take your answer off the air...

  • HorsesAss.Org: the straight poop on WA politics & the press
    progressive brilliance from the guy who pointed out Tim Eyman's nascent horse's-assedness
  • Talker's Magazine
    The quirky talk radio trade mag. Check the Talk Radio Research Project- it's not very scientific, but places on the top 15 talkers list (scroll down to Talk Radio Audiences By Size)) are as hotly contested as Emmys (and mean just about as much).
  • The Advocate
    No, not THAT Advocate... it's the Northwest Progressive Institute's Official Blog.
  • Media Matters
    Documentation of right-wing media in video, audio and text.
  • Orcinus
    home of David Neiwert, freelance investigative journalist and author who writes extensively about far-right hate groups
  • Hominid Views
    "People, politics, science, and whatnot" Darryl is a statistician who fights imperialism with empiricism, gives good links and wry commentary.
  • Jesus' General
    An 11 on the Manly Scale of Absolute Gender, a 12 on the Heavenly Scale of the 10 Commandments and a 6 on the earthly scale of the Immaculately Groomed.
  • Howie in Seattle
    Howie Martin is the Abe Linkin' of progressive Seattle.
  • Streaming Radio Guide
    Hellishly long (5795!) list of radio streaming, steaming on the Internets.
  • The Naked Loon
    News satire -- The Onion in the Seattle petunia patch.
  • Irrational Public Radio
    "informs, challenges, soothes and/or berates, and does so with a pleasing vocal cadence and unmatched enunciation. When you listen to IPR, integrity washes over you like lava, with the pleasing familiarity of a medium-roast coffee and a sensible muffin."
  • The Maddow Blog
    Here's the hyper-interactive La Raych of MSNBC. daily show-vids, freakishly geeky research, and classy graphics.
  • Northwest Broadcasters
    The AM, FM, TV and digital broadcasters of Northwest Washington, USA and Southwest British Columbia, Canada. From Kelso, WA to the northern tip of Vancouver Island, BC - call letters, formats, slogans, networks, technical data, and transmitter maps. Plus "recent" news.
  • News Corpse
    The Internet's chronicle of media decay.
  • The Moderate Voice
    The voice of reason in the age of Obama, and the politics of the far-middle.
  • News Hounds
    Dogged dogging of Fox News by a team who seems to watch every minute of the cable channel so you don't have to.
  • HistoryLink
    Fun to read and free encyclopedia of Washington State history. Founded by the late Walt Crowley, it's an indispensable tool and entertainment source for history wonks and surfers alike.

right-wing blogs we like

  • The Reagan Wing
    Hearin lies the real heart of Washington State Republicans. Doug Parris runs this red-meat social conservative group site which bars no holds when it comes to saying who they are and who they're not; what they believe and what they don't; who their friends are and where the rest of the Republicans can go. Well-written, and flaming.
  • Orbusmax
    inexhaustible Drudgery of NW conservative news
  • The Radio Equalizer
    prolific former Seattle KVI, KIRO talk host speaks authoritatively about radio.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 02/2005

statcounter

« Caytie, Caytie, Caytie... | Main | Father's day, 2006: JACK C. HOOD 1919-1992 »

June 16, 2006

Comments

sparky

Darcy Burner is SMART..she is a great candidate!
I will be listening to her on Goldy's show.

KS

The following article is an essay on political correctness, which is interrelated with alot of stuff.
I anticipate that some will try and repudiate this essay and others will ask what is the point (which should be evident if you can read). It appears to be thoroughly researched and well documented;

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/06/political-correctness-revenge-of.html

 Joanie

Mark Wilson was on Mike Malloy the other night. I liked what I heard. Wonder if Goldy will have him on sometime. Don't know how Goldy feels about Wilson taking on Cantwell. Some on the left are afraid of splitting the democratic vote and losing altogether. I'm not. I want to hear from all of them. Then, I'll decide.

Also, nice that Goldy is featuring some bloggers. You guys and girls are an interesting lot!

Janet S

Goldy was all over KVI for campaigning for an iniative. So, now that he has a platform (obscure as it is), he is doing the exact same thing with Darcy.

Does this count as a campaign contribution? Doesn't he have to offer equal time to Reichert?

I'd feel really bad if goldy got in trouble.

Fremont

David Goldstein: When are you going to have Bla'M on your show? Inquiring fans want to know...

sparky

Im sure you would, Janet. That's why you know the difference between actively campaigning for
an initiative and interviewing someone who is running for office.

Janet S

Yes, sparky, you are right.

An interview would be conducted by someone impartial, with an attempt to have both sides. A campaign event is conducted by someone who is actively raising money for the candidate on his blog, and regularly writes odes of praise to the lovely darcy.

sparky

President Reagan disagreed with you on that thing about representing both sides...so he did away with it.

Knowing Goldy, he would most likely be quite pleased to ask Riechert why he supports Bushie's ideas...

gusto and poor

Hey janet, did you figure this out after watching FOX News for all these years? Ya know, you wouldn't be so crazy if you didn't drink horse piss.

Janet S

sparky and the other guy - are you denying that goldy is actively raising money for darcy? he is a one-stop ad campaign for her, writing stories on KOS and huffpuff, as well as his website.

I find it funny that your answers to me degenerates into the absurd.

joanie

Janet, the fairness doctrine was not absurd.

sparky

What is absurd is that Fox News uses the term "Fair and Balanced, when both Reagan and Bush have prevented passage of the Fairness Doctrine.
In the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan vetoed the legislation, and there were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Poppy Bush administration. He vetoed it as well.
So, when Hannity has Hillary on his show, let me know.

Janet S

Joanie - please explain how the fairness doctrine was a move toward free speech. If I recall, it was ended because its intent was regulate the media. The airwaves are limited, but that doesn't mean we throw out freedom of speech.

Yes, the fairness doctrine was absurd. When it was thrown out, radio was revived and remains an outpost of open debate. If you don't like it, support your local liberal station, or start your own. Regulating out the other side is hardly a sign of freedom.

joanie

A fairness doctrine simply demands that peoples' airwaves emit both sides of issues and arguments. I don't understand your bringing up the issue of free speech? A fairness doctrine does not impede free speech. It amplifies free speech. It keeps the air waves open for all speakers.

Please explain to me how speech got freer by becoming less diverse, taken over by fewer conglomerates, and requiring townspeople to become entrepreneurs if they want to hear both sides of an issue?

Janet S

There air waves are open to broadcast what their audiences want. The best talk radio is when both sides of a debate are going at it, not by yelling, but by presenting sound argument.

Air america hasn't found a foothold, not because of the lack of a fairness doctrine, but because they voice one opinion and ridicule the other side. This has resulted in boring radio and lack of listeners both right and left.

I realize that you don't like the idea that speech is a commercial medium. Forcing programming on stations will just turn off the audience, and kill the medium.

The newspapers in this town are repesentative of your viewpoint. There isn't much out there for the right. Funny, though, that both papers are losing circulation. Rail all you want about Fox News. It is kind of funny that one station out of all those out there moves ever so slightly to the right, and you start screaming. The fairness doctrine is just a sham to silence the other side.

PugetSound

Spot on JanetS!!!
The fairness doctrine is actually self defeating. How so? Well, if a broadcaster inspires passion by covering a controversial issue, she/he will receive an avalanche of complaints alleging a fairness violation. Even if the complaints are invalid, the broadcaster is subject to costs of time, energy, and legal fees in order to answer the complaints. Often times the answer becomes avoid the problem.

Moreover, who will decide what is Fair? I'm sure that Joanie and Red Rachel would have different opinions as to what was Fair. Perhaps a Commissar?

Why not, as Janet points out, let the marketplace decide. We have sooooo many mediums with TV, Radio,Blogs, et al to get out a number of viewpoints.

joanie

Well, now that you've had your right-wing rant, would you answer my questions? :)

KS

OK, Janet S. The marketplace determines it - the American way. The right got all uptight when the Fairness Doctrine was passed - but I wondered why. There is no need for a Fairness Doctrine now - as long as Air America gets to broadcast their screed on the air, as do Vanity, Hush Bimbo and Savage and locally KIRO, KVI, KTTH and 1300 which is all syndicated conservative talk. If that is not enough or too much amplification, you can always turn off radio.

