The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

17 May 2005

"Newsweek On Air" Cancelled in Boston

Fallout Begins

Radio Program Loses Boston Talker, Is Dallas Next?



Newsweek is already facing damage from the admission, apology, non-retraction mess it created with Loogate and its botched response to the deadly scandal, after reporters claimed American soldiers flushed a Koran down the toilet at Guantanamo Bay.

Now Boston's WRKO-AM, a major talk radio station, has cancelled the magazine's radio edition, "Newsweek On Air". A statement was read earlier this morning announcing the program's removal.

It was indicated that its yanking was a result of the still-developing flap.

The Radio Equalizer contacted WRKO Program Director Mike Elder, who said he'd already begun to prepare for the show's eventual removal before this incident, but added,
"then, the situation over the weekend with NEWSWEEK saying their report was a mistake, led me to move forward more quickly than originally planned."

WRKO's schedule has already been updated to remove Newsweek's weekly radio program from its 9pm Sunday timeslot. It now indicates "TBA" in that time period.

Could other stations be next?

KLIF Dallas-Fort Worth Program Director Jeff Hillery tells me the show's status on the Metroplex talker is now up in the air, with a contract for its renewal so far unsigned by the station.

"I've asked Dave Alpern, Senior Editor of "Newsweek On Air", if they'll run an apology on next weekend's show. I'm waiting for a reply," Hillery indicated to the Radio Equalizer.

Here's a sampling of some that run it:

--- WNYC- New York, Sundays, 5am
--- KLIF- Dallas-Fort Worth
--- KXLY- Spokane, Weekends
--- WPTF- Raleigh, Sundays, 10am
--- WVOC- Columbia, Sunday mornings
--- WTOP- Washington, DC
--- KBOI- Boise
--- KTAR- Phoenix
--- WSB- Atlanta
--- Many NPR stations
--- Weekly podcast


Does your local talk radio station run this show? Have you considered contacting station management requesting cancellation? Have you heard back from your station if you did contact them?

Let's hope WRKO has started a trend.

The show is syndicated by Seattle's Jones Radio Networks, the same firm behind several left-wing talk shows, running on stations also featuring Air America programming.

1.57pm update: "Newsweek On Air" is engaging in damage control with station affiliates. In a statement to KLIF-AM, Alpern says the show avoided the print publication's error and will examine, in next week's show, what went wrong in the editorial process.

Whether this will prevent more station losses is unknown.

3.03pm: KLIF decides to put it to the station's listeners, with a poll to decide whether the station should keep the show.

6.21pm: MSNBC picks up my story. Teen Blogger has the video here. The report is slightly incorrect, actually the show would not have been dropped from WRKO until some future time, but because of the incident, it was immediately removed from the schedule.

6.24pm: Ninety-one percent of KLIF listeners, in a survey, want the show removed from the station's schedule.

6.56pm: Is Newsweek's retraction a day late and a dinar short?

7.46pm: MSNBC obtains a list (slightly outdated) of Newsweek's radio affiliates.

11.30pm: FOX News Channel runs a fantastic, lengthy story (which will be the subject of my next post, check main page for more, shortly), which includes this gem:


The news magazine is already feeling some fallout from the misreporting. Boston radio station WRKO sped up plans to drop the show "Newsweek on Air," conservative talk show host Brian Maloney reported on his blog on Monday. Dallas-Fort Worth's KLIF, which is considering whether to renew the syndicated program's contract, asked if Newsweek would run an apology, Maloney reported.



(Hat tip: Boston radio's Bob Nelson)

(Welcome Michelle Malkin, Instapundit, Orbusmax Northwest News, BlogsForBush, LaShawnBarber, MSNBC, Michael King's Ramblings' Journal and readers from other sites I may not be aware of yet)


37 Comments:

  • Out of the Mouths of Babes (Liars)
    From Todays LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-newsweek16may16,0,698234.story?coll=la-home-headlines
    Concerning Newsweaks major fiasco:

    "The admission is likely to focus further scrutiny on the American press, already suffering from revelations that reporters for major publications fabricated material, lifted quotations or used questionable material from unidentified sources."

    I thought that was their mission in life?

    http://rovinsworld.blogspot.com/

    By Blogger Rovin, at 16 May, 2005 13:21  

  • While I can't cancel and radio shows, I can cancel my subscription; and I did just that this morning. When the lady told me the the balance remaining on the account would be mailed to me as a check, I suggested that they send it to Spirit of America.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 16 May, 2005 13:50  

  • Now that the MSM has to confront the fact that lying and poor journalism can cost innocent lives, what will the reaction be? Now they are finding that their blind hatred of America isn't just a safe, elitist discussion topic.

    I think we could safely now predict a 10% loss in MSM subscribers. What will be the MSM reaction? Will we even care?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 16 May, 2005 14:00  

  • Did you know that Newsweek has already reported on another claim that US personnel at Gitmo flushed a Koran down the toilet?

    This time their source is a former inmate. Unbelievable!

    http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/05/america-newsweek-strikes-again.html

    By Blogger Marc, at 16 May, 2005 14:04  

  • I think a major boycott of Newsweek is absolutely in order by everyone who can possibly boycott it!! This is entirely unacceptable that the news media has such power to give our country a black eye in front of the entire world and cause death and injury to people around the globe! We need to call Newsweek and voice our objections, cancel subscriptions, refuse to buy Newsweek in grocery stores and news stands, and call them and tell them that we are not purchasing their product and why we are not purchasing their product. I also encourage every business who associates in any way with Newsweek to yank their support. There should be major consequences to this major gaffe.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 16 May, 2005 14:20  

  • I am in Shreveport, LA. Our local paper has fallen to the liberal interest. A few years ago, they decided to do a piece on guns and published the names and addresses of all individuals in the area with a class five firearms license. Most of these people are collectors and all have their collections and storage at home. I called the editor and asked if he had thought that this might place these people and their families in danger. His responce was that it was public record and he could not be responsible for the actions of other people. Same attitude as Newsweek has.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 16 May, 2005 14:26  

  • In adddition to cancelling your subscriptions, calling radio stations and advertisers, or even sending emails (which will probably never be read), here's yet another idea:
    Collect every one of those Newsweek subscription cards that you can get your hands on and mail them back to Newsweek with the words:

    NEWSWEEK LIED -- PEOPLE DIED!

    Newsweek will at the very least then be forced to pay the postage on these "non-subcription" cards.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 16 May, 2005 15:13  

  • As of now, there is absolutely no evidence that Newsweek "lied." There is clear evidence that they got the story wrong, but that is not the equivilent of lying.

    It is, indeed, an egregious mistake, but none of you (Brian, you included) have any evidence that there was intentional deceit involved. They got bad intel... sound familiar?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 16 May, 2005 15:18  

  • I'm thinking of asking all the retailers in my area to stop carrying NewsWeek temporarily - just until the people their false story killed are back on their feet.

    By Anonymous KCSteve, at 16 May, 2005 15:20  

  • "Newsweek Lied! People Died!"

    Well, I believe the media goes along the idea that if it isn't the truth, it is a lie. Why shouldn't the rest of us? That's how the Liberal left thinks they can continually get away with the "Bush Lied! People Died!" claim.

    By Anonymous Shannon, at 16 May, 2005 15:29  

  • Shannon,

    So two wrongs make a right? Should Newsweek also be boycotted for all those inaccurate stories in 2003 about the presence of WMDs in Iraq?

    Of course not. Journalists are human, and make mistakes. Get over your spiteful indigation.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 16 May, 2005 15:32  

  • I am as outraged as you are about Newsweek. But, consider: isn't working to silence those on the other side the way that the left does business?

    By Blogger h, at 16 May, 2005 15:50  

  • Has anyonee yet considered that the story could still be true, but quite poorly sourced? Considering what the Army has been forced to release so far about Gitmo tactics, it certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 16 May, 2005 16:01  

  • Let me see, Newsweek had two conservative columnists (George Will, robert samulson) and two liberal ones (Eleanor Clift and Jonathan Alter). And it made a likely reporting error (although no retraction yet). Yes, let's ban them from the airwaves for obvious bias. Maybe we can also get a stack of print copies and burn them. yeah bevis, yeah!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 16 May, 2005 16:26  

  • "As of now, there is absolutely no evidence that Newsweek 'lied.'

    And the evidence that Newsweek told the 'truth'?

    "But, consider: isn't working to silence those on the other side the way that the left does business?"

