• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

The best lib talkers

My Odd Opinion

IMHO, in no particular order:

* Stephanie Miller (Jones/Democracy Radio/WYD). My favorite of the bunch, but as I've said more than once, my personal tastes run towards more entertaining fare. More laughs per hour with Stephanie than any other talk host, including many on the other side of the political spectrum. Like all good hosts, she has a pretty good rapport with her support staff (voice guy Jim, producer Chris). May not be your cup of tea if talk radio means the host has to have a mission.

* Randi Rhodes (Air America). A seasoned, lively talk radio pro. She gets more "in depth" into topics than Stephanie does, but still has a very active sense of humor. Randi may put off those who don't like "strident", fast paced talk radio, but those looking for substance won't be disappointed...and it's seasoned pretty well with laughs. Again, entertainment here. I have to take her in smaller doses, as I'm not a "raw meat" libtalk listener.

* Bernie Ward (KGO/SF, used to be with ABC). Much like Randi, very much feeding the "core" liberal talk listener, and he's been doing it for ages on a 50,000 watt flamethrower in a top 5 market.

My own viewpoint is kind of skewed, as I am not a "core" listener to the format. On the other side of the political spectrum, I've been a semi-regular listener to everyone from local Howie Chizek (WNIR/Akron) to Premiere's Glenn Beck to WSB/Cox/Jones' Neal Boortz.

I don't really go for hosts who seem to be bringing down talking points from political parties, which is why Beck lost me for some time after 9/11 and which is why I enjoy Boortz when he goes off the "Republican reservation" (he's a high-profile Libertarian).

For that matter, that's why I have to take Randi Rhodes in smaller doses, even though she's very good and a pro...

I don't know of most of these hosts even do it on purpose for political reasons, but rather, they're just trying to deliver the "hits" for their core audiences.

-OA<P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>
 
And the hits just keep on comin'!

>
> I don't know of most of these hosts even do it on purpose
> for political reasons, but rather, they're just trying to
> deliver the "hits" for their core audiences.
>


Apparently the principle Todd Storz discovered more than 50 years ago works for talk radio: Just keep playing the hits.
 
> Thats it Johnny, im coming after ya....LOL....:) kidding but
> ok you dont like her presentation...what does that mean? She
> very entertaining..does comedy and you can't say she doesnt
> have tons of real facts.....yes she is very hard on the
> listeners..but we like it for some reason...

Fair question, and I'm happy to elaborate.

It may be part of her whole voice/persona. Her show qua show is in the mold of all the big talk shows, on both sides. She does do a good job of "follwoing the format" (as Bill Drake might say). But what I mean by presentation is that she falls into the same problem that befuddles Springer and Malloy--she screams and yells too much. I feel like I'm being talked AT, rather than talked TO or WITH.

Probably just a personal perception, but it's turned me off.

That, and the voice.
 
> sorry to repeat myself but my above post says why Ed is not
> the choice...we dont want ED...NO NO NO NO NO......he does
> not know the facts and we dont need a Rush clone...moderates
> dont have to emulate rush limbaugh...

This is a problem with the supporters of prog talk - you want ideological purity more than you want an entertaining radio show.

You're not going to change any minds without a good show. You're not going to sway any center/right moderates in your direction with out an entertaining host.

You'll accomplish a lot more with an Ed Schultz than you will with a lot of the other hosts you've listed.
 
The purpose of talk radio - conservative or liberal - is not to change minds. People listen to talk radio have their views confirmed.

That said, your basic point is well taken. Purity often trumps entertainment. Liberals too often resemble members of some small off-shoot protestant sects, condemning others (including those within the same religious tradition) to hell over obscure fine points of theology. I wonder if the Democrats might win more elections if they adopted Reagan's "11th Commandment."

I also wonder how many of the vocal supporters of progressive talk radio on this board are actual regular listeners. Some comments seem to suggest some may like the concept but don't consume the product much (sort of like how people say in surveys they want healthy menu choices at fast food restaurants but don't actually order them).


