A radio biz guru has said, "Any good host or exec will tell you that he is in the audience acquisition, retention and expansion business, to maximize the value of their spots."
(photo: Sean Hannity bumps it with a trumpet)
So if you still think your favorite firebranding, freedom-loving, uber-patriotic talk host does what he or she does, says what he or she says, out of pure love of god, country, and the American way, you're just a dittohead.
Politico reports that top national radio talkers are being paid millions$, literally, for right-wing activist lobbying groups whose messages are not only carried in ad copy, but also swirled into show content with only occasional or casual mentions that their messages are bought and paid for by these sponsors.
(photo: Laura Ingraham got dumped)
Freedom Works, is working hard against front-runner Mitt Romney... and guess what? so is Glenn Beck, who got around $1.4 million from the well-financed Republican phony grassroots "tea-party" front guided by Dick Armey.
Mark LeVin (that's not pronounced to rhyme with 'seven,' say it the French way, accented on the 2nd syllable, leh VIN, except misprounce the 'vin' part to rhyme with 'sin') gets 1.2 million for his sponsorship of Americans For Prosperity, a Koch Brothers-funded astroturf tea party organization.
Levin, whose endorsement deal with the tea party organizing group Americans for Prosperity started last summer, was similarly protective of his sponsor last year after President Barack Obama singled out the group in making the case that anonymously funded attack ads were distorting the midterm elections.
“Americans for Prosperity is a magnificent organization that people join voluntarily. You. Me,” Levin said on his syndicated radio show. Obama, Levin continued, “wants you to hate Americans for Prosperity. So if he wants you to hate it, then you should embrace it, and promote it, and support it and join it, because it’s effective.”
The Heritage Foundation, the grand-daddy conservative bullshit delivery system started this in 2008 by buying Laura Ingraham. They dropped her and now gives Rush Limbaugh $2 million and Hannity $1.3 a year to plug membership drives, and to defend the well-financed foundation when it's feeling persecuted (which is most of the time).
(Beck and many other conservative talkers have long been integrating their sponsors' messages into their "entertainment" with their 1-2 punch selling gold at incredibly inflated prices. First he predicts a dog-eat-dog Mad Max world after a collapse of the US financial system, (coming any dy, now) then pitches Goldline products as a hedge strategy. Dittoheads are some of the most gullible people in the world, loyal to a fault and willing to believe anything these on-air hucksters sell, whether it's their loopy politics or gold retailed at prices as much as 5-10X the cost on the real market).
It's working and working real good.
Heritage estimates that it in each of the past two years, its sponsorships with Limbaugh and Hannity brought in more than 40,000 new memberships starting at the $25 level, while FreedomWorks said that in the three months after its Beck sponsorship started in April 2010, the group saw a huge spike in traffic to its website (which featured a photo of Beck linked to a fundraising appeal), resulting in 50,000 new email sign-ups.
There's nothing illegal about this, unfortunately, although old broadcast ethics have been flushed ignominiously down the golden executive toilets of these values-thumping whores.
“I wish more of the grassroots knew the reality that this wasn’t Rush or Sean or Beck saying these things out of the goodness of their hearts,” said the leader of one [conservative] group who inquired about ads on various radio shows, but decided they were both too expensive and ethically suspect. “If the grassroots found out that these guys were getting paid seven figures a year to say this stuff, it might leave a bad taste in their mouth.”
Dittoheads manipulated and their loyalty exploited? Nothing new there, but we think such partisan political activism that's bought and paid for should be daylighted like other political advertising.
There is nothing like this on the left. If it were ever revealed that, say Randi Rhodes or Thom Hartmann were being paid to mix corporate or political sponsors' messaging into their show content, there'd be hell to pay.
“The point that people don’t realize,” said Michael Harrison, founder and publisher of the talk media trade publication TALKERS Magazine, “is that (big time political talk show hosts) are radio personalities – they are in the same business that people like Casey Kasem are in – and what they do is no different than people who broadcast from used car lots or restaurants or who endorse the local roofer or gardener.”
The radio-consuming, dittoheaded, conservative base don't seem to care: with blind trust they eat what's fed to them... and shell out their bucks as directed. They deserved to be suckered... but the rest of us have to work hard to stop these messages from slopping over to pollute the mainstreams.
Well now that Ps and Ks have told me what I think, I can go to bed!
Posted by: sparky | June 17, 2011 at 11:10 PM
It's pretty straightforward what you think - You're too transparent. Go back and reread your posts and get a clue and while you're at it, take off your hyperpartisan blinders..
Now its your turn to tell us how you think we are wrong. Let the circular arguments ensue !
Posted by: KS | June 18, 2011 at 08:43 AM
And Sparky ends the night's debate with one of her favorites--opining about being told what to think by the right. ba-da-boom.
Posted by: Radio Queen | June 18, 2011 at 09:16 AM
Yes, Sparky usually throws out that meme, but now she goes one step farther (unless she mistyped and meant what you said, RQ) and believes the right are reading her mind primarily because she is so predictable, therefore the right must be mean-spirited.
Posted by: KS | June 18, 2011 at 09:30 AM
Well now that Ps and Ks have told me what I think, I can go to bed!
Posted by: sparky | June 17, 2011 at 11:10 PM
KS, Sparky-speak is pretty damn funny. In 'Sparky-Speak' so what she really means is that when facts and reason come into play and a logical conclusion becomes evident for Sparky-speak that equates to being told 'what to think.' Hey this is fun.
Damn those logical conclusions!
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | June 18, 2011 at 09:40 AM
Apparently the Blatherer doesn't know what Coburn did either. Or maybe he just doesn't get it. He's always had difficulty with complicated material and connecting the dots. More likely the latter. So he dodges as usual. And picks on Chappaquidick as it is more sensational and easy pickens. All you had to read were the headlines to get that one. But, Pete likes his vacuousness so he'll now have somebody to appreciate him on this blog. For me, he's still a bean counter who cannot connect the dots and defaults to trash like his posts above to make his ineffective and anti-intellectual points. You're a cheap one, PS.
KS, you don't have a clue what I think or what I would do so quit Becking around on this blog. Anybody with a brain would "obfuscate" you because you are chronically confused. There's really no cure as long as you feed your Faux News habit.
And of course the Queen piles on. Pap said on Ring of Fire that the republicans on that stage all got off the clown car upon arriving at the debate. Best laugh I've had in a long time. And the Queen finally got a look at her motley crew. Those of us on the left who pay attention didn't need a farcical debate to know the clownish entourage on that stage. They've been parading themselves in front of you gullible ignoramuses for months. The best of the bunch is Romney just because he's the most normal. I think he's embarrassed to be seen with the rest of them.
You guys are a laugh a minute.
Posted by: joanie | June 19, 2011 at 09:42 PM
Romney has experience and success in fixing large organizations that are economic basket cases - Obama has none and it shows. Romney is "can do" - Obama bloviates and drones. Romney is a decades long member of a goofball church with strange notions and a history of racial bigotry. Until the 2008 election, when he dumped the church for image purposes, so was Obama. Romney wins. But i think Rick Perry will run. He's a guy who is creating tons of jobs down Texas way, so his success is more recent than Romneys giving him an edge. Perry would beat Obama, so would Romney, but it might be closer.
Posted by: Tommy008 | June 19, 2011 at 10:07 PM
A lot of Texans do not like Perry. So, you want a self-proclaimed prophet running things?
Posted by: joanie | June 19, 2011 at 10:18 PM
Last we heard Trump was a "can do" or is it a can of doo?
Posted by: Coiler | June 19, 2011 at 10:31 PM
Perry set up the $412 million Texas Enterprise Fund and the $320 million Texas Emerging Technologies Fund.
But Time magazine ran a piece about that:
"the funds have been controversial. They have channeled millions of dollars to companies whose officers or investors are major Perry campaign donors and Perry has allowed them to keep their subsidies in many cases even when they fail to deliver promised jobs. More important for the purposes of judging Perry’s job-creating record, even those that do produce jobs don’t necessarily create long-lasting ones, or increase the state’s overall prosperity.
In a report written for Perry last spring, Prof. Michael Porter of Harvard Business School found that Texas’ overall prosperity growth, as measured by per capita GDP, was eighth slowest in the country from 1998 to 2008.
Porter says tax credit funds used to lure jobs to one state from another state, often “ultimately don’t support long-term prosperity,” because companies that can move easily “are looking for the best deal and when the deal runs out they move,” taking their jobs with them."
Do we need another Texas governor who does enormous favors for his rich friends ( and campaign contributors)to run for President? The trouble for Perry is he would have to be President for the other 49 states as well. Kind of hard for a guy who wants Texas to secede.
Posted by: Stewie Griffith | June 19, 2011 at 10:38 PM
you guys are living in your NPR dreamworld if you think the majority of voter are goign to care whether Romney or Perry qualify for the Huffington Post "nice guy" award. They will ignore the smear such rags will attempt against either of them, and vote for a guy who gives them at least some hope of an end to their misery instead of the guy who has proven he hasn't the vision, courage or administrative skills to end it.
Posted by: Tommy008 | June 19, 2011 at 10:50 PM
Last we heard Trump was a "can do" or is it a can of doo?
Posted by: Coiler | June 19, 2011 at 10:31 PM
i will say that Trump certainly has quite the 'Doo' on his head.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | June 20, 2011 at 05:43 AM
Tommy, what does your response have to do with anything Griffith posted? That's why your guys look like clowns trying to appeal to dullards like you.
Posted by: joanie | June 20, 2011 at 06:47 AM
you're the clown, fool. Some of Griffiths crap might actually be true. It doesnt mean Perry couldn't do a better job at drumming up jobs and the economy than "Arrogance Boy" is doing now. The voters aren't in the mood to give a crap about Griffith's misleading bullet points... the Obamas dont deserve a second chance and they will vote for anyone with charisma that's a level above Palin and Bachman at this point. I could very well vote for Perry or Romney too. Dullard? I can write rings around you and reason rings around you fool.... ...you're a jumped up little local public schools fart who has an overblown opinion of her intelligence from being in the Seattle lib echo machine all her life....youre like those silly, smug liberal women who work at the seattle public library, who think they're so smart .... not to mention youre a piece of crap just as a person...haha Joanie haha Joanie...im giving you a D
Posted by: Tommy008 | June 20, 2011 at 09:41 AM
Go to Hell, you bitch....... now that bit of overdue housekeeping is out of the way, i invite the rest of our side to simply stop responding directly to this hag and harridan ,...it simply feeds her ego...we can talk about her or respond to her silly ideas, but no more direct responses to the attention whore please.....she has forfeited her right to a dialogue here...Tommy008
Posted by: hey Joanie - have i told you this yet? | June 20, 2011 at 01:06 PM
You boys just don't get it do you. When you are reduced to calling Joanie names and being rude to her and casting insults at her, you are showing prima facia that she is head and shoulders above you in terms of intelligent discussion. Nice try Tom008 but just as you can't seem to avoid or ignore Dori Monson I don't believe you can ignore Joanie either. She is much of the substance on this board and posts comments that are sourced, backed by reference and or links and very thoroughly thought out. You boys can't keep and it causes you much frustration and consternation. Understandable that you tend to lose your cool. But do keep trying so may be you can learn something. Joanie is always teaching, so take advantage of it and be thankful. Haha
Posted by: Sarah | June 20, 2011 at 04:11 PM
That should be "you boys can't keep up", sorry
Posted by: Sarah | June 20, 2011 at 04:13 PM
"When you are reduced to calling Joanie names and being rude to her and casting insults at her, you are showing prima facia that she is head and shoulders above you in terms of intelligent discussion."
Posted by: Sarah | June 20, 2011 at 04:11 PM
SO funy to come and hold Alpha Joanie's water with 10 gallon hat that she missed this in Joanie's previous post to Tommy.
"That's why your guys look like clowns trying to appeal to dullards like you."
Posted by: joanie | June 20, 2011 at 06:47 AM
Has the progressives fallen that much. What a shame. Tell us Sarah, what is the Alpha promising you?
Posted by: ProgBlogJunky | June 20, 2011 at 07:06 PM
Sorry, Sarah, but "intelligent discussion" with those who have opposing viewpoints does NOT include terms like "idiots," "morons," "dullards," or one of my personal favorites (just a few posts up) "gullible ignoramuses."
Posted by: Radio Queen | June 21, 2011 at 12:56 PM
How do you feel about "he stil looks like an anteater. Stewart is an ass" or "Peelosi" or "a 60 somethign year old puke still waddling aaround " or
"That anorexic horse faced muslim" or
"libtard" or "'useful idiot'" or "she is just another idiot" or "half-brain nutter teacher" or "Dave is a spineless, effete sally"?
Why just choose what joanie says?
Posted by: Jovita | June 21, 2011 at 04:16 PM
I was responding to Sarah's post which was, uh, about joanie. Seemed appropriate to limit my comments to the her post.
Posted by: Radio Queen | June 21, 2011 at 05:03 PM
Understood.
So what do you think of those other comments?
Posted by: Jovita | June 21, 2011 at 05:41 PM
I've made it clear throughout my tenure on this blog that I don't name-call and I don't like to hear it from anyone else--regardless of political affiliation. It shuts off dialogue and serves no purpose other than to inflame.
Posted by: Radio Queen | June 21, 2011 at 06:31 PM
"throughtout my tenure" - that's the funniest line of the day. The Queen of massive assumptions doesn't name call. And she certainly has never tried to inflame . . . you're as much a hypocrite as Puget Sound.
"I've made it clear . . . " Hahahahaha. Hey, Jovita, she sure does make it clear when her own are out their doin' it huh? Hahahaha. Ah Queen. You're so typical of the hypocrites on the right.
Posted by: joanie | June 21, 2011 at 07:08 PM
I do not carry joanie's water, she needs no help in that regard.
Posted by: Sarah | June 22, 2011 at 10:46 AM
Poor joanie, when she starts focusing on the phrases posters use, you know she has nothing of substance to offer. I have no need to name-call or ridicule to make my points. Too bad she can't say the same. I have, on several occasions, called for civility from both sides on this blog and was roundly criticized for doing so. So when things turn nasty, I just choose not to participate.
Posted by: Radio Queen | June 22, 2011 at 12:38 PM
You also choose not to participate when challenged on reasonable grounds, RQ. I've noticed that. And you tend to talk down to people. Maybe you think that is different. Or perhaps you don't see that in yourself.
"Poor" joanie? I don't think so.
Posted by: Anti-Dori | June 22, 2011 at 12:42 PM
A-D, I don't stay on this blog for long periods of time, late into the night, or even daily, but I actually do try to respond when specifically addressed unless it's off-topic, I have nothing new to add, or the conversation has turned circular or ugly. Regarding civility (Sarah turned the thread in that direction around 10 comments ago), you actually take exception to "being talked down to" by me but have no comments regarding the name-calling and ridicule that joanie serves up?
Posted by: Radio Queen | June 22, 2011 at 01:28 PM
I have always been civil in my posts.
Posted by: Sarah | June 22, 2011 at 01:36 PM
I've been thinking about this. Joanie actually gives back to the right on this blog themselves. Frequently her posts are directed at the thread. Frequently, responses turn negative or offensive. Including you: the computer/iPhone response for instance. Who really cares how somebody chooses to get media? You? You don't like hearing it, RQ, but you do it, too. You cloak it in "civility" although I didn't think it was civil. Talking down is not civil. Perhaps the reason I enjoy her posts so much is that she really gives back to you exactly what you people do routinely whether cloaked in civility or spewed out like Tommy, KS, Puget Sound and Chucks do routinely. You are new to this blog. You've made a lot of judgments. Until you can honestly say that you are free of such behavior yourself, I think you probably should refrain from judging others. And Joanie said it: judge it on both sides or neither side.
That's my opinion. I do not wish to argue it. You all do it to Sparky as well when given any opening. She posts less than she used to and she does absolutely nothing to trigger such responses. She lets it go; Joanie gives it back.
Posted by: Anti-Dori | June 22, 2011 at 01:51 PM
Yes, the "you do it too" argument. To label my posts as "cloaked" in civility (with a lame example to boot) while giving joanie yet another pass on her blatant rudeness is priceless. You are a loyal partisan, A-D. You stand on your side no matter what.
Posted by: Radio Queen | June 22, 2011 at 02:36 PM
And you don't? Believe what you wish. It is of little consequence in the long run.
Posted by: Anti-Dori | June 22, 2011 at 02:50 PM
Yes, this whole conversation will be of little consequence. Posters on both sides will continue their rants and the rest of us will have to live with it.
Posted by: Radio Queen | June 22, 2011 at 03:12 PM
HahaHa! Thanks Anti-D but I still don't think the Queen gets it. But good try.
As for you having to live with anything, do you have a ball-and-chain holding you to this blog? I guess that means you are calling yourself "poor Queen?"
Hahahaha. I just laugh at it all. I'm glad some of us can.
Posted by: joanie | June 22, 2011 at 06:47 PM
I see that KTTH has taken Michael Savage, Kim Komando & Clark Howard off. I hop Seattle gets another talk station so they can bring those shows back to Seattle Radio. Perhaps The Wolf's ratings will sink & Entercom will replace 100.7 FM with a talk format. Remember The Buzz? It would be nice if Entercom had a Talk station in it's Seattle cluster again. They haven't had one since they sold KIRO, KTTH & what was then-oldies KBSG to Bonneville in 2007. It was back in 2004 when Entercom sold KNWX to Bustos & is now a Spannish Language station.
Posted by: 12th Man | August 12, 2011 at 10:40 PM