    I guess I missed the story about Newsweek being shut down and the employees shipped of to Gitmo.

    "Has anyonee yet considered that the story could still be true, but quite poorly sourced?"

    Marvelous reasoning: 'fake but accurate'. Gonna go with gut instinct as your source on this one?

    "Considering what the Army has been forced to release so far about Gitmo tactics, it certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility."

    Considering Newsweek's statements so far, lying certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 16 May, 2005 16:33  

  • As of now, there is absolutely no evidence that Newsweek 'lied.'

    And the evidence that Newsweek told the 'truth'?
    --------------------------
    The only evidence right now is that Newsweek made a serious mistake. Nothing more, nothing less.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 16 May, 2005 16:37  

  • No word from WSB on cancellation -- they air the show at 5A Sunday mornings, so I'm probably the only one that hears it anyhow (while I'm getting ready for church)...

    By Blogger Michael, at 16 May, 2005 16:45  

  • "Let me see, Newsweek had two conservative columnists (George Will, robert samulson) and two liberal ones (Eleanor Clift and Jonathan Alter)."

    Oh, ho, this is hilarious. Liberal Math for you. The columnist is limited to a single page - the back page - of the magazine, yet this is the determinant of the balance of political bias in the magazine. But wait, you forgot Anna Qunidlen and Jane Bryant Quinn. Seems, even YOUR calculations are off.

    "And it made a likely reporting error (although no retraction yet). Yes, let's ban them from the airwaves for obvious bias. Maybe we can also get a stack of print copies and burn them. yeah bevis, yeah!"

    More liberal-reasoning. Last time I checked, no government office has banned Newsweek from the air. If stations decide to not air the show, that is the decision of each station.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 16 May, 2005 16:45  

  • As of this time, the KLIF poll is running 92 % to 8 % in favor of cancelling the Newsweak show.

    David R. Block, Dallas

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 16 May, 2005 16:54  

  • Considering that the Washington Post, BBC, and New York Times has run with this story, using released detainees before, tells me that the whole thing of this causing riots is bullshit. The Muslims were rioting because their religious fundamentalist leaders told them to riot. Claiming that Newsweek caused the riot is a bit like saying your boss yelling at you caused your son to kick your dog in the ass.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 16 May, 2005 17:29  

  • "Has anyonee yet considered that the story could still be true, but quite poorly sourced? Considering what the Army has been forced to release so far about Gitmo tactics, it certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility."

    Has anyone considered that you're a child molester, but that the information might only be poorly sourced? It certainly isn't out the realm of possibility.

    Stop siding with Newsweek and supporting the idea that the military is guilty until proven innocent. Prove you don't do (fill in the blank). But I understand your inability to comprehend logic.

    By Anonymous Shannon, at 16 May, 2005 17:31  

  • "... of this causing riots is bullshit. The Muslims were rioting because their religious fundamentalist leaders told them to riot."

    Actually, I find them to be hypocrits (the rioters). I'm willing to bet that the majority of those doing the griping have burned and destroyed religious artifacts including bibles from other religions.

    By Anonymous Shannon, at 16 May, 2005 17:34  

  • Newsweek apologist(s)... you need a life. There's no problem calling their source dubious at best. Don't you think ultimately going against the Bush administration and American image abroad was a prime motivation? Newsweek did their best to pick apart the Swiftboat vets who had much more credibility in their accusations. Its an agenda - propaganda, now with death and destruction.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 16 May, 2005 18:07  

  • Jim O'Sullivan:

    It's one thing to counter "the other side" with facts. Not that the liberal media ever let the truth get in their way, unless those "facts" include sagging audience numbers.

    It's quite another to shut down the opposition "by any means necessary," including publishing spurious rumors with no purpose but to make them look bad.

    By Anonymous gus3, at 16 May, 2005 18:24  

  • reading some of this makes me embarassed to be a conservative (you know, the old fiscal, don't tax OR spend type).

    you'd think that this was some sort of mysteriout-s cabal, of which newsweek was the messenger. They F'd up. Period. They certainly can be ridiculed for it (and deservedly so), but the liberal media bias conspiracy is as simplistic/dumb as the vast rightwing conspiracy.

    learn to think outside of slogans

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 16 May, 2005 18:51  

  • So WRKO keeps Michael Savage, who has compared liberals to Nazis, but cancels Newsweek, which published an eroneous story and retracted it.

