Big Eddie is pissed off. "It's clear, he says, "that the Christian hard right is buying up the signals of progressive stations to get liberals off the air." He says in the next few years, Christian broadcasters will increase their AM station ownership to the tune of $500 million.
Ed Schultz, (KPTK m-f,12-3p) the impassioned red-sounding blue talker is the No. 1 rated liberal talker in the country. He kicks Sean Hannity's ass in Denver, Portland, San Diego, Albuquerque, Miami, Madison, Fargo, and Duluth. In just 29 months of syndication, he's on 100 stations; beamed down from Sirius, and XM satellites and carried on Armed Forces Radio.
He's number one liberal talker in Seattle. In his time slot, he edges out not only the "Cheap Lunch Limbaugh," Sean Hannity (KVI, m-f, 12-3) but also passes Dori Monson, (KIRO) and Michael Medved (KTTH) by a mile or two.
The Christian message doesn't sell in the popular marketplace; plus conservatives are on the ropes in the post-Bush era. That's why they're resorting to strategic high-rolling to stifle the opposition, and preserve conservative dominance of the radio, if not increase it.
They're not real happy with the shock-jocks, or the sex advisers either- look out Dr. Drew, and Bubba the Love Sponge.
The new censorship is about ownership. Schultz says Christian stations are buying up the AM band to keep liberal talkers from getting too popular. He points to stations in Charleston, SC, Missoula, MT, and Phoenix, AZ.
Air America Phoenix, (KXXT) went from an unrated, unprofitable AM radio station to tying for 3rd place out of 25 AM stations in Phoenix, becoming profitable in less than a year. They did it by airing liberals- Jones Radio's Schultz and Stephanie Miller, AAR's line-up of Al Franken, Mike Malloy, and Randi Rhodes.
In February, progressive radio was silenced in Phoenix after KXXT was bought by Denver religious broadcasters, Communicom.
Was this a market decision? Sure doesn't look like it- not only was the progressive format kicking ratings ass, the Jesus market in Phoenix was already glutted with 7 Christian stations. "You won't find 8 rock stations in Phoenix, you can't find 8 sports talk stations," says Schultz, "Would it work to have 8 progressive stations? Of course not."
The now-former GM Bob Christy wrote listeners: "[They bought] KXXT to silence liberal voices in the Phoenix market. Call me a tin foil hatter. Air America Phoenix became profitable in only nine months and they had plenty of advertisers lined up. In its place will be yet another money-losing religious station of which we have seven already. Does this make good business sense? Or does it make better political sense?"
Or behold the plight of Ed Schultz on the powerful Mormon-owned KSL in Salt Lake City, which covers virtually all of the West after dark. After only two weeks on the air, a few protesters showed up at the door of the station, and Schultz was replaced by the anally-stressed Portland neocon, Lars Larson.
Faith-based reactionary colossus, Salem Broadcasting is the second fastest growing radio broadcaster in the country, and third largest as to number of stations in large markets.
Former KIRO talk host, Allan Prell recently made a market-by-market study and found that Salem's audience is minuscule to negligible. The percentage of the audience listening to the Salem Radio Network talk shows in the top twenty-one markets is O.36%- less than a half of one percent.
Stations with these small numbers can't effect much influence, you'd think. But shutting down liberal talkers by buying them out is as effective a method of censorship as we've ever seen.
Most radio stations in America are owned by a few corporations- all Seattle's major stations are owned by national giants like Clear Channel, Entercom, Sandusky, and CBS Radio. The exceptions are a few (KVI, KOMO, KPLZ) owned by the local Fisher Broadcasting, and some Christian entities.
(This is old news, of course. These corporations make programming decisions allegedly by market surveys, not by ideology. Clear Channel, excoriated by the left, is also the largest (though not large enough) distributor of Air America. That's for no other reason than because they decided there's business potential in progressive talk. The institutional bias to conservative talkers reflects inertia, and a hearkening to a safe status quo that's typical in most business arenas. It's from the tremendous success of Rush Limbaugh who is credited with saving not only talk radio but AM radio in general. It's changing slowly, but few programming directors dare stray from Big Pants' time-tested conservative formula performed by his clones all over the dial).
Christian broadcasting is different. They love profits- o yeah- but they're guided by a Higher Calling.
Salem’s founders, Stuart Epperson and Edward Atsinger III, both Bob Jones University grads admittedly have more than a business plan in mind. Theirs is a Christian mission which has ridden the evangelical tsunami and has become a force in the national political scene. “When you secularize a culture,” Epperson told Mother Jones Magazine,“you lose your moral compass.”
Their goal is to spread the word of the Lord and offer an alternative to what they say is the threat of moral decay come of "creeping secularism."
A mission statement in Salem’s 2003 annual report reads: “One mended marriage. One regained childhood. One restored faith. One broadcast at a time.”
Religious broadcasters eschewed political talk for years; bound by the fairness doctrine, an FCC rule requiring that broadcasters give equal time to political opponents. The last thing they wanted was give equal airtime to liberals advocating abortion and gay sex.
But after the rule was dropped, a casualty to Reagan-era deregulation in 1987; and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed lifting the limits on the number of radio stations that may be commonly owned, religious broadcasters were free from any restrictions on unfairness.
The way most Christian radio makes money doesn't depend on ratings, anyway. It's made on brokered time sold to the evangelists, missionaries, preachers, faith-based and other flacks.
They go for who Prell calls the "Payers for Prayers." Evangelists, and other flacks pay to get their religious infomercials (or "ministries" ) on the radio. They don’t need a huge audience, just enough gullible people (many elderly) who put trust their trust in their friendly local Christian radio station- and buy the Christ-mongers' books, tapes, CD's and DVD's, not to mention the "free will offerings" the prayer cloths, the crucifixion snow-globes, or
...a sweet Madonna,
trimmed in rhinestone sittin' on a
pedestal of abalone shell..."*
The audience is so small, an ad agency or large advertiser wouldn’t be around long if they devoted a major part of their ad budget to them.
Everything is for sale- especially in media. Especially radio stations. So as long as they have the dough,(and they do) theocratic capitalists can buy up big chunks of any market. And that's what they're doing, says Schultz.
And as this if-you-can't-beat-'em-buy-'em crowd keeps at it, there's no way a fledgling start-up like AAR or even a proven talker like Schultz is going to make it in this phony "free market," if they're not Washed In The Blood.
Schultz says there are about 450 conservative talkers around the country, and only about 40 progressives. About 10%, he says, of the approximately 43,000 hours per week of time spent listening to talk radio is progressive.
"This is conservative push-back at the success of me and other liberal talkers- it's about controlling the airwaves" he says. "Radio ownership is a key free speech issue, and we deserve to hear about this in the Congress."
~~
* "Plastic Jesus" lyrics by George Cromarty and Ed Rush
Let me preface this by saying that I consider myself a liberal and an Ed Schultz fan. If conservative Christians are buying liberal radio stations, then oh well. Such is capitalism. This isn't an example of a phony free market. It's a real free market. Liberals would buy up conservative stations if they had the chance, so the bellyaching sounds disingenuous, IMHO. These deep pockets may spread themselves too thin, at which time these stations may well be sold back to less conservative interests. I for one am not terribly concerned.
Posted by: Anthony | May 15, 2006 at 12:43 AM
Lars Larson is the anti-christ
Posted by: sparky | May 15, 2006 at 05:54 AM
Except is it really capitolisim if I'm underwriting their tax exemption? Those preachers that are buying airtime that would normaly be done through advertisement and the usual things on a mainstream station have an advantage if they don't have a tax burden so they have more money to purchase time and then keep those stations in the hands of Christians. Doesn't seem so even to me.
Robinz
Posted by: robinz | May 15, 2006 at 06:36 AM
Remember the Reader's Digest scams where elderly people were buying, buying and buying in the hope of winning? That's what Christian programming does - appeal to the desire for a better hereafter by programming to the most vulnerable.
Yes, there is a place for government regulation. The Fourth Estate was given Constitutional protection because the Founding Fathers understood the need for an educated electorate. And by insisting on a separation of church and state, the Founding Fathers were also trying to prevent just the sort of take-over we are currently seeing.
Anybody who thinks this is just capitalism at work isn't looking very hard. Capitalism by itself will kill democracy. Regulated capitalsim is a must. I always thought that while we were a capitalist nation, we were first a democracy. I guess I was wrong.
While I guess in radio it is best to sell when profitable . . . it really is a shame.
Posted by: joanie | May 15, 2006 at 08:11 AM
(Spell-check, Bla'M: It IS Schultz with a c.)
Posted by: Fremont | May 15, 2006 at 09:17 AM
Also, when did rules become wrong? We have rules of behavior in school and at home. The games we play recreationally or professionally have rules. As employees we observe rules in the workplace. Without rules, chaos, anarchy emerges and the ability to cooperate goes out the window.
So, why do people think "unbridled" capitalism will work? Regulation is key to the success of any social or economic process.
Since I'm having this fascinating conversation with myself, perhaps it is not so fascinating! But, I can't seem to let go of the notion that Anthony thinks everything will right itself if you leave it alone. I think that is a recipe for disaster . . . and god knows, that's where we seem to be heading.
BTW, the fact the "Bubba" is beating his competition shows how weak is the competition or how hungry people are for liberal talk . . .
Posted by: joanie | May 15, 2006 at 12:15 PM
One other error - Stephanie Miller is not one of the Air America fold...
Posted by: TJ | May 15, 2006 at 12:35 PM
As they say, a pestering sister's a festering blister- I've replaced the recalcitrant c's and corrected the Stephanie Miller error- she is, indeed, another of the Jones stable.
Posted by: blathering michael | May 15, 2006 at 12:52 PM
Isn't pure capitalism similar to nature?
Animals will breed as mush as possible, and their population will increase until their habitat is unable to sustain their numbers, at which point they die off again. The process is a bell curve and it comes and goes in waves, and sometimes animals don't rebound on the dip in the curve and they become extinct.
Those animals are only thinking about the current generation, they aren't rationing out for future generations.
Isn't the same trend in play with oil consumption? Pure capitalism values money over future concerns. We need to regulate our rate of consumption unless we want to become another biological statistic in the animal kingdom.
Animals might not go extinct if they had their own government to regulate their behavior. Aren't we as humans so lucky?
Posted by: Andrew | May 15, 2006 at 02:19 PM
No, I don't think so. I think it takes something cataclysmic (sp?) to cause a species to go extinct . . . or the intrusion of something unnatural like humans.
That is why it is called the balance of nature. When a species gets overpopulated, food sources become scarce and the species loses population. The fittest survive, food resources increase, the population grows again. There is a natural system of checks and balances.
In capitalism, powerful labor unions checked the corruption and abuse of employers. In a market that is cornered so to speak - isolated geographically - that works. But, since we are now on a global playing field, it seems like the old rules don't apply anymore.
If anyone watched 60 minutes on Sunday, they told the story of an organizer who left the AFL-CIO and is now organizing service workers. It was a major hit for the AFL-CIO because they lost a lot of money. His union of cleaners - yes, janitors, make $53,000 a year with overtime. When asked why he doesn't do it for the manufacturing sector, he said that train had left the station. You can't get jobs back that are gone. But, he sure can try to help those that are still here and have to stay here.
He said he's putting the union dues to work rather than buying big cars and big dinners for himself and union management. God Bless him!
Since we are all going to be servants and beggers in the new economy, we'll need some strong organizers to keep us out of poverty!
Posted by: joanie | May 15, 2006 at 03:45 PM
RE: Big Ed / Randi Rhodes feud:
today on his program, Ed talked about "certain people who are camera hogs"..thinly veiled reference to Randi...Randi talked about "fake broadcasters" and mentioned the two conservatives, but she never even acknowledged that Ed was on the show with her...lol
Posted by: sparky | May 15, 2006 at 04:37 PM
Another AA Conspiracy theory - yawn. Just like if the Dems get back control of Federal power - they will pass the Fairness Doctrine to take the Conservative talkers off of the air.
The later is more believable, because the far left leadership only believes in the 1st Amendment/free speech when its their speech and there are numerous examples - Google it if you have doubts. However, there are some signs that Rove and neo-Cons operate under that premise too - in all "fairness".
Posted by: KS | May 15, 2006 at 06:56 PM
""Air America Phoenix, (KXXT) went from an unrated, unprofitable AM radio station to tying for 3rd place out of 25 AM stations in Phoenix,""
radioandrecords.com has KXXTs highest rating in '05 as a 1.5 nowhere near 3rd place.
Posted by: Helmut Gutter | May 15, 2006 at 07:27 PM
Google what, Klueless?
Rove and neo-Cons operate under what premise?
What are you talking about?
And just what is unfair about a Fairness Doctrine? Are you afraid you might be forced to hear both sides for a change?
Posted by: joanie | May 15, 2006 at 07:27 PM
""Allan Prell recently made a market-by-market study and found that Salem's audience is minuscule to negligible.""
Good to see Allan has a new hobby. Is the NYC Air America station beating the caribbean music station it replaced yet?
Posted by: Helmut Gutter | May 15, 2006 at 07:30 PM
Sparky, I'm listening to Randi now and she's driving me crazy . . . but some of it is funny, too. I'm one of those who thinks she would make more points if she'd take a breath now and then. I know she means well, but I find it hard to stick with her for long. She barely listens to her own callers and can't wait to cut them off.
Posted by: joanie | May 15, 2006 at 07:33 PM
Having said all that, she's got a great show going right now with Greg Palast!
Posted by: joanie | May 15, 2006 at 07:49 PM
"Google what, Klueless? The First amendment
Rove and neo-Cons operate under what premise?"
Ignoring the first amendment, when the opposition engages them in debate - by trying to shout them down or have them evicted from the premises by their thugs. Apply that to the far left and the Neo-Cons. The Fairness doctrine is not necessary now as long as Air America stays on the air- but if you go back & read the fine print about the Fairness doctrine, it would cause some - not all conservative talkers to go off of the air. Now, connect the dots & don't pretend to be clueless. Whatever... As for, Randi Rhodes she has at least one oar out of the water ! She would have more credibility is she were less hysterical and didn't convolute the facts so much.
Posted by: KS | May 15, 2006 at 08:33 PM
convoluting facts...lol
kind of like ..oh lets see...Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Anyone On Fox...you mean like that?
Posted by: sparky | May 15, 2006 at 08:47 PM
I don't know if she cuts them off intentionally, Stephanie Miller only has them on long enough to make their point and then move on. I called Hartmann's show once and was on hold for an hour so any national show worth their salt has lines jammed and has to process them quickly. I thought Randi handled her own, quite well on Larry King and because of the format with 2 creepy cons, she had to engage them the way she did. Ed did ok, but Randi mopped the floor with Prager and the 24 yr old Bob Ferguson. I guess if a smart, I'm mad as hell woman engages two lackys, shes considered "hysterical" and O Lielly is just 'funnin' when he says San Francisco should be destroyed in the next earthquake.
Posted by: chris | May 15, 2006 at 09:02 PM
"San Francisco should be destroyed in the next earthquake."
Posted by: chris | May 15, 2006 at 09:02 PM
I love how all you liberals jump all over any off color statement made by a conservative but when one of your own makes one about a liberal city like San Fransisco no less none of you SAY A WORD. The hipocracy of all of you is so discusting that I can hardly even read this garbage. Personally, I think the city should be destroyed by the next big one and the entire city of sin can be sucked up into the deps from which it sprang but if I say it your all going to be all over me so fast its so hipocritical, thats what it is.
Posted by: RedRachel | May 15, 2006 at 09:33 PM
Totally agree that Randi can hold her own with anybody . . . but, when she has the microphone to herself 80-90% of the time, I wish she'd let her callers finish their points before she jumps in.
I heard on her show tonight some clips from the Prager/Ferguson show and she did very well for herself. She said that when Prager was talking off-air, he was going on with the host about how drunk everyone gets on Air Force One!
Geez, on NPR right now a guest is demonstrating how George Bush is actually doing things legally every step of the way - he is describing it as being a "conservative" way of doing business. He is debating with another attorney. Both of them sound reasonable - which is par for the course for NPR. It is a good debate even though the thought that Bush could be on the legal side of the Constitution is a little scary to me.
Posted by: joanie | May 15, 2006 at 09:47 PM
" 'Open Source' with Chris Lydon - can podcast here if interested. Makes a case that Pres is working inside the law. Uncertain how much of it is just talking points but a well-monitored debate nevertheless."
Posted by: joanie | May 15, 2006 at 10:47 PM
Surely Lou Pate has moved out of Seattle by now for San Diego. He told us that our despicable "suckhole" of a city was so loathsome that he couldn't stand one more day here.Don't tell me he's still coming into KIRO studios to do his fillin work for other stations. Maybe his little group of fawning sycophants who tried unsuccessfully to convince us Pate was a nice guy some months back can fill us in on his status. If he's still here, we've got one of the world's biggest phonies on our hands.
Posted by: Tommy008 | May 16, 2006 at 04:06 AM
What was that hair style Ferguson had? 1971? I didn't hear what Prager had to say off the air, but I don't doubt it. They are all that's left of Bush' kool-aid supporters. Most of the conservatives are mad at Bush over sending unarmed troops to do what at the border. Bush keeps stepping in the bucket of paint,it is like he wants his side to fail...
Posted by: chris | May 16, 2006 at 07:03 AM
He seems to be making all the wrong moves but I'll believe he's in trouble only when I see a democratic Congress . . . he's a bully and sometimes bullies are hard to get rid of!
Posted by: joanie | May 16, 2006 at 07:38 AM
Fergusons hairstyle was pre 1971. I think he does it that way to hide the horns coming out of his forehead.
Posted by: JoAnne | May 16, 2006 at 08:16 PM
If the Democrats win the House, they will attempt to first censure, then impeach Bush - while in the process, the wheels of Government grinds to a standstill. The real underlying reason that the Dems would be out to impeach him is REVENGE, for how the Republicans embarrassed Clinton when he was president. I didn't think what the Republicans did to Clinton was right, so if the Dems win the House and go forward with the plan - two wrongs don't make a right. Actually, in the long run - it would probably be better that they didn't try it - because they will look as pathetic as the Republicans did in 1998 with Clinton and that will work against them in 2008 - but hey, this is America - so knock your socks off Democrats - the party of double standards !
Posted by: KS | May 16, 2006 at 08:19 PM
Randi Rhodes is such friggin whiner - she has diarrhea of the mouth - she gets on a roll, but blathers the same old partisan crap that liberals love to eat up, although I am no fan of Bush - she's a kool aid drinker on the left and spews a good line of bullcrap. Dennis Prager has more class and is somewhat of a kool aid drinker on the right/I don't agree with his admiration of the President - he does use more salient facts in his debate and unlike her displayed manners on the air & off the air- who gives a rat's butt ?
Posted by: KS | May 16, 2006 at 08:28 PM
Well, another mural painted by Klueless!
Posted by: joanie | May 16, 2006 at 08:56 PM
Where does Prager use "salient" facts?
Posted by: chris | May 16, 2006 at 09:46 PM
On our progressive KOPT in Eugene, of the national talkers, Schulz and Miller are the best imo. Franken's good, but talks too slow for radio (a friend made the point and after listening again, I hafta agree.
Rachel Maddow and Mark O'Reilly are okay.O'Reilly was better paired with Marc Maron, though.
Rhodes sells well in NY so will last for that mkt alone. But Mike Malloy? Bleah! Janeane Garofalo/Sam Seder? I like Janeane, but she's just not right for radio.
I just wish Miller was on the early evening slot, as I bet she'd compete better in the ratings if everyone wasn't watching TV.
Thom Hartmann's good, but we don't get him down here. Jerry Springer barely passes.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | May 16, 2006 at 09:56 PM
Joanie - your attempt to dialogue is underwhelming. Clueless is in the eye of the beholder is profound in someone else's eye - your smugness is showing. Have a nice day..
Posted by: KS | May 16, 2006 at 10:12 PM
Agreed, Kevin!
I love stephanie miller's snarky humor...
Posted by: sparky | May 16, 2006 at 10:15 PM
I think Stephanie is just right where she is - she has that early-morning cheerfulness that helps start the day on a positive note.
Love Malloy and like Sam Seder a lot. When he filled in for Franken, I got hooked on him. But, don't care for Garafalo so don't listen much.
Regarding slow-talkin' Al, I love that! Thom Hartmann satisfies my need for fast talkers . . .
Hey, Klueless, hard to dialogue with guys who don't have the facts. . . and don't want to know them. So, keep on blathering . . .
Posted by: joanie | May 16, 2006 at 11:06 PM
The Chatham Hill Foundation just bought KXEB, the Air America outlet in Dallas, from Border Media Partners. The Station goes ALL CATHOLIC ALL THE TIME OCT 1. AIR AMERICA GAGGED 1 MONTH BEFORE THE ALL IMPORTANT MID TERM ELECTION.
This foundation is the one which funded the movie Hollywood vs Relgion. There are ties to Dr. James Dobson.
Oh the other side, there is Border Media Partners. They are headed up by Thomas Castro, an hispanic radio entrapeneur who says he is a Democrat. His company is funded by, among others, a special minority investment fund offered by Goldman Sachs. They are not Democrats.
It appears to me that the station sold for way over market value, and BMP made a hefty profit on the deal.
The bottom line, big money trumps conscience.
It is a God Damn shame.
It really is class warfare here. The wealthy are using the naive religious, to maintain their stranglehold on the US Government. They will do whatever it takes to hang on to power, especially on this election. Rove knows that if there is a shift of power in congress, there will be consequences for the current administration beyond just losing the election. The protection they have enjoyed by controlling the House and Senate will be gone, and the pursuit of Impeachment and Prosecution will follow. This is what is at stake.
Posted by: rob wrinkle | September 25, 2006 at 08:59 AM
You know, Rob Wrinkle, I'm beginning to think that even if the Dems win a place in government - and that's not certain - they won't have what it takes to undo all that the right has done. Esp. since they, too, are in the pockets of big money . . . except for McDermott and Kucinich.
I'm waiting for democracy to rear its head in the streets and violence may be on the menu.
I'm quite hopeless . . .
Posted by: joanie | September 25, 2006 at 10:10 PM
Joanie, do you know the purchase price that they bought KXEB for? Some stations go for more than $50 mil in a Dallas-sized market. I haven't seen any figures named & am VERY CURIOUS how much these people paid.
Posted by: Jane Black | October 09, 2006 at 03:12 PM