>
> This is a problem with the supporters of prog talk - you
> want ideological purity more than you want an entertaining
> radio show.
>
> You're not going to change any minds without a good show.
> You're not going to sway any center/right moderates in your
> direction with out an entertaining host.
>
> You'll accomplish a lot more with an Ed Schultz than you
> will with a lot of the other hosts you've listed.
>
 
Re: And the hits just keep on comin'!

> Apparently the principle Todd Storz discovered more than 50
> years ago works for talk radio: Just keep playing the hits.

Oh, you bet.

The playbook that hosts like Rush, Franken, Hannity, Miller, Schultz, etc. use is not their respective political party handbook, but the hit radio handbook!

:D

In this case, though, instead of a catchy song that makes the listener feel good, it's catchy phrases that make the listener feel good.

-OA <P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>
 
Re: And the hits just keep on comin'!

>
> In this case, though, instead of a catchy song that makes
> the listener feel good, it's catchy phrases that make the
> listener feel good.
>

Or good and p*ed - which for some people is better.
 
I stand corrected. He's on XM; that's where I got confused. (That's one less reason to bother with AAR.)

> > Alan Colmes is a good host, albeit a little dry for my
> taste; the rest
> > of AAR is unlistenable.
>
> Alan Colmes is not AAR.
>
 
> I also wonder how many of the vocal supporters of
> progressive talk radio on this board are actual regular
> listeners. Some comments seem to suggest some may like the
> concept but don't consume the product much (sort of like how
> people say in surveys they want healthy menu choices at fast
> food restaurants but don't actually order them).

On the other hand, vocal opponents of Air America like yourself don't seem to actually listen to it. Case in point: your posting of a completely false New York Post article claiming that Air America "announcers" were "begging" for donations.
 
What is it with you, anyway?

My original post only mentioned AAR "begging" in their email and on their website.
http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Post=545947&Board=newstalk
I also speculated in that post that this program could indicate cash flow programs for AAR. I then posted the New York Post article in which a legitimate news organization also raised the possibility of financial programs at AAR. The NY Post is responsible for the accuracy of their reporting. I did not know (then or now) that no on-air appeals had taken place. I only know a press release CLAIMED no on-air appeals had taken place.

No, I do not monitor AAR 24/7 to check for fund raising pitches (do you?). I did listen a fair amount early on and I got tired of it. Smart-ass but not funny. Too New York-centric. Tepid opposition to the war (sort of not really against the war itself but Bush should be doing better running it). Weak opposition to the Patriot Act. Anti-Palestinian. Cheap shots at Bush but not really for anything. Very DLC or so-called "New Democrat"; not really progressive. And worst of all, incompetent as broadcasters and entertainers.

Please note, I criticize AAR as broadcasters. I don't attack you because you listen (if you do) or like it (if you do). Correct me if I'm wrong: I don't recall you saying you listen regularly to AAR or like it as a listener yourself; you just don't seem to want it criticized.


>
> On the other hand, vocal opponents of Air America like
> yourself don't seem to actually listen to it. Case in
> point: your posting of a completely false New York Post
> article claiming that Air America "announcers" were
> "begging" for donations.
>
 
> I then posted the New
> York Post article in which a legitimate news organization
> also raised the possibility of financial programs at AAR.
> The NY Post is responsible for the accuracy of their
> reporting. I did not know (then or now) that no on-air
> appeals had taken place. I only know a press release
> CLAIMED no on-air appeals had taken place.

The New York Post is hardly a "legitimate news organization." It is treated with the contempt that it richly deserves by all the journalism professionals I I know and only stays in business because Rupert Murdoch has been willing to absorb its many millions in losses each year (for many years) to further his political agenda.
>
> No, I do not monitor AAR 24/7 to check for fund raising
> pitches (do you?).

I don't monitor it to "check for fund raising pitches," but I do listen several hours a day and have never heard a "fund raising pitch." Nobody else has ever heard such "pitches" either.

