David Goldstein (KIRO Sundays, 7-10p) is racking up great guests for this Sunday's show.They include 8th district candidate, Darcy Burner; County Executive Ron Sims, King County Council President Larry Phillips; and Joel Connelly, veteran Seattle PI political pundit.
Burner is all over the news today because her fledgling candidacy has so put the fear of god into Republican haircut Dave Reichert that he risked being associated with President Bush, who flew in today for a big bucks fundraiser on posh Mercer Island.
This from this morning's NY Times:
Democratic hopes of retaking the House, party strategists say, could hinge on places like Bellevue, a city of 107,000 just across Lake Washington from Seattle. Here, a fast-growing Asian population and an influx of empty-nesters and singles living in new residential complexes have helped to make this the kind of district that, while continuing to send a Republican to Congress, has turned increasingly Democratic.
Eli Sanders at Slog reports that not only is Bush unpopular in the 8th, (he lost there to Kerry in 2004) but Reichert's numbers are wobbly in the district, despite his attempts to distance himself from the failed presidency. Read all about it here.
Bets were lost all over town, today that there wouldn't be a photo released with both Reichert and Bush. The Seattle Times took one of the two at the door of Bush's plane- expect it soon in Burner ads.
Burner will be on Horses's ass radio at 8p.
At 7p, Goldy will talk to Phillips about what's going to happen with vote-by-mail, now that Dean Logan is leaving. Ron Sims will join them and take calls from listeners.
Bloggers Molly Martin from The (liberal) Girl Next Door and Will Kelley-Kamp of Pike Place Politics will join Goldy in the last hour for some fun and jolly scorn, at the expense, no doubt, of conservatives.
~~
Talk producers- got something coming up on your show you think we'd be interested in? Let us know and, if we are, we'll blather it. Drop us a line at [email protected]
Darcy Burner is SMART..she is a great candidate!
I will be listening to her on Goldy's show.
Posted by: sparky | June 16, 2006 at 03:11 PM
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
Posted by: KS | June 16, 2006 at 03:33 PM
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!
Posted by: Joanie | June 16, 2006 at 04:31 PM
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.
Posted by: Janet S | June 17, 2006 at 12:04 PM
David Goldstein: When are you going to have Bla'M on your show? Inquiring fans want to know...
Posted by: Fremont | June 17, 2006 at 12:24 PM
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.
Posted by: sparky | June 17, 2006 at 02:48 PM
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.
Posted by: Janet S | June 17, 2006 at 04:55 PM
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...
Posted by: sparky | June 17, 2006 at 05:40 PM
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.
Posted by: gusto and poor | June 17, 2006 at 05:41 PM
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.
Posted by: Janet S | June 17, 2006 at 06:01 PM
Janet, the fairness doctrine was not absurd.
Posted by: joanie | June 17, 2006 at 06:32 PM
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.
Posted by: sparky | June 17, 2006 at 06:47 PM
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.
Posted by: Janet S | June 17, 2006 at 06:50 PM
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?
Posted by: joanie | June 17, 2006 at 07:50 PM
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.
Posted by: Janet S | June 17, 2006 at 08:25 PM
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.
Posted by: PugetSound | June 17, 2006 at 08:43 PM
Well, now that you've had your right-wing rant, would you answer my questions? :)
Posted by: joanie | June 17, 2006 at 08:44 PM
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.
Posted by: KS | June 17, 2006 at 08:47 PM
FYI:
James Kunstler "The Long Emergency" is giving a riveting speech (Town Hall) on the Seattle Channel (21) if you can get it.
Posted by: joanie | June 17, 2006 at 08:47 PM
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.
Posted by: PugetSound | June 17, 2006 at 09:07 PM
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.
Posted by: joanie | June 17, 2006 at 09:13 PM
OMG, Janet, you've got great company! You, Klueless and PS! I don't think I need post anymore! (LOL)
Posted by: joanie | June 17, 2006 at 09:18 PM
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)
Posted by: joanie | June 17, 2006 at 09:21 PM
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.
Posted by: Janet S | June 17, 2006 at 09:24 PM
We apparently disagree on what constitutes "free speech." You didn't respond to my point about that so we can just agree to disagree.
Posted by: joanie | June 17, 2006 at 09:27 PM
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 ?
Posted by: KS | June 17, 2006 at 09:50 PM
Where's Lump, Klueless? He must not be far behind . . . :)
Posted by: joanie | June 17, 2006 at 09:52 PM
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.
Posted by: Janet S | June 17, 2006 at 09:54 PM
Sorry - that should read "if they CAN'T make it here, then where?"
Posted by: Janet S | June 17, 2006 at 10:00 PM
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?
Posted by: joanie | June 17, 2006 at 10:07 PM
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.
Posted by: PugetSound | June 17, 2006 at 10:38 PM
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?
Posted by: joanie | June 17, 2006 at 10:45 PM
And, while you celebrate the diversity of blogs, you failed to mention your views on net neutrality.
Posted by: joanie | June 17, 2006 at 10:49 PM
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.
Posted by: PugetSound | June 17, 2006 at 11:02 PM
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.
Posted by: Janet S | June 17, 2006 at 11:09 PM
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. :)
Posted by: joanie | June 17, 2006 at 11:31 PM
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.
Posted by: joanie | June 17, 2006 at 11:39 PM
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.
Posted by: joanie | June 18, 2006 at 11:41 AM
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.
Posted by: Stephen Schwartz | June 18, 2006 at 11:52 AM
Well said, Stephen. Thank you.
Posted by: joanie | June 18, 2006 at 12:07 PM
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...
Posted by: Fremont | June 18, 2006 at 01:57 PM
Oops, good answer, SS!
Posted by: Fremont | June 18, 2006 at 02:00 PM
Freemont thanks for the definition of Red Herring. That is exactly what Sparky did to me vis a vi the Ann Coulter reference.
Posted by: PugetSound | June 18, 2006 at 03:56 PM
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.
Posted by: sparky | June 18, 2006 at 04:10 PM
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.
Posted by: KB | June 18, 2006 at 11:46 PM