Bongino tapped for FBI Deputy Director

[gr8oldies]

Looks like Cumulus will have an opening from 12n-3pm Eastern

Trump Names Dan Bongino As Deputy Director Of The FBI

President Donald Trump on Sunday evening appointed conservative firebrand Dan Bongino as the next deputy director of the FBI.

www.mediaite.com

 

[davideduardo]

Looks like Cumulus will have an opening from 12n-3pm Eastern

Trump Names Dan Bongino As Deputy Director Of The FBI

President Donald Trump on Sunday evening appointed conservative firebrand Dan Bongino as the next deputy director of the FBI.

www.mediaite.com

The article reads "President Donald Trump on Sunday evening appointed conservative firebrand Dan Bongino..."

Talk about biased journalism. The use of a polarizing term like "firebrand" in a news story is totally unacceptable in any journalism class or seminar.

 

[TheBigA]

Bad news for Cumulus. Bongino's podcast was the biggest thing on their network. Expect Cumulus stock to drop...again.

Triton Digital is releasing its January 2025 U.S. podcast ranker based on weekly average downloads for participating networks. The top four remain unchanged with NPR’s “NPR News Now” at #1, followed by “Up First” at #2, Cumulus Podcast Network’s “The Dan Bongino Show” at #3 and iHeartRadio’s “Stuff You Should Know” at #4.

They've been cutting all of their big name talent. I'd expect him to be replaced by someone from one of their big local talkers.

 

[TheBigA]

Talk about biased journalism. The use of a polarizing term like "firebrand" in a news story is totally unacceptable in any journalism class or seminar.

Have you listened to his radio show? I think the description fits, and that he'd be proud of it. From Webster:

When someone is known for being wildly devoted to a cause or idea, they're called a firebrand. A firebrand enjoys pushing buttons and stirring up passions.

 

[lanceventa]

The article reads "President Donald Trump on Sunday evening appointed conservative firebrand Dan Bongino..."

Talk about biased journalism. The use of a polarizing term like "firebrand" in a news story is totally unacceptable in any journalism class or seminar.

How is it polarizing?

The definition of firebrand is "a person who is passionate about a particular cause, typically inciting change and taking radical action." That's pretty much a definition for any broadcaster and used in the media for decades...

Examples:

Conservative radio firebrand Rush Limbaugh dies at 70

Rush Limbaugh, one of the most listened-to radio hosts in America, has died at the age 70.

ew.com

Rush Limbaugh, Right-Wing Radio Host, Dies at 70

Rush Limbaugh, the conservative firebrand radio host who was a pillar of right-wing media in the U.S. for more than 30 years, has died.

variety.com

Financially strapped radio icon Mary Mason struggles

As a radio pioneer, Mary Mason ruled the Philadelphia airwaves with her firebrand style of talk radio.

www.phillytrib.com

Jay Marvin, Once The ‘Resident Liberal Firebrand’ At WLS, Dies At 70.

Jay Marvin, the liberal talk-show host best known for his work at WLS Chicago and WFLA Tampa, died Tuesday, according to a Twitter post from his wife Mary. He was

www.insideradio.com

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/29/ben-shapiro-radio-podcast-490973

 

[RadioGuy1864]

Bongino took over Rush Limbaugh's time on most Cumulus stations about 4 years ago when Rush passed

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

The article reads "President Donald Trump on Sunday evening appointed conservative firebrand Dan Bongino..."

Talk about biased journalism. The use of a polarizing term like "firebrand" in a news story is totally unacceptable in any journalism class or seminar.

Is he a conservative? Yes. Does he meet the definition of firebrand? Yes.

 

[RadioGuy1864]

Bongino was talking about his new studio Friday. I guess he won't be needing it anymore. I don't know if it was his property or Cumulus, but someone bought an old Burger King and transformed it into a radio studio.

 

[davideduardo]

How is it polarizing?

The definition of firebrand is "a person who is passionate about a particular cause, typically inciting change and taking radical action." That's pretty much a definition for any broadcaster and used in the media for decades...

Examples:

Conservative radio firebrand Rush Limbaugh dies at 70

Rush Limbaugh, one of the most listened-to radio hosts in America, has died at the age 70.

ew.com

Rush Limbaugh, Right-Wing Radio Host, Dies at 70

Rush Limbaugh, the conservative firebrand radio host who was a pillar of right-wing media in the U.S. for more than 30 years, has died.

variety.com

Financially strapped radio icon Mary Mason struggles

As a radio pioneer, Mary Mason ruled the Philadelphia airwaves with her firebrand style of talk radio.

www.phillytrib.com

Jay Marvin, Once The ‘Resident Liberal Firebrand’ At WLS, Dies At 70.

Jay Marvin, the liberal talk-show host best known for his work at WLS Chicago and WFLA Tampa, died Tuesday, according to a Twitter post from his wife Mary. He was

www.insideradio.com

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/29/ben-shapiro-radio-podcast-490973

Those are conventional uses of the term, which is decidedly antiquated. Today, it does not mean just "passion" but extreme polarization. To me, using it in a headline of the first paragraph is as jaded as a term like "radical" which is another word that has taken on extreme negativity today. "Radical right" or "radical left" are not complimentary; they mean less-than-mainstream extremists.

A lot of words change meaning over time. The term "gay paree" was used in several songs in the 50's and 60's and the word meant "happy". While it still may mean "happy" to some who are gay, the word has a very different core meaning today. By this same standard of modification or mutation, firebrand is generally used today to indicate extreme radicalization, not just "passionate".

Note that the majority of your reference sources are easily labeled as "liberal", particularly politico, EW, the Philadelphia Tribune and Variety. The use of the term there seems intended to make Limbaugh seem less mainstream and more "radical right".

Oxford, my preferred source, uses "radical" in its main definition: "a person who is passionate about a particular cause, typically inciting change and taking radical action." That certainly defines the word as "polarizing".

 

[mightynine]

Anyone calling Politico “liberal” doesn’t read Politico.

How about we call him a conservative blowhard (an arrogantly and pompously boastful or opinionated person)?

 

[TheBigA]

Oxford, my preferred source, uses "radical" in its main definition: "a person who is passionate about a particular cause, typically inciting change and taking radical action." That certainly defines the word as "polarizing".

Once again, I think Bongino would proudly wear that badge. Draining the swamp is not mainstream thought. It never has been, even among republicans. I work with republicans. I've done radio shows with republicans. None of them would ever do what Bongino is talking about. He WANTS to incite change. He and his crew believe the people voted for change. They have heard politicians promise them change before, and it never happened. What's happening now is real change. It may not be what people want, but it's certainly radical change and a far cry from anything we've seen in a very long time.

 

[davideduardo]

Anyone calling Politico “liberal” doesn’t read Politico.

There is a reason Politico's US stajff did not have to sign agreement with Axel Springer's statement of policy and beliefs.

How about we call him a conservative blowhard (an arrogantly and pompously boastful or opinionated person)?

Again, we are talking about words that are used in news articles and headlines. In general, adjectives are to be carefully selected and, usually, avoided. Describing an event or person using a subjective adjective is against the neutrality of news reporting. That is why newspapers have and have had for centuries editorial pages.

One thing is to say a person is "conservative" as that might be in that own person's CV. But "blowhard" would not be such a word, nor would "firebrand".

Again, I got taught this in Journalism 101. I looked at a couple of journalism texts I have that are less than 20 years old, and the criteria is the same: if a word is polarizing, or may have different meanings to different groups based on age, gender, ethnicity or orientation, then avoid them.

One of the examples was saying "... in a blazing hot fire..." or just "... in hot fire..." in a story. "Blazing is subjective. How many degrees of heat before a hot fire becomes "blazing hot"? If you can't tell or distinguish between them, "blazing" is subjective and inappropriate.

 

[TheBigA]

Again, I got taught this in Journalism 101.

In what year? You're telling us our definitions are "antiquated", and you're basing it on what you were taught in Journalism 101 a long time ago.

I promise you they're not teaching journalism the way you were taught. Heck, they're not teaching it the way I was taught either.

 

[davideduardo]

Once again, I think Bongino would proudly wear that badge. Draining the swamp is not mainstream thought. It never has been, even among republicans. I work with republicans. I've done radio shows with republicans. None of them would ever do what Bongino is talking about. He WANTS to incite change. He and his crew believe the people voted for change. They have heard politicians promise them change before, and it never happened. What's happening now is real change. It may not be what people want, but it's certainly radical change and a far cry from anything we've seen in a very long time.

I don't agree. From my first project for The Radio Martí program I was amazed that it took well over 100 persons to do what the commercial anti-Castro stations in Miami (WAQI, WRHC, WQBA, etc) did with a quarter of that number of people... including a sales staff. And Radio Martí did not include in its head count the transmitter staff on Marathon or the SW staff in the Carolinas or the people at the VOA organization that oversaw them in DC..

That certainly made me wonder if all government agencies were as bloated.

 

[TheBigA]

That certainly made me wonder if all government agencies were as bloated.

That's what politicians do. They hire people. Go to FCC.gov and you'll see press releases that each of the commissioners have hired news staff. Every administration does it. Nobody ever fires entire agencies. Even Reagan didn't do that. So calling this guy a "firebrand" who promotes "radical change" is calling something that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck exactly what it is.

Once again: Have you listened to his radio show? That's a yes or no question.

 

[davideduardo]

In what year? You're telling us our definitions are dated, and you're basing it on what you were taught in Journalism 101 a long time ago.

And, as I stated, it's noted in textbooks in use currently. Adjectives are to be avoided if possible, and when used should not have different meanings or feelings to different population groups.

I promise you they're not teaching journalism the way you were taught. Heck, they're not teaching it the way I was taught either.

The top "journalist" at Univision was recently dismissed because he insisted in injecting opinion in news stories. That included outright statements of support or disapproval and the use of highly polarizing descriptions. The Televisa folks from Mexico have learned to survive many different political eras there by being as precise in their news writing as possible.

And this action to bring Univision news into a neutral zone has happened in the last year.

I have even guest lectured in journalism classes and taken questions about "isn't it our duty to tell things the way we see them?" To that, the answer is "no, we tell them the way they happen." As the inscription on the entrance to the Cleveland Press back when Louis Seltzer was editor said, "Give light and the people will find their own way". It did not say, "tell the people which way to go".

 

[davideduardo]

That's what politicians do. They hire people. Go to FCC.gov and you'll see press releases that each of the commissioners have hired news staff. Every administration does it. Nobody ever fires entire agencies. Even Reagan didn't do that. So calling this guy a "firebrand" who promotes "radical change" is calling something that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck exactly what it is.

Once again: Have you listened to his radio show? That's a yes or no question.

Yes, but describing him in a news story using a polarizing term is not good journalism. He is a "dedicated conservative" or a "militant conservative" but using that particular word we are discussing is not good journalism.

I'm sorry my stepbrother died just a bit over a year ago, as I had discussions with him about editorial practices as I was involved with all news stations in Puerto Rico and news and talk stations in the US, the Dominican Republic and Argentina and he had a magnificent historical view of journalism.

Thomas Vail was many things - business leader, sportsman, philanthropist, car enthusiast. But newspapering may have been his most enduring passion: editorial

When Thomas Vail, who died Monday, retired in 1992, he shared with The Plain Dealer newsroom what had drawn him in to newspaper work: “I love the speed, the deadlines, the many different kinds of people you work with, the chance to make a difference, to make a contribution, and hopefully to make...

www.cleveland.com

 

[Theater of My Mind]

Talk about biased journalism. The use of a polarizing term like "firebrand" in a news story is totally unacceptable in any journalism class or seminar.

Kash Patel and Dan Bongino get installed at the top of the FBI to do Trump's bidding and you're accusing Mediate of being the biased one here?

 

[Mark Roberts]

In what year? You're telling us our definitions are dated, and you're basing it on what you were taught in Journalism 101 a long time ago.

If I get irritated enough at the misguided attempt to redefine the term "firebrand" to have political connotations, I may one-up all of you in the credentials game.

I promise you they're not teaching journalism the way you were taught. Heck, they're not teaching it the way I was taught either.

They can't. Media have changed, outlets have changed, business models are changing. Everyone now carries around a camera and a microphone. Survival of an educational program requires adaptation. At Mizzou, news-editorial (print), magazine (also print), and broadcast students and many faculty were once in defined, siloed sequences. There were a few courses everyone had to take, but the majority were sequence-specific. Not any more. The keyword is now "convergence". The print and broadcast newsrooms are in the process of being merged, if they haven't been already. Students do podcasts, blogs, etc. And so on.

 

[davideduardo]

Kash Patel and Dan Bongino get installed at the top of the FBI to do Trump's bidding and you're accusing Mediate of being the biased one here?

I am not talking about specific people. I am criticizing the use of polarizing terms in news stories. In this case, we have differing opinions on whether certain words are such, or acceptable. It's about the writing and the words used, not the people the stories are about.