The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

17 May 2005

False Koran Story Still Key Global Topic

Will Newsweek Survive Scandal?

Both Sides Plot Next Move


As hung-over media hacks, bloggers and politicians begin to absorb the whirlwind of events over the last 36 hours, questions remain about what's next for each:

Will Newsweek survive this scandal? Weekly newsmagazines were already becoming irrelevant anyway, without a clear way to compete with the Internet (even if they do have their own sites), cable news, blogs, talk radio and even daily newspapers.

The Radio Equalizer focused on the future of Newsweek's broadcast edition, where there may be additional fallout in coming days, but what about magazine subscriptions and more importantly, advertising?

What company would stand by a publication that's responsible for many deaths, due to yellow journalism?

Will the White House succeed in (correctly) convincing the world this was Newsweek's dishonesty, not yet another reason to hate America? So far the administration line has been to press hard and pound the publication, after some initial hesitation, backing off now would be a grave mistake.

Will conservatives see this issue through to the end? That's going to mean more demonstrations, subscription cancellation campaigns (not just for Newsweek) and far more pressure.

The right made the mistake last fall of assuming all of the Rathergate attention would bring instant gratification, but the liberal media is far more stubborn, than conservatives realize. Newsweek's saying today that Isikoff's resignation wouldn't be accepted, what does that tell you?

That it's business as usual for the liberal media- it won't reform, instead, they dig in their heels.

After all, Dan Rather and Mary Mapes received standing ovations yesterday as they accepted a Peabody Award!

What's next for the left? Judging by the responses I've received, there was a great deal of shock yesterday and disbelief that things could go so badly for them, yet again.

By last evening, one emailer predicted "more rational discussion" would occur today, which I took to mean liberals would have better responses crafted.

I'm certain they will push the idea that the deadly riots weren't because of Newsweek's reporting, but for other reasons, resulting from American imperialism. Their other noisy contention today is that Bush lied and killed people, Isikoff and Newsweek have a lower body count!

I don't think we should underestimate their resolve to work through this mess.

Where do blogs go from here? This was a second major opportunity for the blogosphere to shine and it did yesterday, from the biggest, to the most recent upstarts. One leftist warned me, we'd better have all of our facts straight, or we should expect to get pounded next. I think he's absolutely right.

How about talk radio? It's in an overall state of decline, but did very well yesterday, with hosts sounding like they'd had a real shot in the arm. Momentum should continue for days.

Rush picked a terrible day to take off, however, I'll bet he's kicking himself. That was the only real gaping radio hole, with yet another boring and irrelevant, fill-in replacement.

Today he's on fire, at his very best.

Has anyone noticed how useless and forgotten liberal talk radio has been through this?

Has the Air America crowd made the slightest ripple out there on this issue? I didn't see them on any of the cable talk shows yesterday, did you? Where are they, hiding, or is it simply that nobody cares what they do?

That was quite a rapid rise and painful fall, wasn't it?

Please post your thoughts about what's next in the comments section below. No registration is required.

3.14 Update: Liberals respond to "Newsweek On Air" cancellation by demanding WRKO drop Bush weekly radio address from schedule.

Update: Editor and Publisher columnist deflects blame to Bush White House and brings up Jeff Gannon! Read this one to believe it, from a media industry publication.

17 Comments:

  • Unfortunately I don't believe conservatives will see this through.

    I don't see even one national conservative figure (Hannity, Rush, etc) call for a boycott of Newsweek advertisers.

    If you want to bring down Newsweek this is what needs to be done.

    You pick ONE of the companies that advertises in Newsweek. Just one of them as if you do all of them it gets confusing.

    You just pick one randomly and have a national boycott of the product for a couple of months.

    Then you pick another one at random and do the same thing.

    The rest out of fear that they will be next will pull their advertising.

    You put in in patriotic terms. I support our troops that is why I don't buy.... You put that on bumperstickers tv-shirts, etc. Support the Troops - Boycott ...

    No company would like to be called unpatriotic and the idea of advertising is to increase a favorable view of the product, not to create consumer hostility to the brand name. So they will remove their advertising from Newsweek.


    Just focusing on boycotting Newsweek by not buying it won't work. How many conservatives have subscriptions to Newsweek right now already? Not many I would think.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 17 May, 2005 12:53  

  • Anon., you are right on target. We can't afford to gloat, we need to become much more effective in seeing these matters to the end.

    By Blogger Brian Maloney, at 17 May, 2005 12:58  

  • i think anon is right the right in America is all but dead and woefully stupid. if only we had a true ballsy leader we MIGHT still save ourselves from the homo-leninists in the media.
    anon II

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 17 May, 2005 13:40  

  • "Bring Newsweek down..."

    And with that line Anon, you encapsulate the reason that people will turn off from the blogosphere long before the so-called MSM (which apparently doesn't include the WSJ or FoxNews, even though they both have HUGE audiences).

    The goal should be to improve institutions, not to destroy them.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 17 May, 2005 14:02  

  • "Bring Newsweek down..."