So, it doesn't seem fair to others that Fox News has higher viewership than CNN and MSNBC, but that's their problem and partisanship showing - the marketplace has spoken. Yeah, let them rail about FNC - their motto (We report, you decide) lends itself to encourage people to not be spoon fed unlike the MSM appears to want.

joanie

FYI:
James Kunstler "The Long Emergency" is giving a riveting speech (Town Hall) on the Seattle Channel (21) if you can get it.

PugetSound

Reread the posts and you'll get it. JS, myself, and KS all addressed the questions posed.
We are fragmenting into niche markets that depend upon the ability to delve into controversial topics without worrying about the gov forcing media to bring on certain viewpoints.
If you want the fringe stuff -and it can be damn interesting at times- hit the public access channels if you must watch TV. For radio, their is a whole spectrum available and the net remains the answer if you want even more diverse opinions.
Is radio dominated by conservative talk? Probably but other talk is available. I think it was Goldie who mentioned on his radio show that while the net was initially dominated blog wise by conservatives that the past few years have seen a shift toward liberal/progressive blogs.

joanie

Janet: "There (sic) air waves are open to broadcast what their audiences want."

No, the air waves are open to whichever broadcaster buys them and broadcasts what it wants. The people listen to what they given . . . not what they necessarily want. Ever heard of ClearChannel?

Janet: "Air america hasn't found a foothold. . ."

Hmmm, last I heard, they were beating KIRO in Seattle. If you were truthful, I think you might concede that AA is still in its infancy But, that may be a stretch for you.

Janet:
"The newspapers in this town are repesentative of your viewpoint. There isn't much out there for the right."

Since I don't think there's an enforced fairness doctrine for newspapers (the stranger, seattle weekly - I agree both liberal), how does that reflect my viewpoint? Seems to me it reflects yours. Like it?

You said it: If you don't like it, start your own newspaper.

However, the airwaves belong to the public. They should be lucrative (which they are not) and they should be represented by all sides. i know that doing so would severely threaten the continued dominance of the right. Seems to me, that is your true concern.

Now I suppose you are against net neutrality as well.

joanie

OMG, Janet, you've got great company! You, Klueless and PS! I don't think I need post anymore! (LOL)

joanie

Ah Sparky! James Kuntsler just said he views education these days as "very expensive babysitting!"

I agree with him! At least at the middle and high school level in some of our schools. He said he actually threw some kids out at one of high school appearances and asked the teachers why they didn't throw 'em out. They said they had to file paperwork! (LOL)

Janet S

Joanie - I thought I was answering your question. Let me try again.

HA Goldstein has just been hired by KIRO to do three hours per week. He joins dem Dave Ross. Obviously, they think there is a market for this, and they are hoping to sell advertising. They aren't doing it out of ideological fervor.

Many on the right are hoping that air america and liberal radio succeeds just so the whole discussion about the fairness doctrine goes away.

In a free America, where free speech reigns, good ideas will find their way to the public air waves.

joanie

We apparently disagree on what constitutes "free speech." You didn't respond to my point about that so we can just agree to disagree.

KS

Jumpin to conclusions Joanie - We unilaterally agree to disagree. I believe JS answered your question - go back and reread the pertinent posts. Seems like you are splitting hairs again. Who needs a friggin Fairness Doctrine - free speech exists without it ?

joanie

Where's Lump, Klueless? He must not be far behind . . . :)

Janet S

At the end of the day (a very tired cliche), you can't make people listen to the radio, or read a newspaper, or watch tv news. You can dictate supply, but the demand is up to the people. If the evil conglomerates want to broadcast right wing drivel in disregard of the public demand, they will lose money and shut down. Same with the left.

I realize that Air America is doing okay in this market. It should - this is the home of Jim McDermott. If it can make it here, then where? If you like it, listen to it. I have listened to it on occasion, but I resent being called names and being ridiculed because I disagree. If they were respectful of the other side, they would probably see their audience grow. Many who listen to right wing radio are not conservative.

Janet S

Sorry - that should read "if they CAN'T make it here, then where?"

joanie

I don't agree that all radio gets shut down when losing money. Often not true of Christian radio which solicits money rather than advertises for it.

Also, very large corporations certainly can maintain unprofitable stations if those stations serve other purposes such as advertising and/or managing news.

But, I do agree with your comments about resenting attacks and name-calling. I wonder at your suggestion that that is a characteristic of just the left. I'm assuming you didn't mean to imply that.

Finally, at one time radio was a medium that was thought to help preserve democracy by informing the citizenry. Now, obviously, it's primary purpose is entertainment. I, for one, am still entertained by hearing interesting and informative debate - which, PS, is why I watch so much C-Span. Apparently, I am in the minority in my desire to be informed.

Perhaps I just wish radio would still try to inform as well as entertain.

If we are agreeing that the mandate of radio stations is to entertain, then we sure oughta be getting big bucks for the use of those air waves. They're not serving a public service anymore. Agree?

PugetSound

Joanie
C-Span is great stuff. Especially on the weekends. Brian Lamb is someone I respect and admire. In fact, I Just watched a great hour on the Assasination of Lincoln. I would gladly pay for C-Span on a commercial basis.
But I would disagree about looking to a Fairness Doctrine as a salve to what bothers you about talk radio-namely for the arguments posted above. The best you might get is a radio equivelant of C-Span. In fact, C-Span is available in many radio markets.
The marketplace of ideas is what will work best. Have I heard of Clear Channel? Yep.
But isn't that what helped to inspire bloggery? People can't get their views out one way (radio) so they attempt another. The information gets out there. Just like the conservative Talk Radio explosion was in response to what was happening in MSM 20 years ago.
If anything, in the world today we access to so much information. Can anyone take it all in? Don't like our radio market, hit the net and get access to live broadcast out of Berkely or Oklahoma City or better yet, podcast a show you like for later consumption. If anything, we so much more out there today than we had 20 years ago it isn't even close.
With all due respect, re-read my post on the Fairness Doctrine. None of those points are originally mine but they represent strong arguments with a flavor of Milton Friedman.
And yes, I will be the first to say that name calling comes from both sides.

joanie

And assuming (and you know what they say about people who assume . . . ) that the digital divide gets crossed. As a fortunate individual, you take for granted much that many do not have.

Nor is there a spectrum of stations in many parts of the country. It is Clearchannel or nothing.

Why the fear of balance?

joanie

And, while you celebrate the diversity of blogs, you failed to mention your views on net neutrality.

PugetSound

I just fear who gets to determine 'balance.'

I'm not being coy but I am confused by what you mean by net neutrality. Help me a bit here.

Everytime I walk into a library of anytown I see people at the computers accessing the internet.

I wish that people in Cuba and China -for example- had the freedom we have here to enjoy unfettered access to the www.

Janet S

I am a free speech kind of person. From what I have read, net neutrality is a bit of a red herring, like the fairness doctrine. It sounds good, but it is really just regulation.

If no one listens to Christian radio, or clearchannel, or whatever, then who cares that they stay on the air? They are spending lots of their money maintaining a station that is getting them nothing. For the record, Air America is paying some of its stations to be in the market, so don't go all pious.

joanie

See, Janet, for you it is all about money. For me, it is about providing service and information. Sure, if Clear Channel is the only station in town and you don't like it, don't listen to it. Because it is all about the opportunity to make money. Screw the people whom it serves.

When we get down to the bottom line, that is the difference between us. Money vs. commonwealth. A divide that will be around forever. :)

joanie

Actually, explain the "red herring" thing. I've been reading about it and my take on it is that it compromises access. This is one of the few times disparate groups are uniting to challenge the legislation against big corporations.

What do you know? I am really curious and not being argumentative here.

joanie

Joanne: I respect your comments and am curious about your take on this. " . . . but it is really just regulation."

My take on the legislation opens the door to restrict access to the net. Currently, the net is open to everybody . . . isn't that true deregulation? How does allowing big companies to regulate what we see on the net result in something better? or should I say even more "unregulated?"

How does "unregulated" become "more unregulated?"

I ask this of you because I respect your attempts to explain your point of view.

Stephen Schwartz

Fulfilling Lenin

A bourgeois propaganda system does not need censorship to distort free speech. Market forces will tilt toward what is good for the owners ... more likely Disney than Fox.

Rush is a success because he appeals to a large audience of sedentary spenders as well as some lefties who enjoy the sado masochistic thrill of being abused by a radical. Air America is working to the extent it has found talkers who can present (and pervert) the left message with the style of Limbaugh.


The blogs offer a compromise .. w/o a profit motive there is a lot more chance for free speech here than on commercial TV.

joanie

Well said, Stephen. Thank you.

Fremont

I don't get your "red herring" reference, either, J'et."A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic." The Fairness Doctrine was repealed (thanks, Sparks) in 1987 and its corollary rules were repealed in 2000. It's a dead herring. Net neutrality is a viable issue that is being debated in Congress as I write....internet fees are a huge part of the issue. Please explain...

Fremont

Oops, good answer, SS!

PugetSound

Freemont thanks for the definition of Red Herring. That is exactly what Sparky did to me vis a vi the Ann Coulter reference.

sparky

oh good lord, i used coulter as an example of non-humor and your thong is in a twist....talk about changing the subject. Or are you just obtuse?

But, either way, that proves my point.

Roger, over and out.

KB

I agree with the posters here on the problems with the Fairness Doctrine... who defines fair? For example, if I had a debate on the war and I had Bill Frist and Joe Liberman, would that be 'fair'? Also, 'fairness' goes both ways...look at the controversy about PBS in recent years. I'd much rather have the marketplace dictate fairness that the government, no matter who is running the show in D.C.

Also related, is the fact that Goldy is pushing hard for Burner and I would hate for his advocacy to be declared a 'contribution', so why people are pushing for a 'favorable' ruling from the courts, I really don't understand. I know we're talking state measure vs. federal office, but the jump would be easy to make, I think.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2013

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        

Tip Jar

Change is good

Tip Jar

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    pacific nw talk stations

    • KIRO 710ESPN Seattle 710 KHz
      Games and sports-blabber
    • KIROFM 97.3
      Multi-format: news and nearly all local talk. This is where classic KIRO AM news talk radio went... hopefully, not to die. The home of Dave Ross & Luke Burbank, Dori Monson, Ron & Don, Frank Shiers, Bill Radke, Linda Thomas, Tony Miner and George Noory.
    • KUOW FM 94.9
      Seattle's foremost public radio news and talk.
    • KVI am 570 KHz
      Visit the burnt-out husk of one of the seminal right-wing talkers in all the land. Here's where once trilled the reactionary tones of Rush Limbaugh, John Carlson, Kirby Wilbur, Mike Siegel, Peter Weissbach, Floyd Brown, Dinky Donkey, and Bryan Suits. Now it's Top 40 hits from the '60's & '70's aimed at that diminishing crowd who still remembers them and can still hear.
    • KTTH am 770 KHz
      Right wing home of local, and a whole bunch of syndicated righties such as Glennn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Lars Larsony, and for an hour a day: live & local David Boze.
    • KPTK am 1090 KHz
      Syndicated liberal talk. Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Norman Goldman fill in the large hole to the left on Northwest radio dial.
    • KLFE AM 1590 kHz
      Syndicated right-wing 2nd stringers like Mark Levin, Bill Bennett, Mike Gallagher, Dennis Prager, Dennis Miller and Hugh Hewitt inhabit this timid-voiced neighbor honker for your radio enjoyment (unless you're behind something large like Costco).
    • KOMOAM
      News, traffic, Ken Schram and John Carlson.
    • Washington State Radio Stations
      Comprehensive list of every danged AM & FM station on the dial.
    • KKOL am 1300 KHz
      Once a rabid right-wing talker, except for Lou Dobbs, it's all business....