LA talk host's career is hurt by defense of iraq war

We've been harping about how we think the downfall of President Bush has helped to negatively impact talk radio- a medium dominated by the right.

But conservative LA talker, John Ziegler of KFI writes in the new Talker's Magazine that more specifically it's support of the Iraq War by talk hosts accounts for at least some of the softening of the numbers- including his own.

Ziegler, who was the subject of "Host," David Foster Wallace's epic 2005 Atlantic Monthly piece on talk radio, writes that he talked to a name brand national host who'd done some research on the subject and had come to that conclusion.

"There is perhaps," Ziegler writes, "no greater indication of the dramatic free fall of the support for this once highly popular war than the reality that we were even discussing the possibility that hosts who back President Bush on this issue may be losing audience shares because of it."

He says there's also evidence- galling to the hard-assed libertariocon- "that talk hosts who have turned against the war have actually benefited in the ratings from their flip-flop."

Ziegler is shocked that listeners would be so forgiving of a "host for dramatically switching his or her position on a major issue of profound imporatnace, even when that flip-flop could easily be interpreted as nothing but a transparent attempt to pander  to the popular will and ride the new direction of the wind."

(If true, this doesn't surprise us- because the American people flip-flopped over the war, too. For that reason, we doubt that politicians who were for the war before they were against it like Hillary, Edwards, et al, will suffer that much politically in 2008. Hell, huge numbers of us bought Bush's sexed-up "intelligence." We'll probably forgive the politicians and talk hosts who made the same mistake. It sure wasn't much of a speed bump for Sen. Maria Cantwell).

Ziegler, a simple man high on his horse, is amazingly idealistic (especially for an entertainer and a Los Angeleno). "I have always thought that if we were inconsistent then we would lose our credibility and there would be no longer any reason to listen to us (or our live-reads)."

(That doesn't allow, of course, for facts or hearts to change; for mistakes in judgment; for lies believed- you know- that humans might be involved? Ziegler and his kind of dogged, Manichean, robotic idealism account for some of what's killing conservatism.) 

Ziegler admits that while "my ratings are still very solid, there is plenty of evidence (which is not in my self-interest to discuss in this forum) that my career may have been at least temporarily harmed directly because of my strong defense of this war."

He regurgitates the talk radio boilerplate that because "mainstream news sources are clearly biased in a liberal direction (and seemingly getting more so every day), talk radio is mostly libertarian/conservative."

He concludes that that's one of the reasons why liberal talk "very rarely ever works."

Zeigler's wrong about that- the handwriting is on the wall even if he doesn't want to see it.

Here's to program directors and radio suits who can see it:

• Politics do matter in talk radio
• Conservative talk momentum has turned to talk inertia
• Rush is just another fat guy.

Comments

[Tommy008]

"Rush Limbaugh is irrelevant"-Arnold Schwarzenegger, several days ago. Enough said.

[Duffman]

Yes, I think the 'elephant in the room' in this regard is Mr Limbaugh. As the leader of the pack his downfall had/has a ripple effect felt throughout the conservative talk radio spectrum. If you couple that with one of most unpopular administrations in history it's no wonder that conservative support wanes. We are indeed ready for a clean slate, both in the political as well as media venues. This would be an excellent time to introduce new shows with new slants and take advantage of how the public is swinging to the left. I find myself listening to 1090 presently and I always previously listened to the 'conservative' shows; not necessarily for their political content but rather for their entertainment value (and prevalence on the radio dial). This is indeed a new day dawning; get ready for an exciting ride.

[Duffman]

Of course (according to merci) you should interpret my above post as opposite to it's stated content?

Seriously, would any one buy a used car from this guy? Good Luck, if indeed you would.

[Duffman]

God Bless and help Tony Snow thru this.

[Fremont]

Liked your FIRST post, Duf...who's selling used cars...MF? It's my understanding that MF drives a Lexus...insured by Geico.

Yes, may the goddesses help Snow and Edwards...and, may they watch over all Americans diagnosed with cancer who do not (yet) have access to the health care that Edwards is battling to provide...

[Duffman]

Amen on that!

[mercifurious]

I find myself listening to 1090 presently and I always previously listened to the 'conservative' shows; not necessarily for their political content but rather for their entertainment value (and prevalence on the radio dial).

Queue: Steph Millers "Lying Sack of Crap" song

You've been thoroughly outed as a GOP ratfucker, Duffman.
I'm just sayin' what everyone's thinkin'

I know it must be terribly embarrassing being in a growing minority, but just come out of the closet
(not that there's anything wrong with that).

[mercifurious]

He's referring to your's truly, Fremont.

Duffy's been unable to quell the sting from the thorough spanking I gave him over global warming, and never successfully recovered.
(check out Duffy's responses to the well-sourced whoopin. Loser)

[Duffman]

..yeah, especially from someone who apparently uses 'Wikipedia' as his/her 'source'..

[Fremont]

Yeah, it's clear what you use to cite your sources, Duf....look who's calling the kettle black!! I LOVE (and honor) your Wiki-sources, MF!

[Duffman]

Wouldn't expect any different post from you in this regard. Yes, certainly the epitome of 'free-thinking'.

[mercifurious]

Pee Ess, Fremont:

Terribly sorry about the nonexistent reply phonecall the other day. Phone when tits-up and hasn't come back. So we'll just use BW comments to pass notes in class. hee hee

[Duffman]

Hey merci; would you agree that ANY internet source is at best tentative?

[mercifurious]

Ouch. You got me there Duff! My source for "Ratfucking" might be tentative.
(Read: W&B's "All the President's Men)

But my sources for you being a GOP Ratfucker (ie, Duffy's verbatim posts on BW) are 100% accurate.

Some salt with your crow?

Note: Funny that Duffy questions someone's source, but never actually provides any of his own. That supposed "collegiate education" sure shines through

[Duffman]

Well you never answered my question but what's new...you seem to be one who 'preaches', not one to listen. How'd YOU do on the WASL? [ha...was just listening to the DR show]

[mercifurious]

Direct answer: Some sources suspect, some not.

In the case-study of BW, as of yet my sources have not been suspect:

Peer-reviewed scientific sources
Note: Duffbrain has never actually questioned my sources veracity - only reply to sources was:
We'll see who's right, won't we...in ten years or so.

Duffman's (or from now on "Herr Ratfucker's") sources have been significantly more-than suspect
(that would be "Duffman > suspect")

Case and points:
> Using Drudgereport & Serbian Holocaust apologist as sources against Al Gore and Scott Ritter

> Spewing the following Right-wing black-helicopter theory with NO source
Taxes: ..and I fear that soon you (we) will be filing our 'global' tax return as dictated possibly by the UN and eased into place by the likes of A.G.

That work for you, Herr Ratfucker?

[Duffman]

Thank you for the answer. I would maintain that if you quoted your source as the 'internet' in a Court of Law - you be laughed out!
You can never be 'certain' when quoting the Internet...whether it be Drudge and/or Wikipedia or 'mentioned' 'peer-reviewed scientific sources'-unless you have those sources verified. Any one who cares will dig deeper any way so why be concerned except to 'appear right' amoung your peers. You may have a bit of a 'complex', -ever consider that possibility (?inferior/superior?)

[mercifurious]

We heard Herr Ratfucker's "Dig Deeper" theory earlier.

I dug. I presented my findings. You came up with Bupkis.

Thus, Herr Ratfucker's newest strategy: When Duffy's unsourced BS gets thoroughly flushed, he just casts inane vaguerities about trusting information in general
(ie, when you lose, toss the checker-table)

[mercifurious]

PS, Ratfucker:

The following is a State Department Doc regarding Human Rights abuses in Chile circa 1973:

SECRET Memorandum, "Chilean Executions," includes "Fact Sheet-Human Rights in Chile," November 27, 1973

I found it on the internet. Is it suspect?

*flush*

[Duffman]

We don't 'really' know, do we? Remember the Dan Rather/CBS fiasco with the typewriter vs MS Word confusion and those rather 'genuine' looking documents?

[mercifurious]

Blah blah blah "we don't really know" generalize, generalize, generalize, blah blah blah.
(again, Ratfucker here LOST the argument is now trying to toss the checker table)

Tell you what Duddbrain

Let's just go with tried and true "varified until proven otherwise". I've thoroughly proven your's otherwise, you've never specifically disproven mine. Give it your best collegiate try

No vaguerities or generalities - be specific. Of the sources I gave you about global warming, what SPECIFICALLY would lend you to believe that they're not true.

You know, other than your last bullshit response "we'll see in 10 years"

[coiler]

We all know that Nixon and Kissinger were involved in the overthrow of Chile on Sept 11, 1973. Now we have to get rid of another insane president this time around, ok?
here

[mercifurious]

Don't bother, Coiler - all information is dubious now (according to Prof. Ratfucker, here)

Makes you wonder about Duffman's beliefs on the Holocaust, doesn't it? If he'll believe some wack-job black-helicopter theory about a "UN tax" (unsourced), he might believe anything.

[coiler]

I liked that "ratfucker" came out of Watergate, Donald Segretti’s term for Nixon's dirty tricksters.

[Duffman]

Nothing that you presented would specifically lend me to believe they're not true.
My point was that it's not a 'settled science' among scientists and I'm not in agreement with Mr Gore's alarmist posture. I think I mentioned (and you probably well know) that the term global warming has now morphed into 'climate change' (apparently so both eventualities are covered). Do I discount 'global warming' per se...heck no I've seen it and I've a cousin who teaches in the Northwest Territories who E-Mails me of it's pending effects (i.e. species coming and going...et. al).
So, I don't think we're that far apart Merci...if you want to be right go for it. This is based on my general reading of things and then a gut feel for what I think is right. Can I factually disprove as much as you can prove...probably; but will I take the time...no!
1. I'm not as proficient on the internet as you obviously are.
2. I don't mind being ostracized for being perceived as wrong.
I'm way beyond that in my life.

[mercifurious]

My point was that it's not a 'settled science' among scientists and I'm not in agreement with Mr Gore's alarmist posture.

And again. We here at Blatherwatch International now demand that you provide EVIDENCE for your claims.

Ready? Go.

[mercifurious]

So, I don't think we're that far apart Merci...if you want to be right go for it. This is based on my general reading of things and then a gut feel for what I think is right.

No, We are as far apart as two people can get.

Me: Provide peer-reviewed scientific resources

You: Provide nothing other than "my general reading" and "gut feelings" (goes well w/ Serbian genocide denial, drudge report, and for the freeper-black helicopter "UN tax" conspiracy - nothing)

[mercifurious]

Just wondering, Duffman:

Just what is your source for your freeper-esque wingnut black helicopter "UN Tax" conspiracy theory?

Since your so suddenly concerned with the viability of information, the Bla'M Fam would love to know

Did this come from your "general reading", your "gut feel for what is right", or both? hahahahah

[Duffman]

Don't know why I'm doing this, because you'll no doubt find a reason for discounting this source, but:
'The Heat's In The Sun'
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Friday, March 09, 2007

Does it sound (after reading this) as if this is a 'settled science'...does it sound like we have an absolute understanding of what role our sun plays in all of this? To me, it doesn't.

[Sorry, merci wasn't a link on the internet...even if it was, I haven't learned that technique yet...even tho joanie tried to teach me]

[Duffman]

"Did this come from your "general reading", your "gut feel for what is right", or both? hahahahah"

Yes, actually came from my general reading of 'The Marketing of Evil' by David Kupelian.
[Obviously another kook source, according to you?]

[mercifurious]

Here, I found it for you Duffy:
http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=17197

Funny, because Solomon's source for this piece is non-other than Sami Solanki (Planck Institute) - the same Sami Solanki you sourced as a "critic" of GW before.

We've been over this a million times, Duffy, but just to retread. This is the same Sami Solanki who said the following (read carefully):

"However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solarradiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity,there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed upconsiderably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present globalwarming"

Sami Solanki - August 3, 2004

Seriously Duff. Do you actually ever read these things before you send them?

[mercifurious]

Attn Bla'M Fam! Add this to the growing list of evidence proving Duffman is a nothing more than a GOP schill:

For a source on a "UN tax", Duffy gives me this:

Yes, actually came from my general reading of 'The Marketing of Evil' by David Kupelian.
[Obviously another kook source, according to you?]

Hmmmm... and where have we seen this book before? Oh that's right:
Right here on "WingNutDaily".

HAHAHAHA! You've got to be kidding, Duffy.

You are SO outed now. A GOP schill through-and-through!

Actually, Duffy's right. There are some people who don't think this book to be a "kook source". Here they are:

"David Kupelian dares to tell the truth."
- Dr. Laura Schlessinger

"Now watch the cockroaches run for cover."
- Michelle Malkin

"In years to come Americans will acknowledge a debt of gratitude to David Kupelian for his honesty, courage, and laser-like insight in this must-read book."
- Rabbi Daniel Lapin

Add Duffman to this list? Fine by me!

[shoreke]

Limbaugh/Hannity/Savage consistently dominate talk radio ratings nationwide. All three of them steadfastly defend the war in Iraq. The only thing that hurts a radio talk show host's career is...lack of talent.

[mercifurious]

More Fuel to Duffy's fire:

From Amazon.com entry:

"Americans have come to tolerate, embrace and even champion many things that would have horrified their parents' generation—from easy divorce and unrestricted abortion-on-demand to extreme body piercing and teaching homosexuality to grade-schoolers. Does that mean today's Americans are inherently more morally confused and depraved than previous generations? Of course not, says veteran journalist David Kupelian. But they have fallen victim to some of the most stunningly brilliant and compelling marketing campaigns in modern history.
The Marketing of Evil reveals how much of what Americans once almost universally abhorred has been packaged, perfumed, gift-wrapped and sold to them as though it had great value. Highly skilled marketers, playing on our deeply felt national values of fairness, generosity and tolerance, have persuaded us to embrace as enlightened and noble that which all previous generations since America's founding regarded as grossly self-destructive—in a word, evil.
In this groundbreaking and meticulously researched book, Kupelian peels back the veil of marketing-induced deception to reveal exactly when, where, how, and especially why Americans bought into the lies that now threaten the future of the country.
For example, few of us realize that the widely revered father of the "sexual revolution" has been irrefutably exposed as a full-fledged sexual psychopath who encouraged pedophilia. Or that giant corporations voraciously competing for America's $150 billion teen market routinely infiltrate young people's social groups to find out how better to lead children into ever more debauched forms of "authentic self-expression."
Likewise, most of us mistakenly believe the "abortion rights" and "gay rights" movements were spontaneous, grassroots uprisings of neglected or persecuted minorities wanting to breathe free. Few people realize America was actually "sold" on abortion thanks to an audacious public relations campaign that relied on fantastic lies and fabrications. Or that the "gay rights" movement—which transformed America's former view of homosexuals as self-destructive human beings into their current status as victims and cultural heroes—faithfully followed an in-depth, phased plan laid out by professional Harvard-trained marketers.
No quarter is given in this riveting, insightful exploration of how lies, both subtle and outrageous, are packaged as truth. From the federal government to the public school system to the news media to the hidden creators of "youth culture," nothing is exempt from the thousand-watt spotlight of Kupelian's journalistic inquiry.
In the end, The Marketing of Evil is an up-close, modern-day look at what is traditionally known as "tempation"—the art and science of making evil look good."

