After Rush Limbaugh stepped in it last week, and a couple of local hosts referred to Whitney Houston as a ''crack ho'' after her death, Clear Channel KFI in Los Angeles decided something should be done. So--they bumped nationally known progressive talker Thom Hartmann from KTLK. (Tom is still heard locally on KPTK M-F 12p-3p).
Why boot a progressive voice who out-of-towners might have sought out when in the LA area?
Los Angeles, one of the most progressive cities in America, has this ONE progressive radio station, and a couple of conservative stations. Radio analysts point out that even though Limbaugh has much higher ratings, it is no accident that his stations have much more powerful signals and when competing stations fade out in surrounding regions, Rush can still be heard.
Clear Channel apparently doesn't care about the listeners who started with KTLK when it was Air America, and who stayed with the nationally known, very progressive hosts ever since. Or perhaps they are actively trying to kill the format so they could then say it failed, and keep Limbaugh on KFI in spite of near universal outrage. Other nationally known progressives have been removed from KTLK and replaced with people like Clark Howard. The only progressive radio host left is Randi Rhodes in the middle of the day with unknowns on either side of her. When we checked the lineup, they were running old "Best of Thom Hartmann" in the middle of the night.
I don't think anybody really listens to Randi. Too much "I" - I learn from her but I can't take a whole show usually.
Getting rid of Tom? I can see that. He's effective.
I bet someday someone will out a directive from ALEC to all radio corporations with the command: Control the message! The Koch Brothers will stop at nothing.
You think I'm kidding? They have the money and the opportunity now that equal time is history.
Posted by: truth-seeker | March 17, 2012 at 10:31 PM
I thought Hartmann was on KTLK, not KFI?
Posted by: EvergreenRailfan | March 18, 2012 at 12:13 AM
You're right, Evergreen Rail Fan. We type too fast sometimes, and the error has been corrected. Thanks.
Posted by: Rachelle | March 18, 2012 at 12:52 AM
I've always liked Hartman, he is also an extremely prolific writer.
Randi on the other hand comes off as unhinged and way too much of the 'I'. She comes off as a liberals version of Rush--sans the radio skills.
Their is an audience for that but thankfully not so large.
(BTW, I am not a fan of Rush and rarely listen to him)
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | March 18, 2012 at 06:57 AM
I mentioned Red Eye TV, but my comment was removed, presumably because it was off topic. Hopefully, that will be a consistent practice from here on.
My other question was to ask Truth Seeker does he have any proof that the Koch Brothers had anything to do with Hartmann being removed ? What was his most recent Arbitron rating ?
I have heard Thom as a guest on Michael Medved's show because he adds to the intellectual discussion -even though they are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. That type of discourse makes for more interesting radio.
Posted by: KS | March 18, 2012 at 10:00 AM
Randi is to Rush like truth is to fiction. She posts a homework page with sources linked. Does Rush?
I'm curious about Ed. Under who's banner does he broadcast?
Posted by: Truth-seeker | March 18, 2012 at 10:40 AM
KS, I hedged my comment about ALEC with an I bet... Read up on ALEC Exposed or The Koch Connection and decide for yourself.
I believe they are trying to control the message. You don't have to agree.
Posted by: Truth-seeker | March 18, 2012 at 10:53 AM
Most likely Clear Channel keeps KTLK as is because it provides a perceived "balance" for the more conservative leanings of KFI. Putting their own syndicated personalities on the station is actually smart because it gives those shows an LA clearance. Those non-CC shows could also be there because their syndicators are willing to pay $$ for clearance in LA.
Posted by: casual observer | March 18, 2012 at 11:43 AM
Most of Randi's sources are evidently bogus, based on her track record. She could use more discernment to get more accurate sources so her rants would be more credible and effective.
ALEC may well be one of her sources and based on my reading, they might consider relying less on Media matters and paying more attention to other less-biased sources - I don't expect "truth"seeker to agree. In closing, playing fast and loose with the facts has its consequences.
Posted by: KS | March 18, 2012 at 01:34 PM
Randi is to Rush like truth is to fiction. She posts a homework page with sources linked. Does Rush?
I'm curious about Ed. Under who's banner does he broadcast?
Posted by: Truth-seeker | March 18, 2012 at 10:40 AM
yeah, that time randi was on air blaming haliburton for setting fires in southern california based off of her google map settings...priceless. or the time she took a tumble off the curb and her station blamed bush. too damn funny.
media matters? anyone still using them? jeez...
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | March 18, 2012 at 04:42 PM
More character assassination, Puget Sound? You don't know what was going on with Randi. Haven't we had this conversation before? And she wasn't blaming Haliburton for setting fires. She was suggesting that anything is possible.
You really should stick to facts.
Posted by: Mary | March 18, 2012 at 04:45 PM
Yes, it's mess at KTLK, LA's progressive talk station now only has two lib talkers -- Randi Rhodes in pm drive and Stephanie Miller in am. (I don't count Bill Press who's on from 3-6 am) However, their recent decision to drop Thom Hartmann was not a Clear Channel hatchet-job. Hartmann's syndicator -- Dial-Global changed his live show from 9a-12n to 12n-3p. Since Rhodes' Show was at that time, there was no place to put Hartmann. Of course, this doesn't explain or justify CC's moves over the past year or so to cut back on lib talk at KTLK. That's another issue.
Posted by: barooosk | March 18, 2012 at 06:06 PM
More character assassination, Puget Sound? You don't know what was going on with Randi. Haven't we had this conversation before? And she wasn't blaming Haliburton for setting fires. She was suggesting that anything is possible.
You really should stick to facts.
Posted by: Mary | March 18, 2012 at 04:45 PM
yeah, like 'blackwater' was behind it...
randi is 'spooked'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv6Bbn7Lr3M
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | March 18, 2012 at 06:49 PM
back to Thom Hartmann
he's a much classier host then what we typical see.
Clearly someone like Rhodes is not in Thom's class.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | March 18, 2012 at 07:38 PM
Breaking news: The best in the business, Brian Lamb, is stepping down as CEO of Cspan.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | March 18, 2012 at 07:41 PM
CSPIN is still on the air?
Posted by: EH | March 18, 2012 at 08:10 PM
Wonder how that is going to affect CSPAN with Lamb stepping down ? They were probably the best source to watch for ongoing government activity - hope that doesn't change.
Posted by: KS | March 18, 2012 at 09:10 PM
thom hartman has been covering the fact that pres obama continues the rendition policy.
no outrage from the left on this as long as it is obama, not bush...
here is a new report on same.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/19/afghanistan-torture-transfer-detainees_n_1363835.html
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers--thom covers rendition | March 19, 2012 at 02:36 PM
Apparently if Puget doesn't read about it here, it means liberals are giving Obama a pass. Rather narrow in scope if you ask me.
Posted by: Walt | March 19, 2012 at 05:05 PM
not really Walt, just so damn funny that the same one who rushed to this blog before are so dam silent now...
maybe not funny as much as telling.
anywhooo, Hartman at least is covering it.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | March 19, 2012 at 05:28 PM
Walt, you'll find that the Sound is more interested in put downs to posters than actually talking about anything interesting. Haven't you noticed?
Posted by: Mary | March 19, 2012 at 05:59 PM
Only telling if they, in fact, are giving him a pass. But you don't know that.
Bill Maher is a stand up comedian on a network only people with money can afford to have in their homes. Bill Maher is not the head of the Democratic party as he isnt even a Democrat. He made fun of her getting pregnant, which isnt really all that funny, but Palin brought her morals and her children to the convention and as any public figure learns, they are wide open targets for jokes. Bristol is not a public figure as such, and I agree she should not be the butt of jokes. But his jokes were more about Palin's religiosity and condemnation of people who dont share her religious morals. Maher also did not ask Bristol to make a sex tape with her boyfriend and post it online. Maher did not admonish her for 3 days straight. Had he done all of those things, and reached the same audience numbers as Rush, then you would have yourself a double standard.
Posted by: Walt | March 19, 2012 at 06:26 PM
Walt, there have been lots of posts showing disappointment with Obama. It is not in Puget Sound's interest to acknowledge them. He would rather regurgitate his laundry of Obamaisms. We've all read them ad infinitum.
Malloy replaying the sounds of shock and awe over Iraq which happened nine years ago tonight according to Malloy. It is a look back to the beginning of much of our misery.
Posted by: Truth-seeker | March 19, 2012 at 09:43 PM
TS - Two wrongs don't make a right !
Posted by: KS | March 19, 2012 at 10:31 PM
truth seeker, that isn't strictly true. on this blog, pres obama gets such a pass over stuff that was screamed at when bush did it.
it's the lack of consistency that reveals some of the earlier posturing as political in nature and not out of a sense of conviction. but you know that.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | March 20, 2012 at 05:35 AM
KS
you and I read the blog, is this true?
"Walt, there have been lots of posts showing disappointment with Obama."
can you recall lots of postings from the usual suspects showing disappointment in Pres Obama?
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | March 20, 2012 at 05:55 AM
Interesting article on the deal making between Dems and Repubs. Neither side comes out looking particularly good on this one. I actually think that between his war time stances and willingness to cut deals that Repubs have reason to be happier with Pres Obama then the Left. But for some reason, the Left is willing to take it.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/03/how-obama-tried-to-sell-out-liberalism-in-2011.html
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | March 20, 2012 at 06:05 AM
Which goes back to my original comment. If "they" don't post it on this blog, that is somehow proof they are giving Obama a pass. You know nothing of the sort.
Posted by: Walt | March 20, 2012 at 06:07 AM
puhleese, walt.
for years the same folks who reveled in coming on here and commenting on bush/cheney then mccain-palin ad infinitum suddenly when it comes time to express disappointment in pres obama trundle off to another website to do so.
that dog don't hunt.
but nice try, walt. LMAO
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | March 20, 2012 at 06:47 AM
Yes, we are equal opportunity bashers. Where's your disappointment with the right?
The left's disappointment with Obama has been expressed right here many times. I've noticed a lot of those posters don't post much anymore.
Maybe, like Sparky, they just get tired of the constant partisan bashing from you and KS. Sparky's post is a good example. She tried to talk about the pipeline and you turned into another bashing of Obama.
Posted by: truth-seeker | March 20, 2012 at 08:07 AM
truth seeker
KS and I have posted numerous critiques of Republicans on this blog. but you know that.
I've posted positive comments about Pres Obama, but you know that.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | March 20, 2012 at 08:50 AM
i can't believe they took tom hartman off. the best thing since michael jackson and i learned a lot more. any thing good doesn't last long in this dumbed down media. i am turning off my radio and ktlk for sure.audrey potts
Posted by: audrey potts | March 22, 2012 at 10:25 AM
KS and I have posted numerous critiques of Republicans on this blog.
Total BS, PS.
Posted by: Truth-seeker | March 22, 2012 at 06:46 PM
Catching up on Maddow, Romney said after Illinois win:
free markets must be protected?
No government? So who protects free markets? Why do free markets need protecting? Free is free. Russia anyone?
when a government finally understands it is better for more people to pay less in taxes than for a very few people to pay a lot more...
Heads I win, tails you lose.
Poverty defeated by opportunity...
Bain Capital anyone?
...no one in the world would test the might of our military.
Iraq attacked us?
Posted by: Truth-seeker | March 22, 2012 at 07:28 PM
Sound bytes from Maddow ? for low information voters. Total BS, Seeker...
Posted by: KS | March 24, 2012 at 11:30 AM
You don't even bother to listen to the "sound bytes" KS, so you can't argue their validity. You just toss out a name, label it BS and call it good. You can't carry on a debate about issues, only trash the people who make the arguments. Very intellectual of you, KS. They have taught you well over on Sound Politics.
Posted by: Walt | March 24, 2012 at 11:45 AM
And, KS, the sound bytes are from Romney, not Maddow.
Posted by: Truth-seeker | March 24, 2012 at 12:05 PM
when a government finally understands it is better for more people to pay less in taxes than for a very few people to pay a lot more...
Posted by: http://www.amerisleep.com | December 30, 2012 at 10:48 PM