Well, let's see how much credit I have built up here over 20+ years.

[michael hagerty]

It wasnt dumb and please don't insult me like that again, youre a pro.. im a pro. I likely side with most in the case of the australian news reporter getting shot with a rubber bullet.. absolutely wrong and she was targeted. but.. IF she was asked to move and didnt.. that brings a new dimension to the story. if you ran a story on what we know and assumed and later found out she was asked to mvoe and didnt, youd have to issue a correction/admit you get it wrong. as a single staffed station/no news person here, ive wporked real hard on social media/m,essage boards/anywhere to never claim anything as fact unless i can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.. and ive come clsoe to believing one side of a story and finding out more facts later on.. and had it almost bite me in the ass. in the time of issues with media and journalism and public media, im taking no chances

If one wants to see the comment hes referring to, check out this:

https://radiodiscussions.com/threads/kfi-knx-cover-la-protest.776735/post-6819218

i consider this a personal attack on me, my character and me as a journalist of sorts, not cool, not professional.... and not what i expected from you. i stated my point respectfully and you call me out in more than one place in a less than professional manner.

Would you say "maybe she robbed a bank on her way to work that morning"?

No.

And there is exactly the same amount of evidence that she robbed a bank that morning as there is that she was asked to move.

Zero.

I didn't call you dumb, I called what you said dumb.

Worse, it's creating excuses for an assault on a working journalist by a law enforcement officer with exactly zero evidence to support creating the excuse.

The burden of proof is on those who exercise force under color of authority.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

Would you say "maybe she robbed a bank on her way to work that morning"?

No.

And there is exactly the same amount of evidence that she robbed a bank that morning as there is that she was asked to move.

Zero.

I didn't call you dumb, I called what you said dumb.

Worse, it's creating excuses for an assault on a working journalist by a law enforcement officer with exactly zero evidence to support creating the excuse.

The burden of proof is on those who exercise force under color of authority.

theres a difference in "maybe robbing a bank" and what i said.

Did I ever excuse the assault? Farq no. What im not willing to say without proof is that she was asked to move.... it slightly changes the situation but does not what happened. Because if the fact "she was asked to leave" isnt mentioned, youre leaving out a somewhat material part of the story and WHY things happened, wether you agree with what happened.

 

[michael hagerty]

theres a difference in "maybe robbing a bank" and what i said.

No, there's not. In either case, you're creating an excuse for the officer's action without any evidence.

Did I ever excuse the assault? Farq no.

Let's say "a possible reason" rather than "excuse", then.

What im not willing to say without proof is that she was asked to move.... it slightly changes the situation but does not what happened. Because if the fact "she was asked to leave" isnt mentioned, youre leaving out a somewhat material part of the story and WHY things happened, wether you agree with what happened.

I would wholeheartedly agree with that (in bold)----IF it were a fact.

Is there any evidence to support that?

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

No, there's not. In either case, you're creating an excuse for the officer's action without any evidence.



Let's say "a possible reason" rather than "excuse", then.



I would wholeheartedly agree with that (in bold)----IF it were a fact.

Is there any evidence to support that?

I am of the belief that once you hear of something that may change the situation or understanding of it, you need to vet/sort it out before you run with it or change how you'd handle it/form an opinion. in a court room, i could be wrong.. but if that fact was brought into play, it could potentially change how the judge would rule.

 

[michael hagerty]

I am of the belief that once you hear of something that may change the situation or understanding of it, you need to vet/sort it out before you run with it or change how you'd handle it/form an opinion. in a court room, i could be wrong.. but if that fact was brought into play, it could potentially change how the judge would rule.

Okay.

Now...where'd you hear it? Is any reputable source willing to stake his/her/their reputation on it by saying publicly that she was asked to move?

 

[radiofan2023]

Adding "safe" new threads does not eliminate the problem. Those who want to cross the line which causes the thread reports and irritates Lance would shun your "more games" feature and keep posting in the threads that draw the complaints.

And I cannot believe I actually have to say that. It should be obvious.

I understand that it wouldn't eliminate the problem, I never said it would. But it would be a way for people to have fun rather than fighting each other over political disagreements. I bet you would like my Sentence Picture Game idea and have fun playing it.

 

[Miss Tuned]

I'm glad I live in a different political sphere to all of this. The main political arguments where I live right now are standard stuff about whether or not taxes are going to go up this year to pay for a 39 billion spend on social housing and a rise in transport budgets. It's boring, which I like.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

Okay.

Now...where'd you hear it? Is any reputable source willing to stake his/her/their reputation on it by saying publicly that she was asked to move?

at this point, i dont even remember, since its not a story im covering or situation im responsible for.

 

[gr8oldies]

We appear to now be under Ask The Moderators.

And it appears, from a quick check of the member roster, that it is Scott Fybush who has resigned as a moderator.

I'm very sorry to hear that. Scott is a wealth of information, as someone who has beenan insider in public and commercial broadcasting, and the technical end. NOBODY knows allocations better than Scott. Of course I know he's found other places.

I've been one of the guilty ones at times, but in the climate we're in, it can't help but overlap. We can keep the topics down to "who became Brand Manager where?" but that's kinda boring.

 

[gr8oldies]

Great.

In the aftermath of what is quickly becoming a controversial move regarding a thread involving media coverage of a major situation in the second largest city in America, we are now arguing about ...

GAMES??!!??

I may need an emoji we don't have

 

[radiofan2023]

You got a point. Plus have the board a friendly place especially for new persons that sign up here.

Thanks.

How is all this a broadcasting story? THIS is how.

Pew Research: When It Comes To News, One Name Rules For GOP Voters.

New research from the Pew Research Center finds consumers whose politics lean left toward the Democratic Party are considerably more likely than their right-leaning GOP counterparts to use and trust

www.insideradio.com

Good article but I wish they had also asked independent/no party people about broadcasting networks/sources of news they watch and listen to.

I'm glad I live in a different political sphere to all of this. The main political arguments where I live right now are standard stuff about whether or not taxes are going to go up this year to pay for a 39 billion spend on social housing and a rise in transport budgets. It's boring, which I like.

Sounds fun.

I may need an emoji we don't have

Like what?

 

[Theater of My Mind]

Big A is right, something I haven't said often. Some of the most important topics affecting radio right now are purely political due to the coercive, often unconstitutional actions of the current administration against broadcasters, the media, and journalists. And these things are part of a much broader political reality, making it nearly impossible to separate meaningful discussions about broadcasting from broader views about politics.

That said, one of the more active agitators on this site is a moderator/admin who frequently posts political falsehoods and then doubles down, even after being fact-checked by seasoned journalists and media professionals. This person is right in the middle of nearly all the political debates you say you don't want here, Lance, and yet they hold a position of authority on this forum.

A moderator should uphold the standards they enforce. When someone in that role actively participates in heated political debates while moderating, it erodes trust in the fairness of discussions. If this were just a regular member, wouldn't they be receiving warnings for political content? I don't envy your position, balancing your goal of keeping politics out of the forum with the reality that one of the site's most influential benefactors is among the most politically active participants. And now you've lost Scott Fybush over it, a serious loss for the forum.

 

[gr8oldies]

As one who admittedly took the political content of some posts too far, I have to confess/reveal/disclose that Lance and I have had considerable discussion on where the lines are drawn between pure politics and as subject about radio that is related to political perspectives or affiliations.

I have told Lance that I will be very much conscious of those borders, and this is a good chance for me to say a thing or two worth considering.

First, an apology if anyone was offended by my comments on a subject. As all know, I lost a group of stations in another country due to "politics" under a pseudo-socialist regime, so I am sensitive to the subject of "government and radio". Not an excuse, just a bit of perspective.

We all need to analyze every post as to whether we are discussing the political aspects of content or talking about a radio or TV related subject. Example: if Charlamagne da God criticizes something the "Prez" does, that is political. But if we comment that Charlamagne intervened AOC today to discuss civil unrest, that is topical about radio. These two examples are right at the edge of being "good" or "bad" posts... and like the yard lines on a football field after a rainstorm, blurry at best and hard to find at their worst.

That is my act of contrition, sincerely offered to anyone I may have annoyed, offended or insulted. But at the same time, I'd like to refer to Michael Hagerty's post just three other posts back. It is hard to ignore his points about the overlap between pure politics and "just the facts, Ma'am" (that dates me!) about radio or TV.

The most recent riots in Los Angeles... and their spawn in other cities... have shown a very strong overlap between politics and broadcasting, complicated by the sidebar incident of the firing of a crowd-control device on a journalist. How much of these incidents are pure politics and how much have to do with freedom of expression? To me, the firing on a journalist is a disciplinary issue until proven that he was told to attack news reporters; as such the subject can be about how journalists move in rapidly migrating riots or demonstrations. On the other hand, we have the issues of coverage of the actions of ICE by the media and those are hard to separate between politics and broadcasting.

Here we go though. Protest vs. riots. Fox News may well tell its audience that "nationwide riots" are planned Saturday, June 14 as opposed to the No Kings protests, one of which I'm participating in. We have strict instructions what to do if someone instigates something.

 

[CTListener]

I understand that it wouldn't eliminate the problem, I never said it would. But it would be a way for people to have fun rather than fighting each other over political disagreements. I bet you would like my Sentence Picture Game idea and have fun playing it.

There are serious issues being discussed here. I regretted being flippant earlier and urge you to do the same. Take your request to the Games forum, please. That's where all the other ones have gone to be rejected over the years.

 

[gr8oldies]

Do you mean these four?





If so, no, they are not political. They are a recitation of the facts and the rights of American citizens and the duties of a free press (including broadcast journalism) under the Constitution.

There is no suggestion of a remedy (stop him/impeach him/call your Congressman/join the protest). That would be political.

There is no cheering on of the actions being taken (good for him/whatever it takes/those people are asking for it). That would be political.

Let's go back to four other paragraphs further down in that post:




This is reporting about the actions of the government. If those actions don't fall within the framework of other existing laws and acts and of the Constitution of the United States, that's news.

If that reflects badly on the current government, pointing that out is not political. It is the duty of a citizen and of a free press. It may have political ramifications down the road, but shielding elected officials from that-----that's political.

I would it would be of journalistic interest to know if we're paying J6ers, three-percenters, Proud Boys, Erik Prince mercenaries, or cops fired for disciplinary reasons to "round up the brown people". These (seeming) Rent-A-Cops can't take down gang members, so they go after low-hanging fruit...people who are trying to do it "the right way" and go to required check-ins, only to be arrested and manhandled into an elevator (while unconscious in one case). Asylum seekers (which Trump misunderstands as "people getting kicked out of asylums), and all sorts of classifications are now "illegal criminals".
Administration officials, including Trump, have used the language of ethnic cleansing when it comes to LA. This is frightening. Sen. Blackburn of my state lives in Fox News world, as far as she is concerned, the entirety of LA is on fire and overrun by terrorists. She called last night for the defunding of "radical NPR and PBS, so she'd like everyone to live in that world.

 

[gr8oldies]

Would you say "maybe she robbed a bank on her way to work that morning"?

No.

And there is exactly the same amount of evidence that she robbed a bank that morning as there is that she was asked to move.

Zero.

I didn't call you dumb, I called what you said dumb.

Worse, it's creating excuses for an assault on a working journalist by a law enforcement officer with exactly zero evidence to support creating the excuse.

The burden of proof is on those who exercise force under color of authority.

We saw the video plain as day. No order to move was seen or heard

 

[gr8oldies]

I'm glad I live in a different political sphere to all of this. The main political arguments where I live right now are standard stuff about whether or not taxes are going to go up this year to pay for a 39 billion spend on social housing and a rise in transport budgets. It's boring, which I like.

In America we will have none of that "social housing" stuff. They'd rather throw everyone on the street

 

[CTListener]

Maybe it's time to move all discussion of all aspects of this unprecedented presidency to dinner tables and barrooms and seniors' regular breakfast gatherings at Denny's or McDonald's. This will be seen by some as a partial surrender, because hashing out all that stuff here reaches more eyeballs than arguing it over McGriddles and hash browns. But in reality, it's a wash, as no one in either location will ever do anything that moves the needle toward normalcy.

Meanwhile, we have yet another thread headed for lockdown and the inevitable Phoenix threads in which the same bile is regurgitated for a few weeks until those too are silenced.

 

[michael hagerty]

Maybe it's time to move all discussion of all aspects of this unprecedented presidency to dinner tables and barrooms and seniors' regular breakfast gatherings at Denny's or McDonald's. This will be seen by some as a partial surrender, because hashing out all that stuff here reaches more eyeballs than arguing it over McGriddles and hash browns. But in reality, it's a wash, as no one in either location will ever do anything that moves the needle toward normalcy.

No, because again---we're not discussing the presidency.

We're discussing actions by the government that are outside norms, laws, and the Constitution, and the broadcast media coverage of the people's reaction to them...including the physical injuries some journalists have suffered while covering the story.

Period.

Meanwhile, we have yet another thread headed for lockdown and the inevitable Phoenix threads in which the same bile is regurgitated for a few weeks until those too are silenced.

If that's the case, then the board will have made itself clear. And, arguably, irrelevant.

 

[Delete My Account]

The fact the climate here has led to the resignation of @fybush, one of the most dedicated friends and advocates this medium has had for decades, is deeply concerning.