I did listen a fair amount early on and
> I got tired of it. Smart-ass but not funny. Too New
> York-centric. Tepid opposition to the war (sort of not
> really against the war itself but Bush should be doing
> better running it). Weak opposition to the Patriot Act.

Almost all of the AAR hosts have spoken out strongly against the war and the Patriot Act. Al Franken has said he wrongly believed Colin Powell when Powell claimed that there was evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Franken now says the invasion was wrong, although he doesn't favor immediate withdrawal.

> Very DLC or so-called "New Democrat"; not really
> progressive.

You seem to have only listened to Franken (and possibly Springer). For example, Rhodes, Garafolo, and Malloy are far to the left of the DLC.


> Please note, I criticize AAR as broadcasters. I don't
> attack you because you listen (if you do) or like it (if you
> do). Correct me if I'm wrong: I don't recall you saying you
> listen regularly to AAR or like it as a listener yourself;
> you just don't seem to want it criticized.

I'll say it again. I listen several hours a day. You are hereby corrected. Please don't presume to know anything about my listening habits. And I've said earlier in this thread that my favorite lib talkers are Hartmann, Franken, Malloy, and Maddow.

> > On the other hand, vocal opponents of Air America like
> > yourself don't seem to actually listen to it. Case in
> > point: your posting of a completely false New York Post
> > article claiming that Air America "announcers" were
> > "begging" for donations.
 
Headless Body In Topless Bar

- A classic Post headline.

ABC puts the Post's circulation at over 590,000, an incredible number considering almost all of that are newsstand sales - people have to make a point of stopping and putting down money to buy a copy.

They have the best sports coverage and columnists in town. And, yes, the respectable journalists at the Times - and the journalists who read the times and take their lead from the times - don't like the paper much. Maybe more people in this country would still be reading newspapers if he had a tabloid tradition like Britain, which the Post represents, rather than ponderous broadsheets.

I mostly listened earlier in the day. I could not get past Randi's fingernails-on-a-blackboard voice and her repeated kvetching about Ed Schultz (which did get me interested and I started listening to Ed Schultz instead).

But I do appreciate your posting more of your experience of AAR. You are right, I don't know much about your listening habits because I haven't seen you say much about them, at least in response to my posts. I really would rather get into comparing and sharing different experiences and viewpoints about radio and specific programs, instead of attacking each other for having those experiences and viewpoints - which seems to happen a lot on these boards. I don't much like AAR and I've tried to explain why. I would like better to understand its appeal for those of you who do like it.

All this crossfire and point/counterpoint just isn't fun any more.


> > I then posted the New
> > York Post article in which a legitimate news organization
> > also raised the possibility of financial programs at AAR.
>
> > The NY Post is responsible for the accuracy of their
> > reporting. I did not know (then or now) that no on-air
> > appeals had taken place. I only know a press release
> > CLAIMED no on-air appeals had taken place.
>
> The New York Post is hardly a "legitimate news
> organization." It is treated with the contempt that it
> richly deserves by all the journalism professionals I I know
> and only stays in business because Rupert Murdoch has been
> willing to absorb its many millions in losses each year (for
> many years) to further his political agenda.
> >
> > No, I do not monitor AAR 24/7 to check for fund raising
> > pitches (do you?).
>
> I don't monitor it to "check for fund raising pitches," but
> I do listen several hours a day and have never heard a "fund
> raising pitch." Nobody else has ever heard such "pitches"
> either.
>
> I did listen a fair amount early on and
> > I got tired of it. Smart-ass but not funny. Too New
> > York-centric. Tepid opposition to the war (sort of not
> > really against the war itself but Bush should be doing
> > better running it). Weak opposition to the Patriot Act.
>
> Almost all of the AAR hosts have spoken out strongly
> against the war and the Patriot Act. Al Franken has said he
> wrongly believed Colin Powell when Powell claimed that there
> was evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Franken now
> says the invasion was wrong, although he doesn't favor
> immediate withdrawal.
>
> > Very DLC or so-called "New Democrat"; not really
> > progressive.
>
> You seem to have only listened to Franken (and possibly
> Springer). For example, Rhodes, Garafolo, and Malloy are far
> to the left of the DLC.
>
>
> > Please note, I criticize AAR as broadcasters. I don't
> > attack you because you listen (if you do) or like it (if
> you
> > do). Correct me if I'm wrong: I don't recall you saying
> you
> > listen regularly to AAR or like it as a listener yourself;
>
> > you just don't seem to want it criticized.
>
> I'll say it again. I listen several hours a day. You are
> hereby corrected. Please don't presume to know anything
> about my listening habits.
>
> > > On the other hand, vocal opponents of Air America like
> > > yourself don't seem to actually listen to it. Case in
> > > point: your posting of a completely false New York Post
>
> > > article claiming that Air America "announcers" were
> > > "begging" for donations.
>
 
The return of PW - is there any ax left to grind

> They have the best sports coverage and columnists in town.

you have the right to your opinion, but more people would agree with Scribbler that the Post is reviled as "respectable journalism". Newsday would be the preferred conservative choice in the eyes of most crtics.

> And, yes, the respectable journalists at the Times - and the
> journalists who read the times and take their lead from the
> times - don't like the paper much. Maybe more people in
> this country would still be reading newspapers if he had a
> tabloid tradition like Britain, which the Post represents,
> rather than ponderous broadsheets.

Not true, thank god...but there are other resources in television and internet that are draining circulation from all newspapers..the corporate media is making news less appealing....more celebrity news, more missing white girls, all this is killing journalism. Ive noticed that most conservatives read the tabloids...maybe its because of the lack of real information but its sure easy to read and its packaged in a pretty way....its almost to the point where you can match the intelligence to the paper...especially in Boston..if you like sports and BS, read the Herald. If you want good news, read the Globe. If you are below 30, read Metro and the Phoenix...this is causing the decline..most papers are tied in knots on how to appeal to many...so many shoot themselves by getting away from doing what they do best...
>
> I mostly listened earlier in the day. I could not get past
> Randi's fingernails-on-a-blackboard voice and her repeated
> kvetching about Ed Schultz (which did get me interested and
> I started listening to Ed Schultz instead).

There isn't one person leaning right on this board who attacks Randi on physical issues, rather than her facts, details, and show prep. Its so easy to argue that...its like calling Michael moore fat or huge or whatever but not able to attack the real detail...Randi hurts conservatives because she jumps right into the issue and hammers to the core of the issue....shes the main host the right wing is afraid of...because she can go toe to toe, truth to power with each and every conservative spinner out there. So her voice is not your preference, id rather hear a unappealing voice speak truth than a great voice lying to me 24-7. We know its not her voice that you can't stand...its the facts. If you did listen to Randi, she rarely speaks of Ed Schultz and she speaks the same things most liberals say about Schultz that she would about Colmes....its just that Colmes is the kind of wussy guy you on the right like to hear.
>
I really would rather get
> into comparing and sharing different experiences and
> viewpoints about radio and specific programs, instead of
> attacking each other for having those experiences and
> viewpoints - which seems to happen a lot on these boards. I
> don't much like AAR and I've tried to explain why.

All one has to do is read your posts and one with any idea about what AAR has to offer knows without the slighest doubt that you are not interested in sharing viewpoints. You want a forum to express the talking points de jour...lately you have been the one posting most of the complaints about liberal radio which has caused many to cry that we need to have an AAR room..like Dampier says...in the past you could say pretty well anything about the left and not really get a response..now you are going to get called if you post crap...you have put someting on the table that one can debunk in a few mins on Google or some other medium.

You posted earlier about AAR and I responded there to those distortions. If you tell the truth and quit spinning what you hear or read somewhere else or just listen, you know that AAR is not what Hannity, O'Reilly and others claim it to be from not listening. AAR is not asking one person on the air for money. The web site has one section that it had when the Associates plan was launched....only one e-mail was sent out to listeners who signed up to recieve mail on the site. there is no "begging"...so quit telling lies.


I would
> like better to understand its appeal for those of you who do
> like it.

Your statements prove your intentions as you have posted above simply arent true.

>
> All this crossfire and point/counterpoint just isn't fun any
> more.

Then why do you keep up the facade of creating a discussion when all you are doing is bitching about AAR. You aren't interested in anything but slamming AAR for whatever the reason is...like when you were PW. Its probably not fun because no one left or right is going to buy your crap anymore.
>
> > > I then posted the New
> > > York Post article in which a legitimate news
> organization
> > > also raised the possibility of financial programs at
> AAR.
> >
> > > The NY Post is responsible for the accuracy of their
> > > reporting. I did not know (then or now) that no on-air
> > > appeals had taken place. I only know a press release
> > > CLAIMED no on-air appeals had taken place.
> >
> > The New York Post is hardly a "legitimate news
> > organization." It is treated with the contempt that it
> > richly deserves by all the journalism professionals I I
> know
> > and only stays in business because Rupert Murdoch has been
>
> > willing to absorb its many millions in losses each year
> (for
> > many years) to further his political agenda.
> > >
> > > No, I do not monitor AAR 24/7 to check for fund raising
> > > pitches (do you?).
> >
> > I don't monitor it to "check for fund raising pitches,"
> but
> > I do listen several hours a day and have never heard a
> "fund
> > raising pitch." Nobody else has ever heard such "pitches"
>
> > either.
> >
> > I did listen a fair amount early on and
> > > I got tired of it. Smart-ass but not funny. Too New
> > > York-centric. Tepid opposition to the war (sort of not
> > > really against the war itself but Bush should be doing
> > > better running it). Weak opposition to the Patriot Act.
>
> >
> > Almost all of the AAR hosts have spoken out strongly
> > against the war and the Patriot Act. Al Franken has said
> he
> > wrongly believed Colin Powell when Powell claimed that
> there
> > was evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Franken now
> > says the invasion was wrong, although he doesn't favor
> > immediate withdrawal.
> >
> > > Very DLC or so-called "New Democrat"; not really
> > > progressive.
> >
> > You seem to have only listened to Franken (and possibly
> > Springer). For example, Rhodes, Garafolo, and Malloy are
> far
> > to the left of the DLC.
> >
> >
> > > Please note, I criticize AAR as broadcasters. I don't
> > > attack you because you listen (if you do) or like it (if
>
> > you
> > > do). Correct me if I'm wrong: I don't recall you saying
>
> > you
> > > listen regularly to AAR or like it as a listener
> yourself;
> >
> > > you just don't seem to want it criticized.
> >
> > I'll say it again. I listen several hours a day. You are
> > hereby corrected. Please don't presume to know anything
> > about my listening habits.
> >
> > > > On the other hand, vocal opponents of Air America like
>
> > > > yourself don't seem to actually listen to it. Case in
>
> > > > point: your posting of a completely false New York
> Post
> >
> > > > article claiming that Air America "announcers" were
> > > > "begging" for donations.
> >
>
 
I did not know (then or now) that no on-air
> appeals had taken place. I only know a press release
> CLAIMED no on-air appeals had taken place.

If you were really listening at various times, you would know that there are no on-air appeals but you decide to go with the RW blogs and pundits and Michelle malkin...people who probably have never listened to one min of AAR radio.

>
> No, I do not monitor AAR 24/7 to check for fund raising
> pitches (do you?). I did listen a fair amount early on and
> I got tired of it. Smart-ass but not funny.

opinion, but not everyone sees it your way

Too New
> York-centric.

Not true, most of the hosts barely mention NYC, you might be listening to Morning Sedition which does do a lot of NYC references..but thats it..

Tepid opposition to the war (sort of not
> really against the war itself but Bush should be doing
> better running it).

Every host except Al Franken had made their stance on the war clear. Al is more reluctant to pull out but even he knows that he has been lied to.


Weak opposition to the Patriot Act.

Malloy, Garfalo, Seder, Maron, Riley, Rhodes, Flanders, Maddow, Franken, and Lanpher are all against the patriot act. Wheres the weak opposition..you don't know what you are talking about at all. Jerry Springer is the only person who has not as as far as I can say made a strong stance.

> Anti-Palestinian.

Not even sure what this means in your view.....again you arent hearing this on AAR.


Cheap shots at Bush but not really for
> anything.

Most of you think that disagreeing with Bush is a cheap shot...so lets just say you are pretty typical RW here...AAR hosts oppose Bush strongly and rightfully so. The nation is now joining them from recent poll results....and thats good to hear.


Very DLC or so-called "New Democrat"; not really
> progressive.

I doubt you know what liberal or progressive is.....Al Franken and Jerry Springer are moderates, all the other hosts are easily seen as liberal or progressive.

And worst of all, incompetent as broadcasters
> and entertainers.

Dampier would peel this arguement apart better..but you have your taffy and you are pulling it. You are merely expressing preference but 3.5 million + visitors each week like AAR and they are slowly gaining more every day.

> Please note, I criticize AAR as broadcasters. I don't
> attack you because you listen (if you do) or like it (if you
> do). Correct me if I'm wrong: I don't recall you saying you
> listen regularly to AAR or like it as a listener yourself;
> you just don't seem to want it criticized.

No you seem to attack for some reason but its not for education or discourse...learn from Johnny Morgan if you want to have a real discussion. We dont agree but at least he can explain his issues so that we have an understanding. You seem to have an ax that you are grinding down to the handle. When you were PW, it was the same. Many have asked "whats your problem?"...but we have yet to have gotten an answer as PW or mwebster.

So why do you hate Air America radio so much anyway?
>
 
Phuleeeeze!

Do you always engage in personal attack just because someone has a different opinion? Do always make up lies, like this PW nonsense, just to discredit someone with a different point of view than your's?

You like AAR. I don't. And you want to make a war out of that? Try de-caf!
 
>
> Too New
> > York-centric.
>
> Not true, most of the hosts barely mention NYC, you might be
> listening to Morning Sedition which does do a lot of NYC
> references..but thats it..

Randi's been bringing up a lot of New York stuff lately with the mayoral election being a hot issue. IMO, it has been a bit too much. That's one of the rules of nationally syndicated talk: Don't talk about your home market a lot. Does Rush ever bring up local Florida issues and rumors? Does Hartmann bring up Portland-centric stuff on his national show? Not really.

Springer and Malloy don't even do their shows from WLIB, so you can't accuse them of being NY-centric (and they don't really mention Cincy or Atlanta much either).

> > Anti-Palestinian.
>
> Not even sure what this means in your view.....again you
> arent hearing this on AAR.

I've barely even heard the Palestine situation mentioned. Of course, the establishment of a Palestinian state may be the only thing Bush and those protesting against him agree with. Therefore, it'd be hard to use it as a hot radio issue.
 
Re: Headless Body In Topless Bar

> - A classic Post headline.
>
> ABC puts the Post's circulation at over 590,000, an
> incredible number considering almost all of that are
> newsstand sales - people have to make a point of stopping
> and putting down money to buy a copy.

Murdoch managed to artifically boost his circulation by dropping the newsstand price of the Post to 25 cents. But the Post still trails the News and the Times in circulation, while it loses $15 to $30 million a year.

> They have the best sports coverage and columnists in town.

I assume you mean the best "sports columnists." That may be true, but the rest of the paper is an embarassment to journalism.

> I could not get past
> Randi's fingernails-on-a-blackboard voice and her repeated
> kvetching about Ed Schultz (which did get me interested and
> I started listening to Ed Schultz instead).

I don't like Rhodes much either, although I've never heard her mention Schultz. But I prefer her to Schultz's "meat eatin, gun totin" middle-of-the-roadism. I usually listen to the Thom Hartmann stream when Rhodes is on.
 
Your solution is to call it an attack rather than answer the questions

> Do you always engage in personal attack just because someone
> has a different opinion? Do always make up lies, like this
> PW nonsense, just to discredit someone with a different
> point of view than your's?
>
> You like AAR. I don't. And you want to make a war out of
> that? Try de-caf!

You sat here posting a lot of stuff which isn't true, got called on it, and you call it an attack. How about answering some of the questions? This isn't the first time you have reverted to the idea "that you are being attacked".

If you heard what you say your heard provide supporting information..prove us wrong...

You have the right to your opinion..but based on what you write thats all it is...or you say something that just isnt true....you get to decide what you print and how you want to back it up....but no one is going to sit by while you tell lies...
 
What questions?

I looked through this branch of this thread and I gave my opinion of AAR's hosts and programming. Opinions are neither true nor false; they are just opinions. The difference is I acknowledge my opinions as opinions. You seem to believe your opinions are THE TRUTH.

Various people seem to want to keep going back to the fact that I posted a column from the New York Post. You claim elements of the column are not true. I posted the column to stimulate discussion (which it did). You claim AAR did not solicit donations on the air. I don't know that. I only know they claim they did not and I personally did not hear them. As a reporter, my experience tells me not to believe anybody's press release (and your's, apparently, tells you not to believe the New York Post).

So exactly what questions of fact am I supposed to answer? What "lies" am I supposed to prove? Let's keep this to things I have said. If you want to take issue with what's in the New York Post, write a letter to the editor. I post material here because I find it interesting (an opinion) and because I think it raises points related to radio worth discussing (another opinion). I am not saying the material is 100% factually accurate or even that I agree with the writer's conclusions.

The personal attack in this case is the attempt to invalidate my post with the false claim that I am someone else. In other cases, the attack is an attempt to suggest I am conservative (which I am not) who reads blogs (which I don't) with an agenda to destroy progressive talk radio. All false. My opinion is AAR's bad programming and poor management will do more IMO to undermine the progressive talk format than right wing blogs ever could. But apparently you not only don't agree with my assessment, you won't even accept it as my opinion.


>
> You sat here posting a lot of stuff which isn't true, got
> called on it, and you call it an attack. How about answering
> some of the questions? This isn't the first time you have
> reverted to the idea "that you are being attacked".
>
> If you heard what you say your heard provide supporting
> information..prove us wrong...
>
> You have the right to your opinion..but based on what you
> write thats all it is...or you say something that just isnt
> true....you get to decide what you print and how you want to
> back it up....but no one is going to sit by while you tell
> lies...
>
 
Re: What questions?

> Various people seem to want to keep going back to the fact
> that I posted a column from the New York Post. You claim
> elements of the column are not true. I posted the column to
> stimulate discussion (which it did). You claim AAR did not
> solicit donations on the air. I don't know that. I only
> know they claim they did not and I personally did not hear
> them. As a reporter, my experience tells me not to believe
> anybody's press release (and your's, apparently, tells you
> not to believe the New York Post).

A reporter? Your profile says your occupation is
"Sales and Marketing." And nobody on these boards or
anywhere else has ever heard anybody on AAR solicit
donations on the air. When are you going to concede
that this is a right-wing urban legend?

> I post
> material here because I find it interesting (an opinion) and
> because I think it raises points related to radio worth
> discussing (another opinion).

But the only material that you seem to find "interesting"
is anti-AAR material. PW had a similar preoccupation,
which led to the obvious conclusion that after he was kicked
off these boards he adopted the user name "mwebster."

> The personal attack in this case is the attempt to
> invalidate my post with the false claim that I am someone
> else. In other cases, the attack is an attempt to
> suggest I am conservative (which I am not)

Then you may be the only non-conservative in the country
who thinks that NPR is "liberal." All the liberals I know
think that NPR is far too concerned with pleasing its
corporate underwriters and their friends in the Bush
administration and the Republican-controlled congress.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom