afghanistan War, 'Don't Ask Don't Tell', raising taxes on rich, gun control, abortion, corporate accountability, and the other major issues of the day, and then come let me know how 'center Right' the country is." I'll presume you didn't get to the bulk of those, so let's just go with what you came up with so far. The poll you cite above does not look at any left/right positions, it looks at an issue in the news about whether respondents felt "heated language...was a factor influencing the AZ shooter to commit the attack". The poll also doesn't say anything about "left wing rhetoric from people like" me or anybody else, as you suggest. And on the question of whether such "heated rhetoric" has "gone to far", a majority of Americans feel it has (with "Rs and their supporters" slightly more guilty of that, in the opinions of those polled.) Still, that poll says nothing about a Right/Left view on a major policy position in this country. So we'll move on for the moment. Next, you said: Most Americans don't favor stricter gun laws: http://tinyurl.com/6d2qsnu Yeah. If I was you, I'd have worded it that way too! But what do the polls cited in the article you link to actually say? Gallup, October 2010 (long before AZ shooting, of course), found a plurality of Americans (44%) want tougher gun laws while 42% want them to stay the same and just 12% want them loosened. Presuming "tougher gun laws" is the "Left" position in this case, do the results here suggest this is a "center Right" nation, as you claim, or a "center Left" nation? Also cited in the same article you linked to is Gallup's October 2005 poll showing 57% wanted stricter gun laws and 35% wanted them to stay the same. Center Right? If so, how can you support that claim with the very numbers you presented?? Also cited in the same article, AP/Ipsol poll from April 2007 showing a plurality of 47% wanted stricter gun laws, 38% wanted to keep them the same. When do we get to the evidence supporting your "center Right" claim, amigo? Most Americans oppose Obamacare: http://tinyurl.com/2gyx6hh Again, confusing legislation with actual policy positions, you cite the December 2010 WaPo/ABC poll showing a slight majority (52%) opposing the Health care insurance bill. Of course, as I'm sure you know (right?) that poll only asked if people are for it or against it. It doesn't ask why those 52% might be against it (like I and most of the progressives I know largely were, for example). So what do we find in polls that actually bother to ask Americans more details on their opinions on that particular piece of legislation? Via Washington Post today as luck would have it, a new Marist poll [PDF] finding "More want health law expanded than fully repealed". Which one of the following comes closest to your opinion about what Congress should do with the 2010 health care law: Let it stand: 14

Change it so it does more: 35

Change it so it does less: 13

Repeal it completely: 30 More registered voters want the law expanded than fully repealed, with the latter category amounting to less than a third. A total of 49 percent want to let it stand or change it so it does more, versus 43 percent who want to scale it back or get rid of it entirely. Hmm. A plurality of 49% want the health care insurance bill as is, or want it to do more. While just 43% want "ObamaCare" to do less or be repealed. Again, that speaks only to a single piece of legislation, not the issue at large upon which your claim of ours being a "center Right" nation is built. But even that much is not supported in the polling evidence on that one bill. (There is much more I can show you about the country's overwhelming position that health care should be available to all and provided by the government is necessary.) Have we gotten to your evidence for the "center Right" thing yet? BTW, if you look at the actual WaPo/ABC Dec. 2010 poll you linked to, you'll find a whole lot of evidence suggesting your absolutely wrong about your "center Right" claim. But, of course, that's just one poll. I'll give you another shot at it if you'd like to try and make up for this embarrassing showing, before I show you some evidence for how incredibly wrong you actually are in charge. (I don't blame you for being wrong on this point, btw. As the entire point of this thread is how incredibly misinformed the US is thanks to our failed RW corporate media, I certainly understand how you'd be confused about reality.)

COMMENT #30 [Permalink]

... Larry Bergan said on 1/15/2011 @ 3:56 pm PT...





WingnutSteve & Tony: Just as another reminder of why Air America didn't fail because "the market decides" - which the right-wing tells us means that people who listen to the radio decide what programs stay on the public airwaves - but failed because of VERY BIG forces not controlled by the people: Here's another source for the ABC memo which helped bankrupt Air America Radio. Any thoughts WingnutSteve?

Tony?

COMMENT #31 [Permalink]

... wingnutsteve said on 1/15/2011 @ 5:35 pm PT...





If I were an Executive at Exxon, or Wells Fargo, or (insert evil corporation name here) __________, I wouldn't allow my advertising dollars to be spent on supporting the Al Franken show either, or any of the other shows on Air America. Twenty minutes of Al and his caustic wit talking trash about said corporation, cut to a commercial break... here's an Exxon ad. How hypocritical is it for the libtards on Air America to expect corporate support?

COMMENT #32 [Permalink]

... Larry Bergan said on 1/15/2011 @ 6:34 pm PT...





wingnutsteve: Is this wingnutsteve, or WingnutSteve? This darn internet can get so confusing at times.

COMMENT #33 [Permalink]

... Larry Bergan said on 1/15/2011 @ 6:37 pm PT...





Maybe we can all get together sometime at a town hall meeting and debate. The people without real names can wear bags over their heads.

COMMENT #34 [Permalink]

... wingnutsteve said on 1/15/2011 @ 7:10 pm PT...





I was chastised by someone (I think it was Kenneth Fingeret but not sure) to change my name because there was already a Steve here. And he was upset that a wingnut was using someones name. Since he, Brad, and Ernie were routinely calling me a wing nut I thought it fit.

COMMENT #35 [Permalink]

... Larry Bergan said on 1/15/2011 @ 7:26 pm PT...





Why do you keep changing the capitalization and boldness of certain letters in your name? Wouldn't it be less confusing to people reading your comments. Here we are going off on another subject entirely, but I don't even know if I'm talking to the same person who said corporations should control the discussion in America. Is it OK if we just have a discussion without all the distractions?

COMMENT #36 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 1/15/2011 @ 8:02 pm PT...





WingnutSteve @ 31 said: If I were an Executive at Exxon, or Wells Fargo, or (insert evil corporation name here) __________, I wouldn't allow my advertising dollars to be spent on supporting the Al Franken show either, or any of the other shows on Air America. a) Why not?

b) That's precisely my point, thank you for making it. It has nothing to do with whether the shows can compete in a free market, it has to do with whether corporations want them on air or not. And,

c) That's why our public airwaves are supposed to be regulated, to assure they serve the people who own them, and not the corporations who think that they do. Twenty minutes of Al and his caustic wit talking trash about said corporation, cut to a commercial break... here's an Exxon ad. How hypocritical is it for the libtards on Air America to expect corporate support? It's not "hypocritical" at all (and your use of "libtards" is appalling). Progressives have every right --- the same as Rightwingers do --- to compete in the market of ideas on our public airwaves. And, as someone who I'd like to believe is a legitimate conservative, or even just a legit Republican, I'd think you'd both the idea of competition and the need for legitimate debate in our nation. While I've never been particularly moved by the bulk of the positions of the Republican Party, I have been, for years, begging the Rs to keep their party out of the hands of the crazy extremists who have been holding it hostage and who have now taken it over completely.

COMMENT #37 [Permalink]

... WingnutSteve said on 1/15/2011 @ 11:53 pm PT...





Sometimes I log in from my work computer, sometimes from my laptop. I had never noticed the caps issue before, I think my name uses caps on the work computer and all lower case here. I've fixed it, my bad. I haven't changed topics at all Larry, you posted a link about the corporations and I responded to it. Please Larry, show me where I've said corporations should control the dialogue in America. Waitaminute, you can't. Nice baseless accusation there. Brad, it's a little disingenuous to expect support from a corporation which you regularly trash (to put it nicely).. And please stop with the sanctimonious bs, the word "teatard" gets tossed around here quite a bit and I've never seen you tell anyone that is appalling. Having said that, you're right and I won't use the term again. And finally, I agree that the airways should have quality progressive programming as well..

COMMENT #38 [Permalink]

... Larry Bergan said on 1/16/2011 @ 12:32 am PT...





WingnutSteve said: And finally, I agree that the airways should have quality progressive programming as well.. Honestly, thank you! Now maybe homeless veterans and people who've worked hard all their lives and don't have any health care - NOT PLANTS - will be able to debate George Wills on the TV and Limbaugh on the radio. It's going to be hard because we've wasted so much time pissing the whole world off instead of making real strides towards a livable future for those that have been born. Maybe it's impossible. we'll soon know. A giant leap for mankind - and nature - is in order. Let's hope!

COMMENT #39 [Permalink]

... Larry Bergan said on 1/16/2011 @ 9:44 am PT...





From "Take The Money and Run" "Hey, where did everybody go"? ~Woody Allen

COMMENT #40 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 1/16/2011 @ 10:57 am PT...





Finally, Wingnut Steve is right! I casually fling 'TEATARD' around here all the time. In fact, I coined the term. As such, 'LIBTARD' (while not nearly as clever for so many reasons i.e. 1.) doesn't rhyme with RETARD 2.) too hard to say 3.)hacky to transfer the same suffix "TARD" because you can't think of an original one)- shouldn't be off limits here, IMHO. LIBtards do, indeed, exist - annoying, yes. Armed and dangerous? Unlikely. I thought the BB rule was no PERSONAL ATTACKS on OTHER COMMENTERS, not no personal attacks on nebulous groups of fluid nations that don't really need - or are way beyond - defending.

COMMENT #41 [Permalink]

... Larry Bergan said on 1/16/2011 @ 12:57 pm PT...





Anybody who can moderate this mess, has my vote! I only wish I had the time.

COMMENT #42 [Permalink]

... WingnutSteve said on 1/16/2011 @ 7:53 pm PT...





To the rescue comes Jeannie Dean! Because I assume what Brad finds appalling is my use of "tard" and not the fact that I belittled left wingers. And Brad simply ignores the use of "tard" until the certifiable wingnut says it, at which point it becomes "appalling". And truth be told I think it is appalling so I gotta give props to Jeannie for being much more clever in making light of mentally handicapped persons than I am. So let me get this straight Brad, it's ok to say teatard, but not to say libtard. It's ok for Assange to post information obtained under less than admirable means, it's not ok for Breitbart to do the same. You scold me (a couple weeks ago) for not supporting the rule of law, but when it comes to Assange's soon to be published online data from a BofA execs stolen hard drive you say you're willing to accept that (same thread). Consistency is not one of your qualities sir.

COMMENT #43 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 1/17/2011 @ 12:29 am PT...





Man-o-man, WingNut.

You really don't know when to stay down on the mat, do you? Can't even show enough restraint to not blow a graceful assist... "And truth be told I think it is appalling so I gotta give props to Jeannie for being much more clever in making light of mentally handicapped persons than I am." 1.) Thanks! I've had lots of extra practice on Sarah Palin. 2.) So glad to hear you find your own ramblings as appalling (and distasteful) as the rest of us. "It's ok for Assange to post information obtained under less than admirable means, it's not ok for Breitbart to do the same." ...(See #2) "Consistency is not one of your qualities sir." --'Hey, Kettle! Pot thinks you're black!' That's some bold irony, WNS, even from you. Besides, I find Brad incredibly consistent - especially lately as he's consistently schooling you. Guess you don't realize that tending to your bruised logic and managing your misinformation is a consistent, full time job. With no benny's. ...So, how did it feel to be right about one dumb thing for a second or two?

COMMENT #44 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 1/17/2011 @ 1:02 pm PT...





Jeannie Dean said @ 40: I thought the BB rule was no PERSONAL ATTACKS on OTHER COMMENTERS, not no personal attacks on nebulous groups of fluid nations that don't really need - or are way beyond - defending. That is correct.

COMMENT #45 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 1/17/2011 @ 1:30 pm PT...





WingnutSteve @ 42 tried again with: So let me get this straight Brad, it's ok to say teatard, but not to say libtard. I don't believe I said it was "ok" to say either. But, as JD points out, the use of such epithets is not subject to our few commenting rules unless they are used against another commenter as a personal attack. Use of such epithets, however, may be subject to the judgments (either for or against), by anyone here. It's ok for Assange to post information obtained under less than admirable means, it's not ok for Breitbart to do the same. Absolutely silly, strawman, red-herring, phony argument from top to bottom. Breitbart/O'Keefe allegedly and apparently obtained information by illegal means. They then went about changing that information to make it appear as if it was something that it decidedly was not. They then went about lying about it publicly. To my knowledge, neither WikiLeaks nor Assange has done anything even remotely like it. Feel free to show otherwise. (Even as I'm already waiting for you to demonstrate evidence for your unsubstantiated claim that the US is a "center Right" nation, and for your other more serious, unsubstantiated claim that I've "tried and convicted a news network, former VP candidate, and millions of people of complicity in the senseless brutality [of the AZ shootings]. Not based on any truth or knowledge". Backing up very serious charges with any evidence whatsoever to support them is not one of your qualities, sir. You scold me (a couple weeks ago) for not supporting the rule of law, but when it comes to Assange's soon to be published online data from a BofA execs stolen hard drive you say you're willing to accept that (same thread). What is your evidence of the very serious charge that the information comes from an "execs stolen hard drive"??? What is your evidence that it wasn't the executive himself, for example, who turned over the information, as we have seen this weekend in this story? I asked you about that in that thread, you did not respond to it (as is your usual M.O. it seems). And --- as we discussed in that same thread --- where stolen documents show evidence of crimes such as fraud, etc., such theft is often regarded not as a crime, but as whistleblowing (as per the rule of law). Either way, however, the publication of that information, so long as the publishers did not commit any crimes in obtaining it, nor purposely use it to falsely slader/libel someone, is absolutely not against any rule of law (at least in this nation --- perhaps you prefer Communist China?) So, to recap: Breitbart/O'Keefe are alleged to have broken the law, dishonestly presented the information they broke the law to obtain, then lied about it over and again to the public. Assange/WikiLeaks: Accused of breaking absolutely no laws, nor of lying about anything. Consistency is not one of your qualities sir. I await your evidence for that. In the meantime, Reality-based and/or evidence-based arguments are not one of your qualities, sir. Want to try again? We've got plenty of rakes around here for you to continue stepping on if you like. But, instead, I continue to hope you'll be smart enough to reconsider the misinformation you've long confused for "reality" before making yourself look unnecessarily silly by posting it here instead. I continue to think you're better than that. (Though, I admit, the evidence for that case seems to be getting thinner and thinner with each of your subsequent comments here.)

COMMENT #46 [Permalink]

... Tony said on 1/17/2011 @ 10:25 pm PT...





I guess treason isn't enough of a crime to give you reason to disown Assange? Geez, you libtards are exhausting. Back to more hours and hours of Rush and Beck rerun clips on youtube...

COMMENT #47 [Permalink]

... WingnutSteve said on 1/18/2011 @ 10:55 am PT...





uhhhhhh, I thought treason was a crime against your own country. Assange isn't American, good luck with the treason angle.

COMMENT #48 [Permalink]

... DJ said on 1/18/2011 @ 6:49 pm PT...





Today again Wolf Blitzer repeatedly asked Dupnik to substantiate his claims with facts, and the sheriff could not do it. He only said he knows it from his 52 years of law enforcement. Pretty irresponsible for the sheriff of a heavily populated area. Pretty wreckless. The vitriol on this blog is pretty bad though.

COMMENT #49 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 1/18/2011 @ 7:18 pm PT...





DJ - I didn't see the segment you mention, nor did you link to it, so you'll pardon me if I dont simply take your word for it. That said, if you are actually seeking evidence to back up Dupnik's comments, being in Arizona yourself, you shouldn't need to look very far. But if you're having trouble finding such evidence for some bizarre reason, I'm happy to help. You can start by examining the disturbing timeline of the growing violence in AZ right here: http://AltoArizona.com Hope that helps ya.

COMMENT #50 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 1/19/2011 @ 7:39 am PT...