    And with that line Anon, you encapsulate the reason that people will turn off from the blogosphere long before the so-called MSM (which apparently doesn't include the WSJ or FoxNews, even though they both have HUGE audiences).

    The goal should be to improve institutions, not to destroy them.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 17 May, 2005 14:02  

  • Thank God I don't own any Newsweek stock -- at least, I don't think so.......
    Anyway, 'bout the only word that seems to fit is "slime."
    Nah, that whole bunch is slowly failing in circulation as CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN (etc.) has smaller audiences.
    Not happening as quickly as some might like, but they're all going down the proverbial tubes -- and I'm not a Bush-backing Republican gloating.
    I simply want JUSTICE -- that's all.
    And, sorry, Roger Hedgecock's not bad -- perhaps 3rd or 4th best, after Dori, Rush, Larry Elder....
    I say that as a "retired" former broadcaster who knows a little about the game (Hannity's a little shallow/overrated, Savage will probably blow his brains out or jump from the SF-Golden Gate Bridge; he's just a tad too nuts for me, thank you).
    In any event, let's all be patient as we watch 'em all implode.

    By Blogger Frost, at 17 May, 2005 14:26  

  • Anon II:

    You can't improve an institution that's rotten to the core, nor should we put energy into that cause.

    The news media's made it clear they won't change or reform.

    That makes working toward the closure of their publications a worthy goal, especially when they're responsible for the loss of life.

    By Blogger Brian Maloney, at 17 May, 2005 15:21  

  • Brian,

    Newsweek was not "responsible" for a loss of life, any more than were the media pubs that hyped WMDs in Iraq (NY Times, WSJ, etc.), even though that, also, was false.

    In both cases, mistakes were made, but the ultimate killing should be ascribed to those who did it/ordered it.

    Here's a question: What if the Newsweek story had been verifiable? If so, would Gitmo interegators be "responsible" for this particular loss of life? It's a question worth asking, since the White House only has condemmed Newsweek, but has not explicitly refusted the charge itself (despite being asked by press members to do so).

    -Anan II

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 17 May, 2005 16:40  

  • Brian,

    I assume you believe that
    Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers also is part of the liberla media conspiracy, since he said on May 12 that the violence discussed in this post was "not at all tied to the article in the magazine..."

    there were other factors at work. if you're going to take newsweek to task for not doing its homework, you might also want to do some of your own.

    By Anonymous Louis, at 17 May, 2005 17:25  

  • Louis, glad to have the latest Dem talking points update.

    Yes, he did say that at the time, but that's been disputed since and didn't become the prevailing sentiment.

    By Blogger Brian Maloney, at 17 May, 2005 17:57  

  • I don't really think it matters if they survive or not. They'll just start up a Blog. As proven by this site; any windbag can get cyberspace.

    Annie Mah

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 17 May, 2005 18:06  

  • Brian,

    Oh, like "Newsweek lied, people died" is original.

    Assume you're right, and that Meyers has been discredited. Kind of like Newsweek. Why do you call for a boycott of Newsweek, and not for a resignation/firing of Meyers? Isn't it just as bad if the Joint Chiefs testifies wrongly under oath? Or is it that Newsweek lied, and Myers just made an error?

    Have some consistency.

    By Anonymous Louis, at 17 May, 2005 18:23  

  • I don't understand why conservatives are so stupid when it comes to fighting the left.

    This is a perfect time for a boycott. It will get support from at least 30 percent if not of the American public. And linking boycott with supporting troops will make it seem like if one doesn't support the boycott, they don't support the troops.

    I have seen this time and time again with conservatives. All talk the talk but they don't walk the walk. I can't count the number of times that a conservative I know have gotten mad at some action of a liberal Republican and said "I will remember in november" only to when the election actually comes around actually support the liberal Republican even when there is a conservative challenger, because the liberal Republican is the incumbent. And all good Republicans must support the incumbent.

    Well, I rather be a good American than a good Republican. I rather be a good conservative than a good Republican. And in Washington state you can't be a good conservative and a good republican at the same time.

    Getting back to the Newsweak situation. All I hear from conservatives is talk. Talk, talk talk. The way things are going, newsweek will survive. Even if a few people cancel subscriptions and/or send in those little cards that they stick into those maganizes with the words "Newsweek lied - People Died".

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 17 May, 2005 21:01  

  • This is a perfect time for a boycott. It will get support from at least 30 percent if not more of the American public. And linking boycott with supporting troops will make it seem like if one doesn't support the boycott, they don't support the troops.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 17 May, 2005 21:03  

  • Brian,

    You must be feeling pretty good about your blog, now that you have your very own Left Wing Conspiracy operatives infecting it.

    alan

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 18 May, 2005 09:07  

  • Yes, Alan, flattering.

    By Blogger Brian Maloney, at 18 May, 2005 14:10  

  • Will you now be boycotting the FBI?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 25 May, 2005 18:56  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger