is AAR killing progtalk?

[Radio_Realist]

They worked their way up. That's how they got on those big stations.

Again, here's a demonstration of why AAR specifically, and liberal radio in general, has the deck stacked against them. When you preach a doctrine that achieving success is the result of being lucky in winning life's lottery instead of success being what you achieve by your own efforts, you're only going to attract listeners who believe that you achieve success by having it given to you by the government. Such people don't want to tune in and listen to someone like Al Franken tell them that. They just want to listen to music or hot-talk and wait to receive their handout of government cheese.

 

[Radio_Realist]

A note to the moderator.

I realize that we're not supposed to talk about politics, even though we're talking about political talk radio. Please note that my recent posts haven't advocated any particular political point of view. I'm simply pointing out the relationship between certain political beliefs and the likelihood that someone would listen to particular radio programming. It is no different than observing that people who like to dance are more likely to listen to a radio station that plays dance music format radio than people who don't like to dance. That doesn't mean that I'd be discussing dancing in that situation.

 

[steve90031]

Radio Realist...name one instance when a Marxist idea or theory was mentioned on Air America or Jones radio. I bet you can't. Name one time when the Labor Theory of Value or Dialectical Materialism was mentioned or discussed on Air America or Jones? You might hear it on a Pacifica station, but never on Air America or Jones. I will be waiting to hear of the one instance .

The modern welfare state originated in Germany in the late 19th century under Bismarck and the Kaisers. It was a response to Marx and other socialist theorists. It spread to other western countries in the 20th century. It saved capitalism. It helped create the great middle class most of us belong to.

You may not like the modern welfare state, and it's far from perfect. It will never be perfect. But there are many countries that have little to no social safety net, no sense of collective welfare and they are not places I'd want to live. Perhaps you would like living in one of those countries, but I can't speak for you.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Marxist idea or theory was mentioned on Air America or Jones radio.

I haven't listened to them 24/7, nor committed every minute of their broadcasts to memory. Sorry, they just aren't that important to me.

The modern welfare state originated in Germany in the late 19th century under Bismarck and the Kaisers.
Right, they created Marxism lite.

But there are many countries that have little to no social safety net, no sense of collective welfare and they are not places I'd want to live.

But do they get lots of listeners to their liberal radio talk shows?

 

[evnlee]

Radio Realist...name one instance when a Marxist idea or theory was mentioned on Air America or Jones radio. I bet you can't. Name one time when the Labor Theory of Value or Dialectical Materialism was mentioned or discussed on Air America or Jones? You might hear it on a Pacifica station, but never on Air America or Jones. I will be waiting to hear of the one instance .

your asking for a particular instance, when AAR readily shadows Marxist thought in many forms.

An argument could be made that AAR endorses Organized Unions for the 'working class', which would be consitent with the Marxist views of the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie, even if it can be proven that the Unions may be harming the working class.

Remember the big federal raid 2 days ago of Swift co? Who was the first to jump to defend the illegal immigrants? Unions. Even if illegal labor is harming legal 'working class' citizens, some Unions will fight for workers that may not be legal, to keep the membership and dues high. Does AAR condemn these Unions? Provide me with some proof they do.

A specific? Okay: on Sept 17th Alyssa Katz ( a 'journalism' techer from NYU, no bias there ) spent 17 minutes condemning the banking, brokerage industry, and 'speculators' for 'predatory lending' that results in home forclosures for the 'working class', and asking for direct governmental oversight in the form of a separate federal bureau to make sure some idiot that cant read his own closing documents is protected by these 'dastardly robber barons' ( that's a direct quote against RBC ). Sound pretty Marxists to me. :

 

[steve90031]

Neither of what either of you two (or are you the same person) came up anything aired on Air America that pertains to Marxism. Neither of you quoted one time when Marxist theories such as the Labor Theory of Value or Dialectical Materialism were discussed on Air America or Jones. One reason: they haven't.

Trade unions are generally repressed in Marxist/Leninist countries like China, North Korea and Cuba. Anything done in support of trade unions would probably mean prison time or death in one of those countries. They view unions as being a hindrance to the creation of the great proletarian revolution. On the other hand Unions have contributed to the expansion of the middle class in most western countries where they are accepted as part of the political/economic landscape.

Actually Marx believed that once the great proletarian revolution occured and communes were established and running, nation-states and governments would wither away. That withering away of that state and government is probably something that you would agree with Mr. Radio Realist. Perhaps after all your rhetoric on these boards, you have been uncovered as what you are. A MARXIST. I think from now on we should refer to you as an uncloseted Marxist. In its end result, Marxism is more of a libertarian/anarchic theory more than anything else. Of course it was used as the intellectual underpinning of some of the most repressive and inefficient governments in the 20th and 21st centuries and has pretty much been discredited.

Evnlee, arguing against predatory lending is not necessarily Marxist. You could argue it is Judeo/Christian. There is plenty of scripture that prohibits preditory lending practices.

Personally, I think Marxism is a bunch of bunk, but that's my opinion.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Neither of what either of you two (or are you the same person)

I was wondering what new identity Fred Flintstone would show up as. Now I know.

 

[steve90031]

No I'm not Fred Flintstone, Mr. Radio Realist/Marxist. However if something is just not that important to you, why do spend so much time discussing it on the board?

I just get tired of seeing people equate modern western liberalism/progressivism with Marxism. I think you are just throwing out words and titles without knowing what they mean like words picked up on the playground. If you do know what they mean, then you are outright intellectually dishonest.

 

[evnlee]

Neither of what either of you two (or are you the same person) came up anything aired on Air America that pertains to Marxism. Neither of you quoted one time when Marxist theories such as the Labor Theory of Value or Dialectical Materialism were discussed on Air America or Jones. One reason: they haven't.

Evnlee, arguing against predatory lending is not necessarily Marxist. You could argue it is Judeo/Christian. There is plenty of scripture that prohibits preditory lending practices.

here we go again. Proof is asked for. Proof is provided. Said proof is then rejected, regardless of the source.

Steve, arguing that a federal entity police an already regulated business model with specific regards to the 'less fortunate' ( Katz words, not mine ), that the interests of the 'proletariat' to punish the bourgeoisie by monetary penalties is classic Marx. Calling an established bank a 'robber baron' on a specific show could be taken directly from the manifesto. Go read it again, and get back to me.

Your points about trade unions, I concur.

Okay, march 15th 2006, 'Wake Up Wal Mart' appears on AAR. Franken calls Wal Mart "disgraceful, immoral, and unethical" for not offering healthcare to it's part time employees, and complains about tax breaks the Walton family was given. Wal Mart is so regularly skewered by AAR, they refuse to advertise with them, which gives Media Matters a huge chubby for a solid week. Wal Mart, while breaking no laws ( except the random illegal hiring ) is regularly portrayed as 'evil'. Textbook marxism.

Now, I'm sure this will be ignored as well.

 

[steve90031]

here we go again. Proof is asked for. Proof is provided. Said proof is then rejected, regardless of the source.

Steve, arguing that a federal entity police an already regulated business model with specific regards to the 'less fortunate' ( Katz words, not mine ), that the interests of the 'proletariat' to punish the bourgeoisie by monetary penalties is classic Marx. Calling an established bank a 'robber baron' on a specific show could be taken directly from the manifesto. Go read it again, and get back to me.

Did she say "less fortunate" or proletariat? Did she say "robber baron" or bourgeoise? Or are those your words?
Using the words less fortunate or robber baron are not Marxist theory.

Okay, march 15th 2006, 'Wake Up Wal Mart' appears on AAR. Franken calls Wal Mart "disgraceful, immoral, and unethical" for not offering healthcare to it's part time employees, and complains about tax breaks the Walton family was given. Wal Mart is so regularly skewered by AAR, they refuse to advertise with them, which gives Media Matters a huge chubby for a solid week. Wal Mart, while breaking no laws ( except the random illegal hiring ) is regularly portrayed as 'evil'. Textbook marxism.

Yup, the same Wal Mart that does billions of dollars in business with Marxist China. Evnlee, criticising a business for their practices is not the same as Marxist theory. Some of us get tired of our medical insurance premiums and taxes going to subsidize Wal Mart employees who do not have health insurance using the emergency room.
Wal Mart brings in billions of dollars. They can use some of it to provide medical benefits to their employees. There is no reason on earth why they or their employees should be subsidized by the rest of us. In a weird way, that's not Marxism, but it is a form of reverse socialism.

 

[evnlee]

Did she say "less fortunate" or proletariat? Did she say "robber baron" or bourgeoise? Or are those your words?
Using the words less fortunate or robber baron are not Marxist theory.

Wal Mart brings in billions of dollars. They can use some of it to provide medical benefits to their employees. There is no reason on earth why they or their employees should be subsidized by the rest of us. In a weird way, that's not Marxism, but it is a form of reverse socialism.

Ok, they can use some of thier money for part time health care benefits, but choosing not to shouldn't result in inflammtory remarks like Franken calling Wal Mart '"disgraceful, immoral, and unethical". The guest from 'Wake up Wal Mart' complained that part time employees aren't as insured as full time employees, and that thier spouses are not covered either. Part timers spouses should be covered? C'mon, man. That's what they guest said and Franken agreed!

You stated "Wal Mart brings in billions of dollars". So? Just because they make $$ does not require them to spend it on part time employees spouses. You say they 'can' spend $$$ on healthcare, which is not Marxist. Franken says they 'should be forced to'. Using the police power of the state to force Wal Mart to fund a state held 'fair share' fund. That's not Marxist?

consider some of the ten planks:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

eminent domain? show me one example of any AAR host taking the Kelo decision to task.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

yeah, we never hear that one on AAR. :

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

death tax? hello? show me an example of any AAR host refuting the inheritance tax as unconstitutional.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools.

Now, get back to me with the proof I request.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Gentlemen, the moderator is soon going to exercise his heavy-handed "discretion" and send this thread to oblivion. Let us please stick to how this subject impacts radio listening, ratings, and billings.

However if something is just not that important to you,

It takes a whopping big level of importance to listen so intently that I can remember exact times and dates when specific statements were made. In my entire life, I've never encountered anything that was so important that I memorized hours and hours of program content to as to be able to quote chapter and verse to satisfy someone's quest to engage in sophistry. That is the kind of content that liberal talk radio hosts love to fill their programs with, which is why their ratings tend to suck.

It is important to me to know what the hosts on liberal talk shows say in general. It's not important enough to anyone to memorize their shows' content to the point where they can quote exact days and times. I'll wager that even Al Franken couldn't tell you off the top of his head exactly what he talked about on September 5th, 2006.

And to expect any casual listener to do so in order to "prove" something to you proves that you aren't really interested in the discussion, you're simply trying to be a pedantic irritant. Which is even more evidence that you're really "Fred Flintstone".

 

[evnlee]

Gentlemen, the moderator is soon going to exercise his heavy-handed "discretion" and send this thread to oblivion. Let us please stick to how this subject impacts radio listening, ratings, and billings.

you got that right. I think discussing the views of Franken in line with Marx is germane to a discussion about AAR. However, it's almost impossible to talk about political news talk without injecting some politics in the thread.

I maintain that if you look at the 10 planks as written by Marx, and then ask yourself how many of those would an AAR host agree with, you can undoubtedly state that many of the views held by Franken,Rhodes,and Seder could be accurately described as 'Marxist.'

I have no problem with that. I also recognize that many of the views held by Savage and O Reilly ( especially where constitutional law is involved )could also be described as 'Fascist'. Please do not ask me to list 'proof' of my opinions on this.

 

[steve90031]

Isn't it funny how you two post one after the other. I think Radio Realist/Marxist and Evnlee are the same person. I've been posting on the sports board for a while and got tired of what I was reading here. No, I am not Fred Flintstone.

I didn't ask for any "proof" from either one of you. I just think you are making either incorrect or intellectually dishonest arguments. Evnlee, I noticed you dropped the bank issue on your most recent response. It sounds like it may have been a liberal/progressive/socialist on Franken, but not a Marxist.

Actually those ten planks of Communism you quote evnlee do not
originate with Marx. They were never written by him. They are something that have been passed around the far right for years to discredit liberal/progressive/socialist enacted laws or proposals. They have nothing to do with Marxism. The Communist Manifesto is divided into four chapters, but there are no planks.

See this is what I get tired of. Intellectual dishonesty or at least intellectual laziness. If you oppose government programs or you think mega corporations should be subsidized, just say so. If you think that business is above criticism, once again, just say so. We all have our own experiences in life that determine our political philosophy, and I respect that. But to tar people you disagree with with the broad brush of calling them "Marxist" when it doesn't apply is something that some of you need to be called on.

 

[evnlee]

I didn't ask for any "proof" from either one of you. I just think you are making either incorrect or intellectually dishonest arguments. Evnlee, I noticed you dropped the bank issue on your most recent response. It sounds like it may have been a liberal/progressive/socialist on Franken, but not a Marxist.

Actually those ten planks of Communism you quote evnlee do not
originate with Marx. They were never written by him. They are something that have been passed around the far right for years to discredit liberal/progressive/socialist enacted laws or proposals. They have nothing to do with Marxism. The Communist Manifesto is divided into four chapters, but there are no planks.

See this is what I get tired of. Intellectual dishonesty or at least intellectual laziness.

wow where to begin?

You claim you did not 'ask for proof'. Hmmmm.

"Radio Realist...name one instance when a Marxist idea or theory was mentioned on Air America or Jones radio. I bet you can't."

steve90031
Re: is AAR killing progtalk?
« Reply #42 on: Today at 07:17:45 am »

strike one.

"Evnlee, I noticed you dropped the bank issue on your most recent response. "

I made my point, you did not agree with it, so I did not feel the need to keep bringing it up. Instead, I gave you yet another example in the treatment of Wal Mart.

strike two.

"Actually those ten planks of Communism you quote evnlee do not
originate with Marx. They were never written by him. Intellectual dishonesty or at least intellectual laziness "

"Although the names of both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels appear on the title page alongside the "persistent assumption of joint-authorship", Marx biographer David McLellan states that "Engels said later that the Manifesto was 'essentially Marx's work' and that 'the basic thought... belongs solely and exclusively to Marx'." McLellan, along with many other scholars, believes that "the actual drafting of The Communist Manifesto was done exclusively by Marx."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Manifesto#Authorship

strike three, Steve. Thanks for playing :

 

[NewsVet]

evnlee wrote:

News VET, what kind of 'vet' are you?

I'm a veteran of the news biz, just as the handle suggests. That includes 22 years in the radio news business in New York City.

I can provide numerous press articles praising WLIB's signal when they took over as AAR's format.

Press articles saying that 10,000 watt directional am signals are as good as 50,000 watt NON-directional signals in a crowded urban area like New York City? If so, they were written by people who don't know anything about radio.

Tall buildings? C'mon. It's soil conductivity ( and water ) where am is concerned.

Guess you've never tried to listen to WLIB or WWRL in an apartment building in Manhattan. And I said tall buildings "full of electrical equipment." A quick Google search finds this:

AM radio signals can be severely disrupted in large urban centres by concrete bridges with metal reinforcements, other Faraday cage structures, tall buildings and sources of radio frequency interference (RFI) and electrical noise

You cannot on one hand praise WLIB for booting off the 'Caribbean Format' and giving AAR a chance, and then blame the same signal for booting AAR off to give something else a chance that may bring in more $$$$. ( a nod to RR here )

I don't recall "praising" WLIB for anything, but they booted off Air America because Air America was undercapitalized and couldn't pay its bills. So far, the new WLIB format is doing much worse than AAR did in the ratings.

The Arby's also factor in your 'suburbs', look again. I would include the proof, but I tire of having my entries 'modified' by the 'moderators'.

Exactly my point. You made the (false) claim that WLIB could be heard "clearly" in the five boroughs, but my point was that it can't be heard clearly in much of the metro area and therefore can never really compete with the 50.000 watt blowtorches in the metro ratings, which include millions of people outside the five boroughs.

 

[evnlee]

Exactly my point. You made the (false) claim that WLIB could be heard "clearly" in the five boroughs, but my point was that it can't be heard clearly in much of the metro area and therefore can never really compete with the 50.000 watt blowtorches in the metro ratings, which include millions of people outside the five boroughs.

If I stated that WLIB could be clearly heard in the 5 boroughs, and that is incorrect, then I was wrong and will gladly state that as such.

I recall many press articles in the run up to launch saying that the WLIB signal was good and would be able to compete with the big dawgs. In the HBO doc 'left of the dial' they explain in 2 parts how decent the WLIB signal is.

But, when the news of the switch to WWRL was announced in August, HuffPo commentors said this:

For those in lower Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and S.I. you will still get AAR. The rest of us won't. WWRL 1600 has a much worse signal than WLIB especially at night. I live 40 miles from Manhattan and I have to stream it now anyway. Next month, I won't even get it in the car during the day. Whoopie!
By: skylinepro on August 04, 2006 at 01:32am


Not only is WWRL transmitter stronger, the higher frequency means the better coverage in the metro area.

WWRL has a 25,000W transmitter operating during the daylight hours, WLIB only had 10,000W.
By: shpilk on August 05, 2006 at 02:17am

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-drobny/air-america-gets-new-ny-f_b_26413.html?p=1#comments

again,it was my understanding that WLIB had a decent signal. If I was wrong, I apologise.

 

[steve90031]

Evnlee, all you pointed to was a guest on Frankens' show that used a little inflammatory rhetoric and then you inserted (apparently) some Marxist rhetoric on top of it to try to make your point. Then you pointed to Franken making inflammatory comments about Wal Mart. Neither is Marxist. Criticising banks or large corporations is not Marxism. Asking Wal Mart to pay their own way is not Marxist. Apparently, you may disagree with that point of view and that's fine.

I guess if I call the sky green, then it's green, right? If you call something Marxist, then it's Marxist in your opinion.

Then you go on to point out that the Communist Manifesto was written by Marx. I know that! You dropped the point of the 10 planks that was apparently written by a far righty in the Red Scare days of the 50s. The ten planks and the Communist Manifesto are not the same thing. There are no ten planks in the Manifesto.

Sounds more like ball four for you. Time to bring in the relief pitcher.

 

[evnlee]

Then you go on to point out that the Communist Manifesto was writting by Marx. I know that! You dropped the point of the 10 planks that was apparently written by a far righty in the Red Scare days of the 50s. The ten planks and the Communist Manifesto are not the same thing. There are no ten planks in the Manifesto.

Steve, the ten planks were indeed composed by Marx and are included in II -- PROLETARIANS AND COMMUNISTS

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html#Proletarian

The Ten Planks were composed by Marx, and included in the manifesto.

"Intellectual dishonesty or at least intellectual laziness" indeed ???

 

[steve90031]

OK, I stand corrected on Marx, but apparently you've dropped all arguments as they relate to Air America.