After the supreme court green light: what's the next right-wing talk radio campaign?

After the decision handed down by the courts, what's next for conservative talkers John Carlson (KVI m-f, 9a-12p) Kirby Wilbur's (KVI m-f, 5-9a)?

Which bills passed by the recent session of the legislature will they try to squelch?

Domestic partnerships? the new taxing authority given local governments, the new state vegetable (the Walla Walla sweet onion)?

After all, the Republicans can't elect anyone in this state, the party is in a shambles, the only way they can even propose legislation is to use the initiative process which they've traditionally despised.

We gave Carlson the opportunity to write something self-serving for BlatherWatch after his and Kirby's stunning Supreme Court victory. (Even though he's a knee-jerk conservative, and hurts America nearly every day, we like John and he's written for us before).

John, however, chose to write for the competition- his self-serving piece Radio Free Washington was published in Saturday's Wall Street Urinal. 

We're not lawyers around here, but we'll never understand the ruling, and Carlson's piece doesn't do much to clarify it. We gotta admit that seeing staunch righties like John and Kirby hailing themselves as First Amendment heroes is off-putting, to say the least.

(Usually, the right's First Amendment stands have to do with banning school books, bashing hate speech laws, covering naked body parts, shutting up war critics, censoring rap lyrics, or claiming that campaign $$$ equals free speech.)

Carlson writes: " The law clearly defines commentary, the court continued, as a 'media exemption' and while "the term 'commentary' is not defined, we believe that it plainly encompasses advocacy for or against an issue, candidate or campaign, whether that involves the solicitation of votes, money or 'other support.' Indeed, such activities are a core aspect of the media's traditional role."

We don't want to get into the legal weeds again talking about why we still disagree with this ruling, but we must say it again.

There's no problem we have with commentary, advocacy, or even solicitation of funds or votes on talk radio, but the hosts' bread crumb level logistical organizing of the signature drive for the signatures was an unfair advantage for the activist/hosts, and a laughable stretch of the First Amendment.

Carlson and Wilbur crowed that the passage of the initiative was a slam dunk because of the expediency of the gathering and the sheer number of signatures garnered. Support for the proposal which would have defunded a massive roads-fixing bill collapsed once it was qualified for the ballot; the voters finally read it and determined it to be irresponsible, punitive, and regressive.

When John and Kirby started the campaign, their shows were just winding down from the tremendous ratings from the wall-to-wall post election coverage of the frivolous Republican court case over the veracity of Christine Gregoire's election.

The issue was emotional and when it was over, we've always suspected that the boyz at KVI asked: How can we extend this run- and keep this ratings and TSL rich community together? T

The signature drive was a bold and risky as a radio strategy, and you've gotta hand it to them for that. But in the process, they once again hurt America.

When all that was coming down on KVI, we not only disagreed more than usual with the politics of it, we were very, very bored. It was single issue bitching instead of the usual multilple issue bitching.

Wanna know what it was like? Imagine David Goldstein talking about tainted pet food- except for 3 hours a day, 5 days a week.

Things have changed since 2005, maybe good radio will trump bad politics, and they'll just advocate and leave the driving to us.... Somehow, we doubt it.

Comments

[Brian]

Or better yet , could be worse !
frank Shiers talked about taking his daughter to the men's restroom and how cheap the T/P is on the Ferries . What will he talk about next ! I know what ever Dave Ross has talked about or Ron and Don you guy's know the drill oh too well ! HOOTY HOO ! Iam thinkin !! Bad show Prep !

[joanie]

What our Supremes did was the legacy of the type of campaigning the right does routinely. This Court should have risked losing their jobs rather than their integrity.

Thank Dave Ross for the turn around on that one. I firmly believe he took the lead in massively educating people about that initiative and the need to repel that initiative. He also did a great job on educating the masses on the land reform initiative as well.

Examples of broadcasting to State issues that were necessary and successful. Thanks, Dave.

[Duffman]

Agree totally, joanie; Dave Ross is an immense asset to this community. KIRO is lucky to have him and I hope they realize that (I think they do!)

[marc]

Blatherwatch is the Wall Street Journal's competition? That's a laugh.

[Duffman]

you didn't read that carefully enuf: it was bladderwatch versus the wall street urinal...ha

[Duffman]

NEWS FLASH!!!

Frustrated at the lack of response from the WSJ, Rupert Murdoch (Faux owner) is comtemplating making similar offer to Blatherwatch!

[sparky]

I just heard a clip on the Thom Hartmann show of Leslie Stahl taking on Lou Dobbs over his "mission" of getting rid of illegals. He claimed he was the only reporter who took on issues. Her comment:
"Reporters aren't SUPPOSED to take on issues..they are supposed to REPORT."

I know Carlson and Wilbur are not reporters per se, but when you have your own show, you control the message and how much, if any, dissent you allow.

[Andrew]

The issue is super confused. Dobbs said "I've never ... found the truth to be fair and balanced" which is true, if you give 50% attention to either side that will not equate to the truth. If one side is 90% right and the other is 90$ wrong then presenting them 50/50 will massively distort reality.

The truth can't be known because reality is too complex. We have religions and ideologies that attempt to describe the indescribable, and that's the best mankind is capable of with our small brains and tiny knowledge. How can anyone expect a reporter to report the uknowable?

[Duffman]

HUH??? (I guess it's my small brain and tiny knowledge)

[sparky]

andrew, I would say that supports the idea that a reporter reports..it has only been in the last 20 years or so that the networks think we need them to analyze what is going on, instead of just telling us about it. Im old enough to remember Cronkite, Huntly and Brinkley...they just talked about what had happened,,then didnt tell us how they felt about it or turned it around and examined every last detail. They didnt interject any personal feelings at all.
Now, analysis is all we get on cable, and the local news is nothing but headlines..worthless.

[sparky]

Ok I just re-read that and that didnt make a lot of sense...an example would be " there was a car accident on I-5 today that killed a man when his truck hit a sign post. Police think he was traveling at a high rate of speed. The truck was cut in half and wreckage was strewn all over the roadway."

Period.

Instead, then they look at statistics of drunken drivers, truck safety, "how does speed affect driver safety?" would better mass transit prevent crashes? and on and on and on....maybe some people find that extra stuff interesting but I think its all craaaaaaaaaaaap. Which is why I dont watch local network news...

[Duffman]

Sparky...you s/be ashamed; don't ever let Bryan Styble hear to say that word!!

[mercifurious]

Dear Styblehead,

Crap Crappity Crap-Crap-Crap

Love,
Mercifurious

PS, Still waiting on your source for Anferny Hardaway's "ig'nant" mom. Until then, we'll just chalk it up to you being a racist sack of crap

[Andrew]

"Police think he was traveling at a high rate of speed"

So, that's all we can get? That by itself is pretty useless news, and nobody knows the half interesting stuff, like why he was speeding. Maybe he was suicidal. Maybe he was late. Did he speed often, and if so, why did he crash this time and not others? That's the uknowable reality, so instead we get local news hacks pretending to take an objective look at driving statistics and other irrelevant bullshit to make a story where they can't be bothered, or are incapable of, finding one. If you read between the lines, they are saying that public management is the solution and personal introspection isn't.

I was upset with KING 5 a few years back when they were reporting about a drug bust involving pot or something and they portrayed the law enforcement as being the good guys and the illegal substance user as bad guy on the basis of someone breaking a law. Laws are not morals. Atleast Bill O'Reilly types will say "it's wrong because it hurts America" whereas KING 5 will try to hide the bias, a bias in favor of contemporary laws of all retarded things.

[sparky]

But I dont want to know if he was suicidal..I dont want to know why he was speeding. That is not news. It's gossip. It is none of my business. Just tell me where the backups are without the personal introspection. Dont tell me who the good guys are and the bad guys..let me make that distinction...just tell me what happened. Really, I can figure it out on my own which side I agree with. If there is a political issue, let there be a debate with someone from each side giving their perspective, but please dont have a half hour analysis afterward.

[sparky]

Now that I have said that, it makes me think about Air America...all analysis...I guess my tastes in hard news are what I explained above. I want a choice, I guess. Analysis when I choose to listen to it on the radio--Im not exactly learning anything new, just thinking about what I already know. But on TV, for hard news, I just want to know what happened....not how the reporter thinks I should feel about it...
Is that clearer?

[Andrew]

I understand the apeal of unbiased journalism but it doesn't and can't exists, so why not have them admit bias outright? Take American versus Brittish coverage of the run-up to the war for example. Both were supposedly objective journalists but the end results were much different.

The nice thing about a debate-like situation on cable news is that you can count on the pretty and the dirty information to come out as the beat eachother up. The only problem is you get "debates" like Hannity and Colmes where the organizers effectively rig the contest to ensure that conservatives will come away feeling vindicated every time.

[Brian]

The Styblehead radio program
it"s more than bad ! it's just plan wrong !

[joanie]

I love analysis. But, I like it to be balanced. Oh God! How does one do that? Partly, they ask people with intellectual credentials and who have shown integrity to discuss issues.
That is not so hard.

If you watch CSpan, it is customary. And if you watched the War on Iraq book panel on Sat or Sun(repeat), you would have found excellent factual analysis.

It can be done. It should be done. I don't read many blogs . . . thinkprogress and Sirota mostly. But, I love to hear intelligent people think and explain.

"Intelligent people" does not include Hannity and Colmes or O'Reilly because they have no references for anything. They spew unsourced opinion, half-truths and sensationalized inuendo. 'Nuf said.

And the news has always had analysis. I loved John Chancellor . . . one of my favorites. David Brinkley - another. People who reported but also had segments of analysis. No problem with that. A big problem with Lehrer - he is "balanced." It is an awful news program these days. It is just that a certain part of the electorate didn't like the facts. So they started changing them. That eventually became "Fox News."

BTW, saw Mike Wallace and Chris Wallace together on CSpan Sunday. Mike is too old. He couldn't keep up with his son intellectually. Chris is 60 - I don't believe it! I think that's what he said. Anybody know for sure. He sure looks good! But, Chris really argued that his Sunday News program was balanced. Also, he said that when he left the set of his show with Clinton that he overhead Clinton telling his publicist that he'd be fired if he ever put Clinton in that situation again. Put the lie to the notion that Clinton went in planning to rile up the left . . .

It was interesting.

[joanie]

One more thing: analysis gives context and background. But analysis has to be left to the experts . . . not opinionaters. Lehrer gets all the politicos to do the analysis. They are terrible at it. They have political agendas. Forget that.

I don't listen to AA for great analysis. Yeah, I did Franken because he got guests. And Randi sources everything - to factual origins. But, I listen to AA mostly for reinforcement of my passionate liberalism. That's different.

And that's that. :)

[coiler]

Don't leave out Maddow, she has great sources and is featured on Countdown more often, stomping the nuts of the right wing.

[sparky]

YES! vg

[joanie]

Totally agree!

[Andrew]

Over-valuing "expert" opinions is a whole other danger. If even a chimp has something to say I'm willing to listen and give due consideration.

[joanie]

Andrew, I think you're playing with us now. I'm going to quit taking you seriously at all! What a funny young man you are.

[Tommy008]

Frank is still caliing Christine Gregoire the "Governor of King County" like the smalltime, peabrained bumpkin that he is. Get over it, Frank. Your boy lost.

[joanie]

Boston Legal will be on YouTube tomorrow! And maybe Truthout! If anybody just missed Alan's summation on a case involving Guantanamo, you must watch it.

Riveting and wonderful!

[Andrew]

The point is that expertise is one of many factors to consider. I've recently become interested in reading body language and other cues to gauge wether someone is being honest or making shit up.