Despite all the schmutzing by commenters on this blog and elsewhere, KIROFM has zoomed up to no. 3 in the market (tied with rhythmic KUBE) in the all ages rankings.
What was different this month? Gotta say it: a solid month of Luke Burbank's teaming up with Dave Ross (m-f, 9a-12p) and Bill Radke in the morning (m-f, with Linda Thomas. (Wonder where Brian Suits listeners went...)
That's quite a leap from 18th place earlier this year.
Public radio KUOW made a good book jumping to 8th place. KOMO, which led for months and months has sunk to llth, and KVI seems to be only slightly worse running 60's Top 40 than when they had Suits, John Carlson, Mark LeVin, and Sean Hannity.
When they put Luke on, they went to number 2. (In my opinion.) What's number 3? Projectile vomiting?
Posted by: I Mopped Up Dori Monson's Private Booth Last Thursday | December 03, 2010 at 12:20 PM
Just an election time spike? Do you know what demo pushed them this far north of KOMO?
Posted by: BlackRhino | December 03, 2010 at 01:08 PM
No it was all due to Dori Monson of course. It's not that his show changed much if at all, it's that all of Seattle changed, and suddenly realized his show isn't a steaming pile of shit. There was a mass coming to of senses. This is yet another development that proves Dori's detractors wrong, as all developments are. While other hosts work hard to ruin KIRO's ratings, Dori always manages to pull the station back up to the top with his own bare hands. Rumor have even circulated that Star Monson will be given his own weekend special interest show at the expense of Frank Shier's weekend extravaganza.
Posted by: Andrew | December 03, 2010 at 01:18 PM
Dori sounding like a little kid today, with his idol Penn Gillette sitiiing in on his show, and Dori with his babyish, lazy speech patterns........ by the way Dori i'm glad the moron high school kid got the unsportsmanlike conduct penalty in the football game, for goign to his knees, praying and pointing up to the sky after his touchdown run....kep your damn Christian religion to yourself and in your church, Dori,,,,the rest of us don't want to hear about it from you or see this kind of jackassery on the football field......
Posted by: Tommy008 | December 03, 2010 at 02:14 PM
I'm getting sick of all these Libertarians who also claim to be Christian, like "I happen to be of Christian faith, but if you decided to get into a career that doesn't pay well and you can't afford your own health insurance then tough shit son, don't steal the hood ornament off of my Mercedes just because you're hungry."
Christians are the ultimate trolls. They can go on for centuries talking about how they're in God's good graces while also happening to hold every last objectivist, capitalist, nihilistic, selfish view anyone ever thought up.
Dori was speaking to an atheist who had bought space on a billboard, and Dori was asking "why do you need to offend Christians?", and then moments later Dori tells the atheist that atheism is a belief also, a belief that there is no God. The atheist guest then calmly tried to explain that "a-theism" means "lack of any belief" either way, to which Dori rudely chortled that this isn't what atheism really is.
Yes, it is. Christians always attack atheists by lying about what atheism really is, forcing their atheist opponent to have to explain and correct them, nuance which gives the Christian the opening they need to shout their opponent down.
Posted by: Andrew | December 03, 2010 at 02:40 PM
I'm an atheist and have never felt 'under attack' by Christians.
It's generally a civil discussion in which we agree to disagree.
Andrew, having someone disagree with you doesn't mean you're being attacked. You should try and be a little less sensitive.
Posted by: Puget Sound | December 03, 2010 at 03:10 PM
Oh please. Christians put up billboards and signs everywhere saying things like "Jesus cares". Christians are fighting to get their creationism bullshit taught in biology classes. Christians claim that atheists are amoral, and feel no remorse for their actions. They try to pass laws based on teachings of the Bible, subjugating non-Christians to their twisted, backwards beliefs regarding abortion, stem cell research and gay rights. They put their God shit in the Pledge of Allegiance and on our currency. They accuse atheists of taking sides with Hitler and communists. Christians want to dismantle social programs so that those is need will be forced to join churches for social support, and then they are forced to walk around handing out Christian paraphernalia in exchange for soup and shelter. Christian charities such as the Salvation Army deny assistance to gays.
Posted by: Andrew | December 03, 2010 at 04:04 PM
It ain't Bill Radke, I tune out when I hear his voice just as fast as when his voice on KUOW reminded me to switch from Morning Edition to Dave Ross.
I have always loved Dave Ross but Luke Burbank is really helping his show become something different but still awesome to listen to. The smartest thing KIRO ever did was fire Luke so that TBTL could become huge as a podcast and allow Luke's star to rise so KIRO could hire him back.
Posted by: Wplate | December 03, 2010 at 04:26 PM
Yeah, I'm sure KIRO management can distinguish between morning drive ratings and Dave & Lukes ratings. I can see why people would prefer Radke to Gregg Hersholt, but I don't see how or why they could choose him over any of the other fine morning shows in Seattle. He sounds strangely amateurish despite having as much radio experience as he does.
Having Ton Tangy (sp?) fill in for Luke this week has really demonsrated how good Luke is. It's just not nearly as good. I like Tom Tangy (sp?) but only for short periods of time. He's got a sort of superior attitude that gets tiresome.
Posted by: Andrew | December 03, 2010 at 04:36 PM
I heard Dori's interview with the "Atheist billboard" guy...
I don't get how any person of faith, or those who say there is no God think either is superior.
Neither side can prove their point which is why I'm an agnostic.
Everyone else is wrong... Period.
(I'm also clearly a hate filled bigot)
No question that the average atheist does indeed take a self righteous stance far beyond any christians I know.
Often goes with the elitist Liberal attitude.
Good for KIRO on their ratings.
Doesn't change my listening habits at all, but good for them.
Posted by: Rat_Bastard | December 03, 2010 at 05:08 PM
are there two andrews, or is the first post a joke, or is there one confused one? I think Dori aches worse than ever...apparently the mormons will only let him do "war on Christmas" and "if you look at this sexy chick your'e a pervert (trust me and jake, we did and we are)" stories. He's had to cut way back on bashing blacks and gays and mexicans, is only occasionally bashing musliNs...he's a eunich. You can tell his heart isn't in it; his yawn blog yawn posts are boring and infrequent and reflect little or not effrort.
Posted by: jesus | December 03, 2010 at 05:26 PM
I have to admit, Luke B is growing on me - it must be his pairing with Dave, or something... Or maybe I am becoming more young at heart.
Star Monson is a girl. Another of Dori's possessions; my wife, my girls, my dog, my Jag. It is all "I, me, my" in Dori's world.
Posted by: AprilMayJune | December 03, 2010 at 05:36 PM
Rat_Bastard, agnostics are athiests. The only reason you think there is a difference is because you don't know what atheist means. Atheist means "lack of belief in deities", but the Christian cabal has worked to convince you that atheism means "belief that there is no god". Once you understand what atheism really means you will realize that you are an atheist, and there is no such thing as an "agnostic".
Posted by: Andrew | December 03, 2010 at 05:39 PM
jesus, I was making use of this technique developed in the early 21st century called "sarcazm" which fools people into thinking there are two of you. It was developed by Google.
Posted by: Andrew | December 03, 2010 at 05:47 PM
Rat_Bastard, agnostics are athiests.
Posted by: Andrew
This is from "dictionary.com":
"An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine."
I've always known Atheist to be a denial that God exists and that Agnostics just have no "belief" either way, but accept that either is possible.
They are very different from each other.
Believers and non believers claim knowledge that they just don't have.
Their opinion comes from a desperate need to know.
(Or at least to think they know)
There's nothing wrong with admitting that some things in our world have not been scientifically explained and therefore do not need to be understood without enough evidence to back it up.
Most Christians I've known try to be good people and most Aetheists I've known seem to have a need to feel superior to the Christians and all other reigious believers...
Except Muslims of course for some insane reason.
Posted by: Rat_Bastard | December 03, 2010 at 06:53 PM
Some atheist remind me of fundamentalist Christian. They are dualistic in their thinking. Their is an absolute belief that their is a deity and an absolute belief that their is no deity. Their are actually some that fall somewhere in betwee. People who beleive there is no proof one way or the other and are willing to entertain either possibility. These are people who enjoy living with the mystery.
Posted by: gorkri | December 03, 2010 at 06:58 PM
I forgot to add that those people are called agnostics.
Posted by: gorkri | December 03, 2010 at 07:00 PM
Thank you gorkri.
Posted by: Rat_Bastard | December 03, 2010 at 07:01 PM
Is there any chance that the upswing is due to the Seahawks games?
Posted by: MacTwinny | December 03, 2010 at 07:02 PM
Andrew. Please get on a more well read blog than our local radio blog and spew your hatred. Please make sure that the word gets out.
The last I read, Christians make up about 41% of the Democrat party and about 53% of the Republicans. Of course, it is rumored that there are more Dems than Reps in this nation so if you would just denigrate half of them and chase them to the right side, we can shut down the D's for generations to come.
Carry on bigot. You have your mission.
Posted by: Chucks | December 03, 2010 at 07:07 PM
are you kidding? seahawks? seahawks? seahawks?
think jim mora.
Posted by: nfl head | December 03, 2010 at 07:07 PM
Andrew
Interesting diatribe. You should have changed 'Christians' to 'Some Christians' and those other references as to it being on money, etc. Jeez, look upon it as a historical reference. No one is forcing you to become religious.
You really seemed threatened by people who disagree with you.
Jesus Cares, okay is that really so hurtful. As an atheist it doesn't bother me in the least that others believe that Jesus is around and he cares.
Posted by: Puget Sound | December 03, 2010 at 07:13 PM
Andy, you are way too uptight/cranky for someone in his 20's.
It sure doesn't bode well for you when 40 rolls around.
Get over it, people will disagree with you. It's not a bad thing.
Posted by: Puget Sound | December 03, 2010 at 07:24 PM
I’m posting this just to break up one of PS’s 4 post diatribes.
Posted by: AHhhhhhh! | December 03, 2010 at 07:29 PM
chucks
you're right, andrew needs to get a larger vehicle from which to spew his hatred of christians.
a fellow like andrew is worth a few thousand votes to the republicans.
maybe if we could get joanie to join him it would be even better.
joanie -- andrew or andrew -- joanie
a 'heavenly' republican combo.
Posted by: Puget Sound | December 03, 2010 at 07:31 PM
Rat_Bastard says ""An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.""
You're wrong, and that definition is wrong.
The word atheism is deconstructed as "a" and "theism". Theism is "the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods". The prefix "a" is from greek, and is called "privative alpha", and it expresses negation or absence. When put together, "atheist" literaly means "the absence of a belief in a god or gods".
There has been long running and pervasive efforts made to bastardize the word atheist, and portray it as meaning "antitheism", which is to say "opposition to god or gods", and they do this because "antitheists" are easier to attack and more disagreeable, and people such as yourselves aren't able to grasp the distinction.
While the term "atheism" originally dates the back to the 5th century BCE, the term "agnostic" is relatively new, being coined in 1876 due to the fact that theists had successfully confused enough people over the term "atheism". The term "agnostic" as it's generaly used is technically redundant.
Another reason why the term "agnostic" is idiotic is that "gnostic" means "knowledge", religious or otherwise, so if you're "a" - "gnostic" does that mean you're dumb? Maybe that's not too far off the mark, I don't know.
Posted by: Andrew | December 03, 2010 at 07:39 PM
putz & chucks: if you think I'm going to take anything a couple of mouth breathing knuckle draggers from Pierce County seriously, then I've got a chain of fine mexican restaurants I would like to sell you.
Posted by: Andrew | December 03, 2010 at 07:43 PM
i'll some sour cream on my enchilada's please. and hurry back with the chips/salsa, my friend KS is damn hungry.
Posted by: Puget Sound | December 03, 2010 at 07:48 PM
post anything you want bean counter, but whatever you do, don't post anything on topic or relevant to the discussion.
Posted by: Andrew | December 03, 2010 at 08:08 PM
Putz, what happend to working the 2nd shift?
Posted by: BlackRhino | December 03, 2010 at 08:21 PM
"You're wrong, and that definition is wrong."
Posted by: Andrew
OK, let's try Webster's on line dictionary...
Definition of ATHEIST
one who believes that there is no deity
Definition of AGNOSTIC
one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Every Atheist I've known insists that there is no God.
We can talk endlessly about where words came from, but the modern meaning of the two words are well defined.
Sounds like you're just looking to argue, Andrew.
Aside from all of this.
KIRO's ratings may not reflect many of us on this blog, but it seems that the latest ratings for them are good.
Not sure if the Seahawks can count for much since fans either go to the games or watch them.
I don't think too many listen when so many sources of watching the games exist.
The Dave Ross sidekick experiment doesn't do much for me, and Dori's show is always good, but I tune away more often than I used to.
Somebody must be listening to KIRO.
Maybe King County elections got control of the latest ratings.
Posted by: Rat_Bastard | December 03, 2010 at 09:56 PM
I'm with Andrew. Agnostics are really cowardly atheists. You either believe or you don't. Agnostics are just covering their bets and of all people, chuckles should understand that.
And because sputs continues to have nothing to add to the conversation, he defaults to his bigoted and base (and unfunny) sense of humor.
I think Andrew has heard it before. I know I have. Yawn.
BTW, Andrew. I love Mexican food. Do you? Ever tried Gorditos? Mmmm-Mm.
Posted by: joanie | December 03, 2010 at 09:59 PM
Rat_Bastard says ""An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.""
Posted by: Andrew
Also... I didn't say that...
Dictionary.com said that.
I just agreed with the definition.
Dude, get it together.
Posted by: Rat_Bastard | December 03, 2010 at 10:05 PM
Agnostics are really cowardly atheists. You either believe or you don't.
Posted by: joanie
The point of being agnostic is that you don't side with believing or disbelieving...
Agnostics feel that there is no solid case to take a hard stand either way...
And that either side "COULD" be correct.
The evidence just isn't in on that for us humans... Yet.
Those who HAVE to have it be one way or the other are like impatient children.
Especially the Atheists...
Now go ask your mommy for a hug.
Posted by: Rat_Bastard | December 03, 2010 at 10:13 PM
Garbage. Grow up and decide. You're a big boy - right?
Posted by: joanie | December 03, 2010 at 10:17 PM
"Grow up and decide."
Posted by: joanie
The existence of a God (big G) or gods (little g) is clearly something that is too complex for some...
If you have to make a hard decision on that question in order to move on... So be it.
Many of us prefer to let it be what it is...
An unknown answer to a humanity long question.
If it makes you sleep better at night to have the question answered without proof, then sweet dreams little one.
Just sounds lazy to me.
Posted by: Rat_Bastard | December 03, 2010 at 10:21 PM
And if you have to sit on the fence to feel secure in your eventual demise, so be it. You need a god, you got one. I think if you had researched the topic, you might be less confused. Why don't you try it?
Posted by: joanie | December 03, 2010 at 10:25 PM
This is why religion and anti religion is such a hard topic for so many...
No easy answers for thoughtful people...
Sometimes no answers at all.
But again, if it makes you feel better... And you just have to have it settled...
Don't hurt yourself with all of that "accpeting that you don't know everythingism"...
It's difficult for some of the humans.
Posted by: Rat_Bastard | December 03, 2010 at 10:28 PM
You need a god, you got one
Posted by: joanie
That's the issue...
Some need a God...
Some need it to be no God...
The people who can let it be unknown until further evidence is in make both other groups look like true fools.
Posted by: Rat_Bastard | December 03, 2010 at 10:32 PM
No, that's your "belief." Some need a belief to make it through apparently. It is kind of like politics, isn't it? I mean some of us get the information and decide and others continue to "believe" and look for that which reinforces their beliefs.
I am of this world. I am happy and I know that what I do in this world counts. I have no need to worry about some mythical afterlife. I find my spirituality (not "god") in this life and I am one with nature. That may be why I treasure the life that is rather than the life that could be - an unformed fetus. That may be why I endorse and vote for policies that treasure all life - even those who should be able but do not care for themselves: the poor, the homeless, the unemployed. I know that there, but for the grace of (your) god, go I.
I am at peace. I have no need for an explanation of my existence. I do not need a god to show me yhe way to be a good person. And the biblical god doesn't exactly show the way to be a good person, does he(she)? Fire and brimstone defines many biblical gods. Ah, god is an invention by man to explain himself. I have moved beyond that.
I am an old soul. But, you have the need to cover your bets, then do so. I wonder if god (your god) will count that when it comes time to enter the gates of heavan. I can see him now: (stroking his long white beard: "well, you didn't truly believe, off to hell with you!"
Posted by: joanie | December 03, 2010 at 10:51 PM
BTW, "heaven" - another mythical place.
Posted by: joanie | December 03, 2010 at 10:53 PM
Do Dave and Luke ever talk politics anymore? I don't podcast Dave anymore. Is it easy banter now or do they actually mix it up and do interviews and get a little political now and then.
Apparently the ACLU agrees with me on Assange:
The American Civil Liberties Union said that prosecuting WikiLeaks would have serious First Amendment implications.
The following can be attributed to Hina Shamsi, Director of the ACLU National Security Project:
“We’re deeply skeptical that prosecuting WikiLeaks would be constitutional, or a good idea. The courts have made clear that the First Amendment protects independent third parties who publish classified information. Prosecuting WikiLeaks would be no different from prosecuting the media outlets that also published classified documents. If newspapers could be held criminally liable for publishing leaked information about government practices, we might never have found out about the CIA’s secret prisons or the government spying on innocent Americans. Prosecuting publishers of classified information threatens investigative journalism that is necessary to an informed public debate about government conduct, and that is an unthinkable outcome.
“The broader lesson of the WikiLeaks phenomenon is that President Obama should recommit to the ideals of transparency he invoked at the beginning of his presidency. The American public should not have to depend on leaks to the news media and on whistleblowers to know what the government is up to.”
I wonder if America will ever be America again.