[mercifurious]

And still more "non kook" endorsements:

"It's often said that marketing is warfare, and in The Marketing of Evil, David Kupelian clearly reveals the stunning strategies and tactics of persuasion employed by those engaged in an all-out war against America's Judeo-Christian culture."
—David Limbaugh, syndicated columnist and author

"David Kupelian's research brings into sharp focus what many have sensed and suspected for a long time. ... [An] important and groundbreaking book."
—D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge Ministries

"The Marketing of Evil offers Americans real hope—because when our problems come this sharply into focus, so do the solutions."
—Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com

"Excellent! Simply excellent."
—Donald E. Wildmon, American Family Association

"I use it as a source on Blatherwatch all the time! Well, that and my 'Gut Feeling'"
-Duffman, GOP Ratfucker

[Duffman]

Oh I see; why didn't you say that from the very beginning: you only accept sources that agree with you. Of course...why did I even bother...I get the feeling that I'm helping you with your homework sometimes. Thank you for allowing me to be on your blog, tho that's so nice of you. Believe what you will, I WILL vote for Mrs Clinton, will read what I choose and believe what I choose to believe. When you grow up, you too can make that choice.
Till then, continue to be so open and respectful of other people's views and opinions. And call me all the names you want...apparently unlike you I've gained inner peace so it doesn't bother me. And thank you so much for the example of what your idea is of a true progressive liberal.

[mercifurious]

Duffy, I said you were right. Many folks (including you) Endorse "Marketing Evil".

They are:

"It's often said that marketing is warfare, and in The Marketing of Evil, David Kupelian clearly reveals the stunning strategies and tactics of persuasion employed by those engaged in an all-out war against America's Judeo-Christian culture."
—David Limbaugh, syndicated columnist and author

"David Kupelian's research brings into sharp focus what many have sensed and suspected for a long time. ... [An] important and groundbreaking book."
—D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge Ministries

"The Marketing of Evil offers Americans real hope—because when our problems come this sharply into focus, so do the solutions."
—Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com

"Excellent! Simply excellent."
—Donald E. Wildmon, American Family Association

"David Kupelian dares to tell the truth."
- Dr. Laura Schlessinger

"Now watch the cockroaches run for cover."
- Michelle Malkin

"In years to come Americans will acknowledge a debt of gratitude to David Kupelian for his honesty, courage, and laser-like insight in this must-read book."
- Rabbi Daniel Lapin

So if this satisfies you as a good source for your "UN tax" conspiracy theory, so be it.

You're on the record, no going back now

[cowpotpi3]

OK Duff, I'll bite. Since you have offered up this book as a source, then can you tell me why you would believe the clearly wing-nut theory that 9 out of 10 neo-cons approve? I mean come on, who do you think you're kidding here. I don't care if the source agrees with me politically or not but come on...I know absolute nonsense and ideology when I smell it. Don't you?

[Duffman]

Boy you really got me - and we went full circle..you're convinced that you 'outed' me.
Well, if that means...I will vote for who I want (right now it's Mrs Clinton), I will read what I want, I will conclude as I want and I will continue to try and respect the same in others.
Yeah, you really got (or outed) me alright....ha ha. Have a good life with that attitude, I truly feel sorry for you.

[joanie]

Hey, Duff, I read this morning that you're listening to AA more often. Who do you hear? Who do you like? What do you think? You getting more liberal?

Curious . . .

[mercifurious]

cpp3:

It's like a little kid who's been caught in a lie, and is now trying to squirm out of it.

Nice try Duffman, yer busted (ain't got no musted)

Who on Cthulhu's green earth - left or right - would ever use that book as a source? As a source for a black-helicopter conspiracy theory, no less!

Only these smart people:

David Limbaugh,
D. James Kennedy,
Joseph Farah,
Donald E. Wildmon,
Dr. Laura Schlessinger
Michelle Malkin
Rabbi Daniel Lapin
(And Duffman.)

That's like using a KKK published book as evidence for holocaust denial!

But BUT BUT! Please everyone Believe Duffman when he claims to be a "left-leaning independent" !

[Duffman]

cp3 I can only say that I don't particularly believe in 'tagging' people like that and then judging them accordingly. I believe in the person or not. Sometimes I'm wrong; may be you are too, but I have to go with my 'gut feel'. I don't progess to be anything but an independent who has happened to have voted Democrat in recent history and looking at the horizon it looks like I will continue that choice (because at least at present - there really isn't a viable 3rd choice, is there). Part of my decision in coming on this board is to 'get an education' in the ways of true 'dyed in the wool' Dems...there are some here who are portraying this in a dismal light - but also those that give me hope. Quite frankly CP3, I'm too old for the attack games...but never too old to learn. You've always seemed to be reasonable to me.

[Duffman]

Hi joanie: first thanks for the moderate post...I've been taking somewhat of a beating today.
Well, so far I guess I would have to say Stephanie (Miller, is it) - I like her levity and even tho she can certainly stick it to someone...it really doesn't come across as 'mean'.
I'll continue tuning in and expanding my universe.

[mercifurious]

I don't progess to be anything but an independent who has happened to have voted Democrat in recent history...

...Who also:

> Uses Drudge and a Serbian genocide denier as a source against Al Gore and Scott Ritter

> Uses the terms "Bandwagon" and "Standard Bearer" without satire.

> Espouses a Black-Helicopter wingnut conspiracy theory of a "UN Tax"

> And THEN - throwing more dirt on his corpse - backs up his black-helicopter wingnut conspiracy theory by citing A WingNutDaily.com Book (see endorsements above)

Does this sound like a "left-leaning independent" to you?

Me neither

[Duffman]

Who are you preaching to...are you afraid these intellegent folks on this blog might be not be capable of independent thinking...are you paranoid...or are you in fact trying to convince yourself that accepting the pablum of others is the right path? Have you ever had an independent thought? It really is a novel approach.
merci...all kidding aside w/really like to buy you a beer sometime (are you old enough) so we could toast to your 'outing me'
Does this blog ever have a social get-together....ha

[joanie]

You can never be 'certain' when quoting the Internet...whether it be Drudge and/or Wikipedia or 'mentioned' 'peer-reviewed scientific sources'-unless you have those sources verified. Any one who cares will dig deeper. . .

Duff, the internet is a big, big library. Who you gonna trust if you don't trust the library?

Of course, when you research, you get more than one source. So, use the internet - that really big library - and substantiate your claim.

I, too, have read some credible people who disagree with the current climate change thinking. I respect them - if they are respectable.

So, do your homework and find out if they are respectable. Or if you are choosing to believe just because you like to have gut feelings reinforced.

Remember Galileo! That heretic who believed the planets revolved around the sun while the church believed otherwise. Sometimes the masses are fooled . . . but sometimes they get it right. In this case, most scientists agree with Gore. So, you are welcome to agree with the few . . . but find out if the few deserve your support.

If you can't trust the internet, then you can't trust your local library. Because sometimes authors misstate facts as well. It is up to you to research and compare.

Gut instincts be damned. That's why we have Bush . . .

[mercifurious]

Okay Joanie, Compare/contrast sources:

Peer-reviewed science,

Or Duff:
"We'll see who's right, won't we...in ten years or so."

"I've made my point(s)...tough to handle, huh....ha; go dig, read and weep. Next topic.."

[Duffman]

Thanks Joanie..good advice; that's where I'm at presently...I'll read, study, examine and who knows may be I'll change my views and/or opinions.
Don't get me wrong I don't think the Internet is worthless...it is a good start and can lead to invaluable information but conversly it can be totally misleading (and yes...so can books). Heck, where else could I get this incredibly helpful guidance in my pensive straits.
Every one on this blog has valuable input (& output) I would never maintain otherwise. But alas, right of wrong (in the eyes of whomever) I have to go with my gut-feel...so far (in life) it hasn't steered me wrong.