    Liberal media indeed!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 16 May, 2005 19:00  

  • " The liberal media bias conspiracy is as simplistic/dumb as the right-wing conspiracy."

    Do you even read Newsweek? Eleanor Cliff is a perfect example reflecting the mentality of the overwhelming content published. Discern their angle on almost all political/social issues. "Simplistic", "dumb"... get your head out of a safe middle-ground non-conspiratorial shell and have the balls to call it as it is.


    "Liberal media indeed!"

    Err talk radio being more conservative flourished because of that very fact. At the beginning of the '90s, other than National Review there was barely a voice. Don't concern yourself with Savage; the MSM, from the NY Times... to the LA Times, and almost everywhere inbetween is still owned by the Left. Not to mention the major TV stations and most of cable. Yeah, we have Foxnews.

    You apologists for pervasive left-wing media bias and corruption look more lame as time goes on.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 16 May, 2005 19:42  

  • I am almost sure that you know how to run a successful boycott campaign against something like Newsweek but just in case you don't know, here is how you do it.

    You pick ONE of the companies that advertizes 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 advertizing.

    Of course it takes a national figure or organization to organize such a thing.

    You put in in patriotic terms. I support our troops that is why I don't buy.... Put on stickers and the like. Connect it with supporting our troops. No company would like to be called unpatriotic and the idea of advertizing is to increase a favorable view of the product, not to create consumer hostility to the brand name. So they will remove their advertizing from Newsweek and probably put on a "We love America" campagin to try to recover from the damage already caused.

    Now some say boycotts hurt America workers. Well that is too bad, but our troops are more important.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 16 May, 2005 23:02  

  • It doesn't hurt Newsweek that much if people don't buy it. They get most of their revenue from advertizing.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 16 May, 2005 23:08  

  • You said: It was indicated that its yanking was a result of the still-developing flap.

    That is not true...this had been in the plannig stage for some time.

    FACT-CHECK your BS.

    Mickh

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

  • Newsweek previously wasn't that bad of a magazine... It was less liberal than time, and somewhat-balanced; I think it had George Will as a columnist. This is really bad - for the magazine, for journalists in general, and above all - for the victims of this tragedy. Those who were responsible for the false news story need to be identified, and appropriate measures should be taken. And steps need to be taken to prevent something like this from happening in the future.

    By Blogger Aakash, at 17 May, 2005 02:46  

  • Glad to help spread the word about WRKO's action (I did so on the radio-info Boston board). I was unaware that the show probably was not going to be renewed, anyway. Later in the afternoon, Howie Carr (heard on a dozen stations in New England, with WRKO as flagship) also mentioned 'RKO dropping Newsweek On Air.

    --Bob Nelson (raccoonradio on FR)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 17 May, 2005 03:43  

  • Boycott the MSM! Enough is enough already! Hit them in their pocketbook. It is the only way they might even slightly change. I do not care if they stage some phony ethics investigation and even fire one or two token people. They did that with Rathergate and these people keep coming with the same irresponsible, biased reporting (or should I say fabricating).

    We, the MSM-purchasing public need to draw a line in the sand and say 'NO MORE'.

    By Blogger Victoria, at 17 May, 2005 06:33  

  • Do any of you reactionaries remember that this very same Newsweek reporter is the one who uncovered Monica Lewinsky? If so, did his so-called liberal media bias just take a couple of years off? Or maybe this is all a load of crap, and the man simply made a very regrettable error.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 17 May, 2005 11:27  

  • Michael Savage is right. Liberals are just like Nazis.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 17 May, 2005 13:03  

  • We should take Michael Isakoff, grease him up with lard, put him in a pigskin jumpsuit, stuff his pockets with ham sandwiches, and parachute his a$$ into one of these riots.

    Chester White

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 17 May, 2005 18:38  

  • Just this week an amusement park owner was sentenced to two years for negligent homicide when he cut corners and did not properly fix a ride which resulted in the death of one woman. I think Newsweek should be prosecuted for criminal negligence in the death of those 17 people as well as endangering the rest of us. This would certainly happen to any other business. I am tired of the arrogance of the press and I think it is time that they are held accountable for their actions and the consequences they cause.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 18 May, 2005 09:05  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger