• 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

What "Ditto" really means

I was listening one day to Rush Limbaugh many years ago, and I heard this explanation.

One caller, way back in the early days, used all her allotted time to praise Rush and his show. Rush appreciated it, I'm sure, but he couldn't give her any more air time. So he went on to the next caller, who said "Ditto" to what she just said. And they've been saying "Ditto" ever since. It does not mean they agree with everything he says.

I quit listening years ago just because it takes too much time I can use for other things, but I enjoy him every once in a while if i'm in the car and think of him, though I don't agree with his positions.
 
“drive-by media” and “mainstream media?"

And what’s with these repeated references to “drive-by media” and “mainstream media?”

If you’re the #1 show, YOU’RE not mainstream?

And doesn’t “drive-by” imply consequence-free? Like...a blowhard without the accountability to which FCC licensed O&O stations hold a television news network? Or the marketplace holds a newspaper? Or your radio station’s accountability as a licensee?
 
He's not referring to talk radio; he means ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. But good point: is Fox News mainstream
media too? It leans right (at least in commentary) and is quite successful...maybe he means liberal-leaning
media.
 
If you’re the #1 show, YOU’RE not mainstream?

Nope. Not if you're only the #1 show within a certain category. Not when you're comparing yourself to the entire monolith that is broadcast/cable network news.

And doesn’t “drive-by” imply consequence-free?

Yes, and the mainstream media has been consequence free in matters of erroneous reporting. The FCC does regulate radio and television stations, and hold them accountable for flaws in their technical operations, and for the accidental utterance of certain words or the sight of Janet Jackson's almost bare breast. The FCC does not hold radio or television stations accountable for errors of fact in their reporting, nor do they hold them accountable for errors of omission.

In courts of law, witnesses are held to three standards of truth. What the witness says must be the truth, it must be the whole truth (meaning no omissions of pertinent facts), and it must be nothing but the truth (meaning no speculations, opinions, or non-factual embellishments). The broadcast media, especially radio, is not held to any such standards.

I challenge anyone to name a single radio station that lost its license because it didn't report a particular story. Yet the selective editing of which stories are covered and which are not is one of the most powerful methods by which the media can control the news. When the Dow hit 800, 900 and 1,000 during the 90's, that was major positive news about the success of then President's economic policies. When it hit 1100, 1200, and 1300 recently, there was silence. That silence suppressed the news of the success of the current President's economic policies.

Refusing to broadcast such news wasn't telling a falsehood. It wasn't something that would make the FCC yank any station's license. But it was seriously biased manipulation of the news, and every bit as damaging as reporting falsehoods as if they were the truth.
 
vchimpanzee said:
I was listening one day to Rush Limbaugh many years ago, and I heard this explanation.

One caller, way back in the early days, used all her allotted time to praise Rush and his show. Rush appreciated it, I'm sure, but he couldn't give her any more air time. So he went on to the next caller, who said "Ditto" to what she just said. And they've been saying "Ditto" ever since. It does not mean they agree with everything he says.

I quit listening years ago just because it takes too much time I can use for other things, but I enjoy him every once in a while if i'm in the car and think of him, though I don't agree with his positions.

So you enjoy the racist, you just don't have the time to listen?
 
JUST ONCE...

An insider recently told me "there is no 'Snerdly.' It's Rush pretending-to-talk-to-someone-in-the-next-studio."

Whether or not that's true, I DO wonder about these "seminar callers" the host flatters himself by alluding to.

JUST ONCE, I'd like to hear a caller ask El Rushbo for the time-and-location of one of these seminars.
 
time-and-location of one of these seminars.

They are "virtual" seminars. Basically, they're a "by invitation only" deal. My next door neighbor was active in local Democrat politics, and was given a copy of "the seminar". It was a DVD with techniques for various kinds of political communication. Hints on how to get past the call screener to get onto talk radio programs was one of the topics. Another topic was how to get the local media to attend a public protest, and how to make a public protest look better on television. There were even costume and grooming tips for getting selected for "man-in-the-street" television news interviews. It's no big deal. I'm certain that the Republicans have such training materials as well.

The best thing about seminar callers is that it gives someone whose argument about radio broadcast licenses being at risk was totally shot full of holes something to change the subject to.
 
As I suspected...

Radio_Realist said:
The best thing about seminar callers is that it gives someone whose argument about radio broadcast licenses being at risk was totally shot full of holes something to change the subject to.

Certainly I agree, although I suspect you mean the opposite.
(Just TRY diagramming THAT sentence.)
But more important than the useless anger that, again, obscures your underlying point is the underlying point:

Radio_Realist said:
They are "virtual" seminars. Basically, they're a "by invitation only" deal. My next door neighbor was active in local Democrat politics, and was given a copy of "the seminar". It was a DVD with techniques for various kinds of political communication.

So THE STRAIGHT ANSWER is that these non-seminar seminars are NOT-Rush Limbaugh-specific, in the fashion he implies?

OR is El Rushbo heard catching a non-seminar attendee in-the-act in this clip?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGlsyuivCYA
 
So THE STRAIGHT ANSWER is that these non-seminar seminars are NOT-Rush Limbaugh-specific, in the fashion he implies?

No, So THE STRAIGHT ANSWER is that these non-seminar seminars are NOT-Rush Limbaugh-specific, in the fashion you infer. However, the information has been circulating for a long time. Back when nationally syndicated conservative talk show hosts were few in number, one could make the argument that they were specifically tailored to the few nationally syndicated conservative talk show hosts then on the air.

The sections on how to get letters to the editor published in newspapers wasn't New York Times-specific either. However, one of the principles of the entire series of instructions was to concentrate one's efforts where they would accomplish the maximum for one's side. If one were to attempt to target a newspaper, one should target a high circulation newspaper. If one were to attempt to target a radio talk show, one should target a highly rated talk show.

The other thing to note is that the principles taught in those DVDs (and presumably, on the VHS tapes in the earlier versions) aren't mystical and arcane tidbits of secret knowledge. Anyone who stayed awake during high school English or Public Speaking classes should have learned most of the techniques already. There are probably a plethora of websites where the information is also repeated. When one hears someone else using techniques that are described in multiple sources, it's almost impossible to determine which source was the one where the person in question found the information.

I'm still waiting to hear your response to the statement that no radio station ever lost its license due to accusations of slanting the news by simply choosing to ignore particular news stories.
 
"Wooo..."

Radio_Realist said:
I'm still waiting to hear your response to the statement that no radio station ever lost its license due to accusations of slanting the news by simply choosing to ignore particular news stories.

By introducing that point, you missed mine.

There is "a line."
Thanks to Imus, it is better-defined today than it was six weeks ago.
BECAUSE OF Imus, upstaged blowhard Limbaugh could easily cross it.

This is not about Free Speech. Say whatever you want. Say it on broadcast spectrum that the public owns, and the public will decide if you belong there. In I-man's case, the public did what the government wouldn’t...

“Offensive” isn’t necessarily “indecent.” When he ran the show, Imus/Stern godfather Mel Karmazin used to treat FCC fines like overhead. During the Imus backlash, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin stated that “the commission has very limited authority whenever we're talking about content issues. To say that something is or isn't ‘indecent’ [for which stiff fines have been levied] is not the same as saying that it wasn't ‘offensive.’”

With NO such accountability, Limbaugh characterizing an FCC licensee which occupies publically-owned spectrum as "drive-by" doesn't compute.

Poor Rush. It must have been cold in Imus' long shadow a couple weeks ago. Since then, Limbaugh's been groping to take-back the spotlight by featuring some impressionists' work which certainly offend African-Americans, and is likely alienating white folk other than your consultant. Stick a push-pin in the timeline RIGHT NOW, just-before he over-steps.

Whether The Public, again, draws-the-line, before already-exasperated station owners do is about to be seen. Chastened by the national conversation that Imus' gaffe precipitated, station owners ARE paying attention, as you will read in a thoughtful statement by Greater Media CEO Peter Smyth, @ http://www.greatermedia.com/corner/index.html

Hopefully, the legion of Rush-wanna-be local hosts will be less-willing to jump-off-the-cliff.
 
Say it on broadcast spectrum that the public owns, and the public will decide if you belong there. In I-man's case, the public did what the government wouldn’t...

Actually, it wasn't the public. It was a handful of timid advertisers who got Imus canned, not the public. There wasn't enough time to determine if the public would have stopped listening to Imus or not. If you're going to give credit for getting Imus canned, give it where it is due -- to the power of those who decide whether or not to spend their advertising dollars.

Chastened by the national conversation that Imus' gaffe precipitated, station owners ARE paying attention,

Sure, they're paying attention to advertisers. It's the Golden Rule -- He who has the gold, makes the rules.
 
It wasn't Imus's regular listeners who were offended. The comment would have passed unnoticed if it weren't for self-appointed "monitors".
 
You make an IMPORTANT point, with deep historic roots...

gr8oldies said:
It wasn't Imus's regular listeners who were offended. The comment would have passed unnoticed if it weren't for self-appointed "monitors".

My point precisely...

...though stated in a more pejorative fashion. And I say so knowing that my clinical, Spock-like approach may only cause the emotional to emote more.

Nothing that enters the public domain exists only-in-the-moment any more.

Here in what's-been-called "The YouTube Era," it is only prudent to presume that ANYTHING is captured forever more.
Imus invited what ex-Senator George Allen invited, posterity.
Their gaffes aren't just sealed in one of those lucite cubes that we use to preserve souvenirs.
The lucite cubes skidded around cyberspace at hyperspeed.

Since I offered my point a-couple-boxes-ago that "this isn't about Free Speech," comes this item, here in North Carolina:

Over the weekend, the Ku Klux Klan stuffed what newspaper sales reps call "a FSI" ("Free-Standing Insert," those circulars you find in your Sunday newspaper), into a local newspaper...without the newspaper's permission.

News people at the radio station I'm visiting here tell me that this is a familiar Klan tactic. In the wee hours, Klansmen lurk to observe the newspaper's distribution system. They clock when-and-where-bundles-of-newspapers-are-tossed-off-trucks-pre-dawn, to-be-picked-up later by paper boys, at news stands, etc. As soon at the truck zooms off, they quickly stuff their FSIs into the papers, as though they had purchased that placement from ad sales...which they'd never get the chance to do, since the papers choose not to sell the Klan a FSI for the hate message found in newspapers this past weekend.

We-who-disagree with what the Klan has to say suffer their right to say it, because we cherish Free Speech. Those-YOU-might-find-repulsive are YOUR Free Speech "overhead."

"Say-whatever-you-want, just don't say it here," the newspapers tell The Klan. Newspapers may. They're unregulated. They're exercising THEIR Free Speech rights by rejecting the Klan. So the Klan goes stealth, and trespasses in the fashion they did, because it's the only way they get into the paper, a more-efficient medium than marching, which risks physical injury.

Heck, Imus could have taken-to-the-street too. But rather than standing on the sidewalk in New York, calling passing women what he called the Rutgers hoop team, he chose radio.

Over-the-air broadcasting is held to a higher test, because our founding fathers recognized that -- unlike less-scarce satellite radio, HBO, or other non-spectrum audio/video media -- AM/FM/UHF/VHF spectrum is finite. So spectrum is deemed public property. WE own it. And we hold station owners -- who enjoy FREE use of that finite, commonly-held, natural resource -- to an even more ambitious standard, committing them to operating "in the public interest, convenience, and necessity."

In that role, broadcasters MAY NOT deny, for instance, a robed Klansman, radio or TV time, provided that he is a qualified political candidate, since political advertising content cannot be censored. The founding fathers cherished political dialogue THAT much.

My-uncle-the-judge reminds me that not ALL Speech is Free. You'll get in dutch by, for instance, hollering "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre.

Broadcasters also answer to the marketplace, since, without advertising revenue, they can't keep the transmitter turned on. The public used the marketplace to reject Imus. The offended organized and made their voice heard in the marketplace. Call those advertisers "timid" or "responsive." WE can call 'em anything we want. WE don't answer to their shareholders, and employees.

Calling the offended "self-appointed" is appropriate, and what the founders intended. We The People own the airwaves. Got a beef with something YOU "monitor" on AM/FM/UHF/VHF? Round up YOUR OWN public support, and make your voices heard, to public sector regulators (if you regard what-you've-monitored as "indecent") or to private sector advertisers (if you regard what-you've-monitored as "offensive").

Flex the system.
 
The public used the marketplace to reject Imus. The offended organized and made their voice heard in the marketplace. Call those advertisers "timid" or "responsive." WE can call 'em anything we want. WE don't answer to their shareholders, and employees.

Only a small and excessively vocal segment of the marketplace rejected Imus. A small but dedicated minority manged to create far more strident noise than the situation called for. That was anything but an example of "the public" using the marketplace. That was an example of a strident minority usurping the will of the public. That was the total opposite of "the public" taking action. That was an example of the will of the majority of the public being countermanded by a handful of self-anointed activists.

Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton are masters of such manipulation. And though you may applaud what they accomplished this time, since you give the impression of agreeing with them, I'm curious to see what you'd do if they decided to target one of the stations you consult about something you recommended. Or better yet, I'd like to see how you'll react when enough pressure groups make enough noise to knock all opinion-based talk radio off of the air, and you'll have to switch to telling stations how to pick the best list of 100 songs to play to death.

We The People own the airwaves.

Then it should be up to us people to make our own decisions about who or what should be in the air, instead of a pair of frauds and charlatans who masquerade as clergymen. If you're going to ride your high horse about "the public", then maybe you need to examine the principle of majority rule. The Constitution provides protection against the majority passing rules that cause bona-fide harm or loss of rights to any minority. It does not provide protection against overly sensitive members of a minority being offended, or having their feelings hurt.
 
Spock: "The emotional emote more..."

Radio_Realist said:
A small but dedicated minority manged to create far more strident noise than the situation called for.

By making YOUR speech, you're making MY point.
Say how you feel.
You can, I can, Imus can, The Klan can, anyone can.
Others may choose not-to-listen.

And WHAT'S WRONG with empowering a "small but dedicated" citizenry?
Isn't that why our ancestors fled the monarchy?
As I-man learned, The Little Guy can have a big voice.

If Imus shows up on satellite radio, or HBO, or as a podcast, you can listen there, and none of these minorities you rail against can stop Imus OR you. But AM/FM/UHF/VHF is a public trust, and That Darn Public will show up.

Radio_Realist said:
Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton are masters of such manipulation. And though you may applaud what they accomplished...

Stop the tape.
How-I-feel wasn't my point.
And "masters of manipulation" is a matter of whose-ox-is-being-gored.
Despite your anonymity, your comments suggest that you are not an African-American woman.
Or the parent, child, sister, brother, or friend of one.
If you were, you might feel differently.

Back in the 1980s, when Pluria Marshall ran the National Black Media Coalition, he was accused of "abuse of process" because he understood that organizations such as his could have standing in stations' license renewals. "I'm USING the process," he replied.

Unlike you, I mean what I'm writing here NOT-to-be-about-my-opinion. I'm just explaining how The System works. Take what-I-write-here to someone who teaches this or specializes in this area of law practice and fact-check me.

Radio_Realist said:
The Constitution provides protection against the majority passing rules that cause bona-fide harm or loss of rights to any minority.

Close enough.
That wonderful document offers you, me, The Klan, black folk, EVERYONE Free Speech.

The document pertinent to "the public interest, convenience, and necessity" is The Communciations Act of 1939.
 
And WHAT'S WRONG with empowering a "small but dedicated" citizenry?

Nothing, except when that "small but dedicated" minority runs roughshod over the rights of the majority.

As I-man learned, The Little Guy can have a big voice.

No, he did not learn that. He learned that a couple of frauds and charlatans hiding behind false credentials as clergymen can run shake-down scams better than any Mafioso. Mr. Sharpton and Mr. Jackson are not "Little Guys". They don't represent "Little Guys". They don't work on behalf of "Little Guys". There was no advocacy on behalf of any "Little Guys" in that whole sordid incident. Mr. Sharpton and Mr. Jackson are clever extortionists. They hide behind a false facade.

That was the total opposite of the system working. That was an example of the system not working.

If you were, you might feel differently.

What do feelings have to do with anything? This isn't about emotions. It's about the business of radio, specifically news/talk format radio. If a couple of con artists like Mr. Sharpton and Mr. Jackson can demonstrate their power to get someone with ratings as high as Don Imus thrown off the air, then all radio personalities have to start censoring themselves. We're going to start seeing a return to blandness, if not an end to the news/talk format as we know it.

Remember, the suits who run radio stations aren't noted for boldness. If they have to contend with the possibility that some two-bit shakedown artists like Mr. Sharpton and Mr. Jackson might decide to exercise their clout, or better yet, to request a "contribution" to their favorite advocacy group if any talk host on their airwaves crosses some invisible and arbitrary (or even imaginary) line, their course of action will be clear. They'll drop news/talk and start playing music.

The only positive thing about such an occurrence will be that talk radio consultants will have to find real jobs.
 
I know I keep you amused. But I feel I'm being used.

Radio_Realist said:
What do feelings have to do with anything?
Feelings shmeelings. Anyone reading what you write here can tell -- at-a-glance -- that you're not THE LEAST BIT emotional.

No angry retort to "Take what-I-write-here to someone who teaches this or specializes in this area of law practice and fact-check me?"

RE "ratings as high as Don Imus:"
To which radio markets do you refer?
Be as specific as possible.
If you mean rankers-within-a-demographic, cite which demo.

At least riddle-us-this: What about F&I?
C'mon...you gave us the skinny on undercoating...DO TELL.

Radio_Realist said:
The only positive thing about such an occurrence will be that talk radio consultants will have to find real jobs.
I could steal my daddy's cue, and make a livin' out of playing pool.
 
MOVED: TIO: Shhh...

Some posts in this thread have been moved to Take It Outside.

[iurl=http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=70526.0]http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=70526.0[/iurl]
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom