The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

25 August 2006

Talk Radio, Seattle, San Antonio, Indianapolis

STOP THE MEDDLING!

When Execs Interfere, Talk Radio Suffers





To just about anyone working in the talk radio industry, it's no secret that very few middle and upper- level managers share the conservative viewpoints that have made so many stations successful. In fact, in the Radio Equalizer's own experience, many are quite clearly far to the left.

So, as an ever- greater number of veteran talk programmers are pushed aside in favor of sales managers and other corporate suits without experience in the format, it's inevitable that the emotionally- based temptation to impose their own lefty views would soon overcome common business sense.


Topping the endangered species list for years has been Seattle's KVI-AM, considered by many to have become the first conservative- themed talk radio station in the country back in the early nineties.

But with notoriously- liberal family ownership and now lacking a qualified program director, KVI yesterday signed its own death warrant by adding a liberal host in midmornings and promoting a "moderate" (read: Lincoln Chafee) airhead to the all- important afternoon drive slot.


In my latest Inside Radio column, we examine the annoying and self- destructive urge to interfere with what makes talk radio successful. Also in the piece: a look at the latest political fallout from the loss of country FM radio in Los Angeles.

To read it, click here.

Thanks for your continued and vital Radio Equalizer support, via Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase!

19 Comments:

  • Most media people have liberal core values even though they likely bend over backwards not to show it. Most of the nation's university faculty are liberal to the core with the science and technology fields having the highest percentage. I imagine that conservatives absolutely hate this trend and would much rather see "home schooling" continue through college and into graduate school. I predict one day we will see a "home-schooled" PhD with a thesis on the merits of "excellence in broadcasting".

    By Blogger WHT, at 26 August, 2006 01:33  

  • wht,

    the freaks in Kansas were doing their damndest to roll back the teaching of evolution.

    By Blogger Elmonica, at 26 August, 2006 01:42  

  • This is were the weakness of evolution is most obvious, those that support it cannot even allow it to be questioned. The fact is zealotry has ditched the frock coat for the lab coat. If evolution is so strong, why not expose it to intellectual natural selection?

    By Blogger Lonewatchman, at 26 August, 2006 02:58  

  • This is were the weakness of evolution is most obvious, those that support it cannot even allow it to be questioned. The fact is zealotry has ditched the frock coat for the lab coat. If evolution is so strong, why not expose it to intellectual natural selection?

    Stick to jerking off to Man Coulter, fathead, and leave science to people who actually have some brains. Let's adopt your standard and put ID and other religious theories masquerading as science under some scientific scrutiny. What's that? Your "scientific" theory is: "we can explain it so God must have done it".

    That's not science, lard-ass. Religion and philosophy are taught down the hall.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 26 August, 2006 09:50  

  • Ah yes, profanity, and schoolyard namecalling the marks of every great "scientist". But once again proves my point, evolutionists are terrified to discuss their beliefs, they would rather just insult everyone else in the great hope that resistance is futile and we will all be assimilated. After all beliving everything came from nothing and ordered itself mindlessly is just so clever LOL.

    By Blogger Lonewatchman, at 26 August, 2006 12:48  

  • Brian,

    I read your post and your other, more detailed magazine write-up.

    It reminded me of a story I heard about Ed Sullivan that may be true or may be an urban legend.

    That story is that Ed signed the Beatles without hearing them sing. When asked how he could do that, he supposedly said, "I don't have to hear them sing: I just look at the girls' reactions", referring to their screaming fans.

    It seems today's programmers could look back to Sullivan for success.

    By Blogger Missouri Show Me, at 26 August, 2006 14:38  

  • Ah yes, profanity, and schoolyard namecalling the marks of every great "scientist". But once again proves my point, evolutionists are terrified to discuss their beliefs blah blah blah

    Dear, oh dear. I always knew you neo-cons were nothing more than thin-skinned cowards. LOL.

    OK, einstein. I call your bluff. Let's discuss the science. Where would you like to start?

    Perhaps you could help the scientific world understand Behe's contention about irreducible complexity? Maybe you can articulate an alternative view to transitional forms? Frequency of variation? Epigenetic inheritence? Genetic drift? Gene transfer and anitgenic shift?

    What about Dembski? Perhaps you can explain why his conclusions should be deemed to be scientific?

    Let's hear you explain precisely where evolution does not hold up to scientific scrutiny (as opposed to rhetorical attack).

    AND - last but not least - let's hear your alternative scientific framework to explain the origins of life.

    Prove me wrong that your not a cowardly ignoramus who has nothing but empty words by addressing these questions.

    Let's see who's terrified to discuss the subject.

    I'm all eyes and ears, brainiac.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 26 August, 2006 14:59  

  • "those that support it cannot even allow it to be questioned"

    That is because it is so repugnant to anyone educated in the sciences and to anyone who believes in separation of church and state.

    Intelligent Design is nothing more than a spin on Creationism, which is the belief that God created the world. The appropriate place to teach that is in Sunday school.

    By the way I have no problem with schools having religious study classes that compare the worlds' religions and their beliefs.

    By Blogger Elmonica, at 26 August, 2006 17:26  

  • Again, resorting to name calling, that does not re-enforce your argument at all, it simply reveals an inability to communicate, probably from a lack of understanding. Hollow "appeal to authority" arguments are junk. How many planets are in our solar system now? How many were there 5 years ago? How can scientists be right if the answers are not the same? If they are right now then they were wrong 5 years ago, if they were right then they are wrong now. So the problem is that science is based on things that are not perfect, instruments, interpretation, agendas, income sources, ect. So anyone who wants to stand on "science" does not understand science, it is not absolute or static, it changes all of the time, and it will change again. Just as there is a differance between the scientific understanding of today and 100 years ago, so there will be today and 100 years from now. The truth is scientists have NEVER been right about anything the first time, nor the second and many generations of answers beyond that. Evolution is a religion which is why people get emotional when asked to defend it (name calling) instead of addressing the problems. If scientists ever discarded evolution would evolutionists be able to cope? Hmmm I wonder what the response will be this time?

    By Blogger Lonewatchman, at 27 August, 2006 08:49  

  • Yep. I thought so. You're were too cowardly to go anywhere near the questions I posted. It's you and your fellow propagandists waging this war against science who are truly terrified to discuss and debate these issues in an honest and intelligent manner. Hollow rhetoric, willful igorance, and unashamed mendacity are easily seen through and brushed aside by honesty and common sense.

    And your empty missive betrays how truly ignorant you are about science and scientific method. Scientists relish the fact that our understanding of the universe is neither static nor absolute. They love it when new facts and evidence come to light each day, when new hypotheses as to the way our universe works are formulated and tested; and when new explanations are proposed and reviewed and refined and reworked and even overturned. Present science on evolution went through this process and continues to go through this process, and if it is reworked and/or discarded it will be through this process. Not by mendacious dweebs perpetuating ignorance from their mother's basement.

    Scientists do not object to challenges to current understanding; indeed this is at the core of scientific curiosity and inquiry. What scientists do object to is religious doctrine masquerading as science and perverting the scientific process. "We can't explain it so God must have done it" is not a scientific statement. It is a religious one and religion is taught in another classroom.

    But your goal is not to understand what I've just stated above. Your goal is to undermine science, just as you and treasonous slime like you seek to undermine this country.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 27 August, 2006 13:05  

  • HeadHunter said ...
    "Scientists do not object to challenges to current understanding."

    Now come on, HeadHunter, you know that's not always true. Just look what happens whenever anyone dares to question, for instance, whether the case for global warming is as airtight as many have claimed. I've seen less backlash following the publication of Muhammad cartoons.

    These are some of the same scientists, mind you, who were asserting in the late 1970s that the world was getting colder.

    I don't claim to know whether they were correct in the '70s or correct now ... or wrong in both cases. I've just lived long enough to see plenty of "expert" claims popped like soap bubbles. And in many cases, the authors of these claims presented them with great bluster and arrogance.

    So I'd say that many scientists act more religious about their theories than religious people do.

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 27 August, 2006 14:18  

  • Just look what happens whenever anyone dares to question, for instance, whether the case for global warming is as airtight as many have claimed.

    Patently false. Scientists including climatologists have and always will continually question and test current hypotheses. That's what scientific method is. Scientific challenge and questioning is an integral part of the review and scrutiny that all scientific research is put through. Attacking science on the basis of conservative ideology is NOT scientific questioning.

    I've seen less backlash following the publication of Muhammad cartoons.

    Absurd hyperbole doesn't help anyone to take you seriously.

    These are some of the same scientists, mind you, who were asserting in the late 1970s that the world was getting colder.

    Really? 30 years on and we're still stuck with the same bunch of scientists who have conducted absolutely no further research or gathered no additional data since the late 70s??? But I'm not surprised. Your lazy thinking shows that you're no scientist... or even the remote acquaintance of one.