BTW, did you all hear about Nigeria gong after Cheney and getting Interpol involved. I'm sure that's going somewhere . . . The Obama Administration intervened in the attempt of a Spanish prosecutor to prosecute Bush/Cheney for torture. It would embarrass the US to do such a thing. My, my. Bush and Cheney are embarrassments. I'm beginning to be embarrassed by my President, too.
See Howard Fineman
Posted by: joanie | December 03, 2010 at 11:04 PM
Rat_Bastard, my cited definition of atheism comes from the original greek dating back over 2500 years. That's right. Atheism as such is older than Christianity. With all due respect, dictionary.com can fuck itself.
But more to the point, the large vibrant atheist community operates under the understanding and the definition I've laid out, that we make no claim to the existance or the non-existance of God (or gods).
Although I disagree with joanie's characterization of the issue, she's correct in saying that agnostics are basically big, dripping pussies. They're atheists who are too cowardly to call themselves what they really are.
And you're right about this; saying that there is no god is as nonsensical as saying their is a god. Neither point of view can be proven. And that's why atheists, smart people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens don't take that narrow point of view which you ascribe to atheists.
Posted by: Andrew | December 04, 2010 at 01:42 AM
joanie, Assange isn't America so the American Civil Liberties Union not need concern itself with Assange's American Civil Liberties.
It's apparently not obvious to you yet, but it will become apparent to you sooner or later than the "no secret is a good secret" doctrine is a tenet of anarchy. Think about all the things you don't shout out loud to the world and then realize how hyprocritical it is to expect any and every country or business to do the same.
Suppose Assange releases dirt on Bank of America just to spite some corrupt executives, and as a result perhaps theirs a run on the bank, Americas economy is heavily damaged, seniors lose their savings, dreams are wiped out... was it worth it? What if I'm not happy being a sacrificial lamb just so you can take satisfaction in having exposed a few evil executives?
Posted by: Andrew | December 04, 2010 at 01:55 AM
Why is nobody mentioning all the guest and fill-in hosts that dominated KIRO's airwaves in October and November? John Curley, Jodi Brothers, Mike West, Jessica Gottessman, and on and on and on. Maybe THAT is why the ratings were so good. Because R & D, Dori, and Dave & Luke were asked to take so much time off?
People tuned in for variety and new hosts. Let's see what happens in December.
Posted by: Stillhandsome | December 04, 2010 at 03:18 AM
Good point:
"Why is nobody mentioning all the guest and fill-in hosts that dominated KIRO's airwaves in October and November?"
Posted by: AprilMayJune | December 04, 2010 at 08:21 AM
KIRO's November success is mostly based on staying true to its established format. No jarring changes, just personality tweaking to enhance its image. KOMO's identity loss from all news to bifurcation of all news and news talk created confusion that drove listeners to the old established. Seems to me the folks at KOMO are their own worst enemy.
Posted by: cueburner | December 04, 2010 at 08:40 AM
asinine ACLU statement.....Asshat can and will be prosecuted, ya town crank.....Holder is looking into appropriate stautes, as we speak...Espionage Act of 1917.....rendition?... some attaboys are in store although Obama still doesnt deserve a second term....high fives for the increased drone attacks, Barack.....
Posted by: Tommy008 | December 04, 2010 at 10:10 AM
So Joanie agrees with the ACLU - the quasi-communist organization about Assange. Another asinine opinion offered up by American Criminal Liars Union.
Posted by: KS | December 04, 2010 at 10:32 AM
And that's why atheists, smart people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens don't take that narrow point of view which you ascribe to atheists.
Explain that please. Christopher (There is no god) Hitchens? And add Carl (billions and billions) Sagan to that list.
BTW, what is my "characterizaion?" What part don't you agree with?
I didn't indicate either way whether the ACLU "should" or "shouldn't" do anything. They are an organization determined to protect civil liberties and have every right to weigh in on the subject. Certainly as much right as you take. Or me. God, you're prissy sometimes.
I believe in transparency. You don't. Fine. Your opinion doesn't make it right. This blog needs a good lesson on "opinion" vs. "fact."
And the notion that "no secrets"=anarchy is ridiculous. And, in case you haven't noticed, it was exactly the "secrets" held by the government and the bankers (shall we say "gangsters") that caused this upheaval in our economy. To argue that transparency and regulation (and regulation is impossible without transparency) would cause upheaval is without reason.
BTW, I read that Bank of America is next on his list. Like Elliott Ness and the mob, Assange will take care of the banks! Good for him.
Posted by: joanie | December 04, 2010 at 11:34 AM