    I've just lived long enough to see plenty of "expert" claims popped like soap bubbles. And in many cases, the authors of these claims presented them with great bluster and arrogance.

    You want to list any specific examples of all these arrogant scientific claims popping like "soap bubbles"? Or does your entire argument rest on lazy, sweeping generalizations?

    So I'd say that many scientists act more religious about their theories than religious people do.

    And I'd say that your claims are nothing more than uninformed opinion.

    Scientists publish their research for review and scrutiny by their peers and the entire scientific community. It's a brutal and competitive process which stimulates extensive debate - sometimes controversy - and which spurs further curiosity and research. You are either completely ignorant of this process or you're just another mendacious propagandist waging war against science.

    Either way, you bring shame to this great country.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 27 August, 2006 17:19  

  • The strength of any intellectual position generally can be indicated by the way in which adherents to that position deal with heterodoxy stated toward that position.

    Those who cling to the anthropogenic climate change theory or to either side of the evolution debate should spend some time looking at themselves in the mirror, because the means of their defense is becoming more and more shrill.

    Galileo spent time under house arrest because he believed that Copernicus and Archimedes were more correct than the Roman Catholic Church, and publicly so stated. I have a suspicion that the Kyoto Protocol advocates wouldn't mind seeing the same fate befall people like Bjorn Lomborg or Patrick Moore.

    By Blogger JD, at 27 August, 2006 20:00  

  • Again it all comes back to name calling LOL. Evolutionsists are right because everyone else is a big fat doodoo head LOL. On a more rational level though, someone who objects to the pop science clique cannot be a coward since a coward would bend to anyone that resorts to name calling and cultural hostility.

    By Blogger Lonewatchman, at 27 August, 2006 21:44  

  • "The strength of any intellectual position generally can be indicated by the way in which adherents to that position deal with heterodoxy stated toward that position."

    True except when the motivations of the opposition is transparent and disingenuous as it is in the case of the frauds who try to impose their faith on others.

    By Blogger Elmonica, at 28 August, 2006 01:14  

  • You mean like the Kyoto protocol supporters?

    By Blogger JD, at 28 August, 2006 01:15  

  • Again it all comes back to name calling LOL. Evolutionsists are right because everyone else is a big fat doodoo head LOL.

    LOL The "mamma, they're calling me names" victimhood comes so easy from you. Being pinned as a coward is evidently something that you are quite used to.

    On a more rational level though, someone who objects to the pop science clique cannot be a coward since a coward would bend to anyone that resorts to name calling and cultural hostility.

    You have done nothing but run away in terror from *rationally* addressing any of the substantive issues put forward to you... and you actually believe that others won't think you're a coward? LOL Good luck turning those lemons into lemonade.

    You obviously have no clue about science, no clue about scientific method, no clue about scientific scrutiny...and yet you somehow expect others to sit quietly while you sling your uninformed opinions and hostile rhetoric against science and scientists without so much as a fig leaf of this most basic understanding??? OK. But don't cry when people point and laugh at you in the street.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 28 August, 2006 03:46  

  • The Radio Equalizer post was about execs meddling in radio formats, but this thread somehow drifted over into evolution. Advice from a religious chemist from the state next door to Kansas:

    Headhunter: If you are a scientist, then you should use fully rational, not emotional arguments. My question to you: Why do you think lonewatchman is a lard-ass? Unless you know things from some other source, lonewatchman may be anorexic, a marathon runner, or a competitive bodybuilder. You started the name calling. And you say you want to discuss "the science": You should want to discuss the objections from the other side, such as your explanation for the Cambrian explosion. Remember that Darwin himself said he could not explain it with his theory. That was a long time ago. Update us with your knowledge.

    Elmonica: Yes, people on one side are trying to get creationism on an equal footing with evolution in science classes. This is ridiculous. However the pro-evolution side turned down a compromise offer to have one minute of one science class per year devoted to alternatives to evolution. What do you think this showed: Confidence in scientific logic or fear that little minds might be unconvinced if presented with a few moments of the contrary view?

    The school board "moderates" won a majority in the Republican primary in Kansas, so national attention on this issue will soon go away, since after the election there will be a pro-evolution majority on the school board, since the Democrats are all pro-evolution.

    By Blogger Missouri Show Me, at 28 August, 2006 12:47  

  • The4thEstate said ...
    Just look what happens whenever anyone dares to question, for instance, whether the case for global warming is as airtight as many have claimed.

    HeadHunter said ...
    Patently false. Scientists including climatologists have and always will continually question and test current hypotheses. That's what scientific method is. Scientific challenge and questioning is an integral part of the review and scrutiny that all scientific research is put through. Attacking science on the basis of conservative ideology is NOT scientific questioning.

    So what's your point, Head? You're galloping into the sunset on your tangent pony -- blissfully ignorant of the fact that I wasn't attacking science on the basis of conservative ideology or any other ideology. In fact, I wasn't attacking science at all -- I was calling B.S. on your contention that scientists universally respond warmly and openly whenever their conclusions are disputed. Let's see, what was your sweeping generalization again? Oh yeah: "Scientists do not object to challenges to current understanding."

    You seem to want to paint a rosy picture of the world's scientists frolicking hand in hand on the peppermint mountains of Kumbaya Land, and I don't buy that for a nanosecond.

    Note that you didn't say "the best scientists" or "ideally speaking." You simply said "scientists," as if every member of the world's scientific community behaves identically.

    So let's cut to the chase. Do you want to modify that broad-as-the-horizon claim, or are you prepared to state for the record that scientists NEVER engage in territorial disputes over who discovered what first ... NEVER take umbrage when challenged ... NEVER experience a whiff of unethical behavior in their ranks?

    See, you can babble on about scientific method till the sun cools, but it doesn't change the fact that when human beings (and human egos) are involved, the reality doesn't always conform to what you read in your college textbooks.


    * * * * *
    The4thEstate said ...
    I've seen less backlash following the publication of Muhammad cartoons.

    HeadHunter said ...
    Absurd hyperbole doesn't help anyone to take you seriously.

    And empty declarations don't enhance your reputation in the field of debate.

    * * * * *
    The4thEstate said ...
    These are some of the same scientists, mind you, who were asserting in the late 1970s that the world was getting colder.

    HeadHunter said ...
    Really? 30 years on and we're still stuck with the same bunch of scientists who have conducted absolutely no further research or gathered no additional data since the late 70s??? But I'm not surprised. Your lazy thinking shows that you're no scientist... or even the remote acquaintance of one.

    Again, what's your point? I never claimed I was a scientist, nor did I ever assert that any group of scientists had "conducted absolutely no further research ... since the late 70s." I merely made an observation about pop science (and have bolstered it with the newspaper and magazine quotes I've included below).

    But may I say that's a fine straw man you’ve assembled.


    * * * * *
    The4thEstate said ...
    I've just lived long enough to see plenty of "expert" claims popped like soap bubbles. And in many cases, the authors of these claims presented them with great bluster and arrogance.

    HeadHunter said ...
    You want to list any specific examples of all these arrogant scientific claims popping like "soap bubbles"? Or does your entire argument rest on lazy, sweeping generalizations?

    Evidently, reading for comprehension isn't your forte. I already gave you a classic example of an "expert" claim that proved laughably inaccurate: the global cooling scare of the 1970s. You want more specifics? No sweat.

    As that decade unfolded, many pundits became convinced that the world was entering a lengthy era characterized by frigid winters. How lengthy and how frigid depended on the "expert," but variations on this theory were prominently hyped for years in the major media: In 1975, for instance, The New York Times warned of the "many signs pointing to the possibility that the Earth may be heading for another ice age." That same year, Science News spoke of (gasp!) "the approach of a full-blown 10,000 year ice age."

    Now, perhaps you believe that a 10,000-year ice age is in fact approaching, but I'd call the fate of that overstated claim a case of "Pop! Goes the Theory."


    * * * * *
    The4thEstate said ...
    So I'd say that many scientists act more religious about their theories than religious people do.

    HeadHunter said ...
    And I'd say that your claims are nothing more than uninformed opinion.

    Which is hardly worse than the pull-it-out-of-your-orifice pronouncements you've been making. I love the fact that you dispute my observations with your own unsupported opinions. Very scientific.

    * * * * *
    HeadHunter said ...
    Scientists publish their research for review and scrutiny by their peers and the entire scientific community. It's a brutal and competitive process which stimulates extensive debate -- sometimes controversy -- and which spurs further curiosity and research. You are either completely ignorant of this process or you're just another mendacious propagandist waging war against science.

    Yo, Head —- stop reading from that college textbook and climb off the tangent pony already.

    I mean, it's cute that you want to defend the bastions of science like some gallant sentinel, but you’re so far beyond the bounds of our original discussion that you'll need a GPS unit to find your way back.


    * * * * *
    HeadHunter said ...
    Either way, you bring shame to this great country.

    Wow, you really are a drama mama, aren’t you?

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 31 August, 2006 10:59  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger