Imus Calls Bluff As Joe & Mika Claim Radio Show Will Return
JOE'S SNOW JOB
Hey Scarborough, When Does The 'Expanded' Show Begin?
All week, the biggest inside joke in broadcasting has been news of an "expanded" version of Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski's syndicated radio program coming just as the current one appears to have abruptly ended.
Heck, that sure sounds like an on-air good-bye (captured in the clip below), complete with tirades against some of those on the MSNBC host's ever-growing media enemies list.
So, Joe, when does the "expanded" show begin? Should we expect Rush to give up his first hour on WABC to make way for you?
In the second portion of the clip below, listen as Don Imus nails the situation perfectly, calling out Scarborough on his deceit and questioning why he would make up such an implausible story.
In particular, Imus is dead-on correct in his assertion that Joe's crazy tale was meant not only to save face, but to intentionally mislead the New York Daily News, New York Times and other state-run media outlets. No one at Citadel has since refuted the I-Man's take on the situation, leading many to believe his version is accurate.
Remember, Joe got back into talk radio most recently as a result of hearing about Rush Limbaugh's mega-contract renewal. Admitting defeat here means handing a clear victory to Rush, something Morning Joe's increasingly unstable (and downright fragile) ego simply cannot process.
If we're all wrong and Joe's program really is about to return, let's get the confirmed details, especially from Citadel. Otherwise, Scarborough needs to come clean with the truth.
Sharpton Scolds African-Americans For Supporting AZ Immigration Law
SHARP-TONGUE
Reverend Al Angry With Blacks For Supporting AZ Law
Quite possibly setting a record for fastest alienation of one's political base, the Reverend Al Sharpton is continuing to jettison some longtime supporters in favor of a new alliance with Washington's elite establishment.
While we've noted the trend for some time, which has included many angry calls to his radio program, today's rant reveals a clear escalation of tensions, initiated entirely by Sharpton himself.
At the time, Sharpton noted the difference of opinion, but used a polite tone clearly absent during today's program, to the point of questioning the self-esteem of African-Americans who oppose his position on the bill or are critical of Obama's performance.
Taking the insults a step further, he accused black critics of being more interested in Sanford & Son reruns than what Sharpton sees as best for African-Americans.
My, how things have changed in one short year:
SHARPTON (32:51): It’s amazing to me that now that others (Karl Rove and Jeb Bush) who are more conservative and even now a Sheriff (Pima County AZ) is taking a position. Now, we’re not that extreme.
And I keep telling you the part of leadership is to stand up for what’s right and to set the tone and the trend not to follow it. A lot of people wait to see which way the wind is blowing and that’s the way they go. You’ve got to set public opinion, not just follow it. We change polls we don’t just take em and say up this is up let’s go with that.
So, when this law first went down and many of us (black community) jumped out, well not many of us, a few of us jumped out with the Latino leaderships saying it was profiling all weekend long I was getting all kind of bashing from many across the board.
Now all of a sudden that others are saying it, it is a responsible position. Well, it was responsible Friday when we said it. It didn’t just turn responsible because some conservatives are now feeling the heat of these protests and feeling the heat of going put and educating the public.
And that’s the part of what a lot of us (in the black community) don’t understand. People talking about, oh you’re always on television, that’s how you educate the public. A lot of people didn’t understand the implications of this bill if we didn’t go on TV and talk about it.
I’m not on cribs showing my house. I’m on these talk shows talking about how this could make our community vulnerable. How this is unequal protection under the law. I’m not on there showing my closet. So, I mean people that get angry at people that are out there representing their interests, you’ve got to ask yourself what’s wrong with them?
Why would I get mad if someone is speaking up for me unless I got a problem with my own self-esteem. I hear a people talking about ‘oh, the president’s over-exposed.’ I don’t care if the president’s on every five minutes if he’s talking about jobs for me, health care for me, better education for my kids. How do I get too much of that?
So, let me get this right, the president shouldn’t be on every day talking about what he’s going to do to make the country that was at brink of disaster function better and when it was at the brink many of us already over the brink because we bear the worst.
He shouldn’t be on the hook talking about that. I shouldn’t be dealing with civil rights issues on TV three or four times a week. We should all stay off so you could watch reruns of Sanford and Son. That’s much more constructive for you. I got it. I’m clear. I hope you clear. Hundred stations now and you mad if we on one representing your issues seriously. Something wrong with that.
If Sharpton's goal is to be hated by his own political base, he's accomplishing the task with flying colors. A few more meltdowns like this and the deal will be sealed for good.
Amazon orders originating with clicks here benefit The Radio Equalizer's ongoing operations. Your PayPal contributions keep this site humming along. Thanks!
Phoenix Cop Tells Libtalker: I Will Refuse To Enforce New AZ Immigration Law
'I WILL REFUSE' Arizona Officer Says He Will Ignore New Immigration Law
Telling a libtalker "I will refuse to enforce it," a Phoenix police officer using the name "Paul" laid out his reasons for unilaterally discarding Arizona's tough new crackdown on illegal aliens during a Tuesday radio program. But who is the cop behind this disturbing phone call?
In the background, a police radio can be heard during the conversation. In addition, during the segment, "Paul" sounds authoritative enough to be convincing.
If that means he's for real (it certainly seems that way), is he alone, or are there other officers ready to pick and choose which parts of the law they're willing to recognize? Has the department been infiltrated by the far-left?
STEPHANIE MILLER (Tuesday 27 April 2010 - 46:25): Paul in Phoenix is a policeman. Hello Paul.
PAUL: Hi Stephanie.
MILLER: Hi, go ahead.
PAUL: Well, this law makes me sob as a cop. I will refuse to enforce it even though my union president is for it.
MILLER: Really?
LAVOIE: Wow!
PAUL: I have no problem with supporting felons, but this law is out and out inhuman. It will destroy families. Lots of children with illegal immigrants are born in this country. Their unnaturalized brothers and sisters will be deported. Their parents will be deported. Spouses will be separated. Remnants of families will hide with aunts and uncles with neighbors. Children will stop going to school. We have school resource officers out here that are hired by the schools, they work for the schools, but they’re law enforcement officers and they’re going to have to question every Spanish speaking English as a second language kid in school. They’ll be required to.
MILLER: Yeah, well Paul did you see this press conference yesterday? John McCain there is flanked by police officers and he’s making this about you know ‘how dare you suggest these fine officers would racially profile.’ Well, nobody’s blaming the officers. You’re obviously being ordered to racially profile. Aren’t you?
PAUL: Oh well, yeah. It’s easy as pie to racially profile. The thing is is they lower the bar so low that it’s going to be something we’re required to do. That will be our reasonable suspicion. I’m sure that going to be part of the training that going to be instituted by the governor.
It’s like you see someone walking down the street during the summertime and wearing a coat, you have to stop that person if they have their hands in their pockets or something. That’s a reasonable suspicion thing. Well, you’re working at a school and a kid doesn’t speak a word of English, you’re going to have to the school resource officer is going to have to say hey. Tell me all about your family. Now, let’s go pick them all up.
MILLER: Paul, I hear ya. Thanks you very much. I appreciate your call. All right. OK. Let’s dive in yeah one of the many there’s so many repercussions to this ridiculous law it’s like you don’t even know where to start.
Though it's not unheard of for callers to misrepresent themselves on the air, "Paul" is convincing. What would be the point of faking such a call? That's what makes the exchange all the more disturbing.
Amazon orders originating with clicks here benefit The Radio Equalizer's ongoing operations. Your PayPal contributions keep this site humming along. Thanks!
Ed Rendell: 'Protect Puppies' Rally Could Outdraw Tea Party 100-To-One
ATTACK PAW-LITICS Gov Rendell: Tea Party Movement A Joke
Just after building up the Tea Party movement as a scary, terroristic threat to America, the Obamist left is now busy tearing it down.
That has über-partisan Governor Ed Rendell (D-PA) ridiculing recent events, claiming he could get 100 times as many people to participate in a "protect puppies" rally.
During an interview with radio libtalker Bill Press Friday, the bombastic guv made clear he sees the movement as a joke.
ED RENDELL (16:53) (in response to question from Press about impact of Tea Party movement): ...ugh, unbelievably so. And not just the conservative media, by the mainstream media. Everyone covers these Tea Party events, and I said the two biggest events they've had were the Tax Day rally where their own organizer said they drew 1500 people.
And the rally the week before healthcare was voted on where they drew 1000 people. Bill, I could get 1000 people to Washington to protest the bowl championship series system in college football.
And if we chose to rally to protect puppies, we'd get 100,000 people in Washington.
Democrats who expect to maintain credibility on this issue might consider whether Tea Parties are indeed a joke or a destructive force in American political life. It's hard to fathom how they could fit both categories simultaneously.
During today's syndicated Al Sharpton Show, the reverend admitted to butting heads with many of his organization's longtime members, who oppose his stance against the legislation.
AL SHARPTON (14:30): Many of you may remember I’ve gone to Phoenix and had my battles with Sheriff Arpaio there. And now the Arizona legislature has passed state law waiting for the signature of the governor of Arizona to sign saying that police can stop one just if they look like they’re an illegal immigrant.
I think that is dangerous. I think that is racial profiling. I think it undermines the constitution.
But there are many, including many in our community that say, "no, these immigrants are taking our jobs.
"They’re not, they’re milking our economy and reverend, I don’t agree with you on that."
I have a lot of people even in the National Action Network say, "reverend, I’m with you on a lot of things, I’m not with you on this."
So you know my position. I’m going to open up the phones and let you give yours.
Expect white liberals to pretend they didn't hear about this.
Amazon orders originating with clicks here benefit The Radio Equalizer's ongoing operations. Your PayPal contributions keep this site humming along. Thanks!
MSNBC Libtalker Has Psychotic Meltdown With Caller
SIMPLY DERANG-ED
Schultz Outburst Could Mark New Low For Libtalk
For some time, we've been tracking the increasingly-unstable nature of MSNBC libtalker Ed Schultz, particularly during his daily syndicated radio program.
And yet with all of that, a deranged meltdown heard during yesterday's show may actually top it all.
Listen to this caught-on-tape clip as Schultz absolutely loses his mind while the caller remains remarkably calm:
CALLER (51:46): My reason for being with the tea party is is this whole health care stuff. I remember hearing President Obama talking about how it was going to be open and transparent, it was going to be on C-SPAN, we were going to know what's in the bill and that's just not the way it worked.
SCHULTZ: Oh, you're an idiot, Jason.
CALLER: How am I an idiot?
SCHULTZ: Because everything you just said is wrong! MY GOD, I'M LOSING MY COOL! I'M SORRY, I'm sorry, I'm acting like this right now! My God, he had an open meeting! It was all over the Internet! Did you pick up the damn bill and read it?! YES OR NOT?!
CALLER: Did you read the bill?
SCHULTZ: YES, I READ TWO FREAKIN' BILLS!
CALLER: You read the bill ...
SCHULTZ: My God! I cannot (crosstalk), everything you just said to me is false! Everything, everything you just said to me is false! Get this idiot off my radio show! My God, I mean, sooner or later you gotta call these people out! President Obama couldn't have been any more transparent!
He couldn't have been any more open! He brought these nitwit Republicans in for a televised (pause) shindig at the Blair House. Or did you miss that?
God, go pick up your gun and march if it makes you feel better because you're too stupid to read!
The irony: Schultz regularly features a segment on his MSNBC show called "Psycho Talk", where he accuses opponents of being deranged. Takes one to know one, Ed.
What happens when libtalkers are directly confronted by political opponents? Because they so rarely take callers with differing viewpoints (some, such as former Air America talker Rachel Maddow, have refused them altogether), we generally don't know how they might respond.
During today's Stephanie Miller Show, however, we got a rare taste of what might pass for on-air "debate" when one asked about Obama's frequent and especially insensitive golf outings (including one coinciding with the Polish leader's state funeral).
Amazon orders originating with clicks here benefit The Radio Equalizer's ongoing operations. Your PayPal contributions keep this site humming along. Thanks!
While conservatives are often accused by left-wing opponents of buying into crazy conspiracies, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow has revealed just how silly left-wing theories can sound when expressed in a public setting.
Simply because Republicans have recently used a few rather basic phrases also found in survey data, the libtalker believes a single pollster, Frank Luntz, is directly dictating Republican policy!
As applied to too-big-to-fail bank bailouts, how unique is "never again?" Isn't it quite possible Luntz was asked to survey voters on phrases the party's establishment had already planned to use? Maddow doesn't consider that possibility, instead framing her kooky conspiracy theory as "who writes your stuff?"
Maddow's position truly derails when one considers Obama's use of the same "never again" term in a push for his bank regulation bill. That occurred most recently today, with ABC and the New York Times including it in their reporting.
From Wednesday's Maddow show on MSNBC:
MADDOW (Wednesday 14 April 2010 - 02:59 in segment "GOP sticks to script against financial reform"): It's not surprising that Republicans are opposed to Wall Street reform. No Republicans voted for it at all when it passed the House. The Republican Party has pursued this unified strategy of saying no to everything in Congress while they're in the minority.
And it's not surprising they're against Wall Street reform. It is interesting, though, that they're explaining why they're against Wall Street reform by railing against something that's not at all recognizable in the bill in any way.
Note how Maddow rails against Republicans for criticizing something that's not "in the bill in any way." That's the GOP's point: any credible banking legislation should include a provision that bans future financial bailouts, yet Democrats have intentionally left it out.
Why? Does Maddow really favor future TBTF bailouts? Why does her party leave the door open for more?
Amazon orders originating with clicks here benefit The Radio Equalizer's ongoing operations. Your PayPal contributions keep this site humming along. Thanks!
As we've been trackingfor months, Al Sharpton's callers are increasingly dissatisfied with Barack Obama, despite polls showing near-unanimous support for the president among African-Americans.
More recently, however, the on-air tone projected by his listeners has begun to shift: polite dissent has now become outright anger.
How does this fit with the mainstream media's narrative that Obama's detractors are almost entirely white (racists)?
In a particularly jarring example from today's show, guest host / crony Dr Ron Daniels is confronted with fed-up caller Nathan, who objects to the cozy ties between Sharpton's entourage and Obama ahead of the National Action Network Convention:
NATHAN (CALLER) (3:34): Anybody with good sense don’t want to go to this convention. It’s nothing but an Obama fan club. It’s a total disgrace. Al Sharpton has no credibility and you either. You have no credibility cause you’re cheerleaders for Obama. You’re a total disgrace. (Daniels interrupts)
DR RON DANIELS, SHARPTON FILL-IN HOST: You got a problem with Obama? You got a problem with Obama? What’s your problem with President Obama?
NATHAN: He’s a thug just like George Bush. He’s bombing people in Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s killing up people. There’s no difference between him and George Bush.
DANIELS: So you see no difference between he and George Bush?
NATHAN: No difference and black people done lost their minds.
DANIELS: Health care doesn’t matter? Unemployment and extending benefits doesn’t matter?
NATHAN: That was an insurance company bailout. That was an insurance company bailout and you know it.
DANIELS: Well, there are millions of people across this country who I think who feel a lot better because they’ll have health insurance my friend.
NATHAN: You are a total sham. You and Al Sharpton are a total sham you all ought to be ashamed of yourself.
DANIELS: Well I have my criticism of President Obama, but I think there are a lot of people who would think we’d much rather have him then having Bush in the White House. But look you have an opportunity to share your (Nathan interrupts)
NATHAN: You a total disgrace, you know that?
DANIELS: All right well, I’m willing to be disgraceful here on national radio. I appreciate your call. Nathan.
NATHAN: You’re a total disgrace.
DANIELS: Nathan, appreciate your call sir.
If racism can be the only genuine motive for opposing Obama, how does the state-run media process this clear trend?
Amazon orders originating with clicks here benefit The Radio Equalizer's ongoing operations. Your PayPal contributions keep this site humming along. Thanks!
Sharpton Show: 'There Is Not A Black Man On The Supreme Court'
HOW ABOUT TAWANA?
Sharpton & Pals Help Dems Smear Court's Conservatives
With a potentially-bruising battle over a vacant US Supreme Court seat ahead, Democrats have decided to play offense, attacking conservative members in order to shift attention away from their own far-left agenda.
Whether this will actually succeed is difficult to determine at this early stage of the game, but some of party's fellow-travellers have eagerly signed-on to participate.
Here, listen as Obama confidant and infamous huckster Al Sharpton's radio show turns into a Clarence Thomas bash-fest, featuring regular guest Dr Boyce Watkins kicking off the festivities.
DR BOYCE WATKINS (GUEST, AL SHARPTON SHOW) (12 April 2010 - 4:56): Another thought, going even deeper I think in terms of race in my opinion there is not a black man on the Supreme Court. You know hey I am going to get a lot of flak for saying that. Ha ha ha ha. We need a black person on the Supreme Court, why not a black woman?
SHARPTON (13:17): A lot of us would like to see blacks [nominated for the US Supreme Court opening], but a lot of us also are reminded that we got a black from George Bush Sr named Clarence Thomas and a lot of us would rather not, I’d rather have someone else who would vote, in my opinion who would vote in line with upholding human rights and civil rights and woman’s rights and prisoner rights then to have someone like Mr Thomas, Justice Thomas, who I think has consistently voted against all of that and has been one of the most inflexible members of the white right voting black in terms of not only the court, but in terms of his own public expressions.
WATKINS: But it is absolutely true. I mean when you talk about Clarence Thomas, you know he’s such an atrocious appointment for the black community that even his wife is a very vocal Tea Party member you know which is to some extent it undermines his integrity as a judge to have a spouse who is so politically active.
Consider this just a taste of the smear campaign to come.
Amazon orders originating with clicks here benefit The Radio Equalizer's ongoing operations. Your PayPal contributions keep this site humming along. Thanks!
Mark Levin's Stern Warning About Obama's Supreme Court Pick
THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM
Levin: Obama's Nominee Will Impose Dictatorial Control
With a stern warning for those still cherish what remains of our freedom, Mark Levin used a portion of Friday's syndicated radio program to spell out the mission of Obama's US Supreme Court pick: imposition of dictatorial control over American lives.
While it's true we don't yet know which contender will be selected by the regime, Levin believes the mindset of the likely nominee will reflect Obama's extreme-left ideology.
Do Americans recognize just how different those values are from their own? Or the damage that could be done if Obama successfully installs a fringe radical, as expected?
Here's Mark laying out the clear distinctions between American values and those of the Obamists:
Levin is correct: understanding the mindset of America's Obamist foes is key to undermining their needlessly destructive agenda.
Amazon orders originating with clicks here benefit The Radio Equalizer's ongoing operations. Your PayPal contributions keep this site humming along. Thanks!
While not the onlyleftist to use the West Virginia mine tragedy for political purposes, MSNBC libtalker Ed Schultz may be the most blatant. In a shameless attempt at exploitation of the incident, which has killed dozens of workers, Schultz told radio listeners that disaster could have averted had the site been unionized.
But that was just the tip of the iceberg: Ed then tied the issue to the push by union leaders for compulsory membership through extremist "card check" legislation, which removes the secret ballot during organizing efforts.
Here's Ed's-ploitation on tape:
SCHULTZ (19:03): It is a non-union mine. It's the free market at work, in a depressed area of West Virginia, an economically depressed area where the culture of the communities is to, family, generation after generation, son after father, grandson after granddad, they go into the mine and they work.
SCHULTZ (19:38): And I am convinced that these violations would not have taken place had there been a union shop in place where checks and balances and safety in the workplace is really adhered to.
SCHULTZ (22:30): Because this is what the Employee Free Choice Act is all about. There will be no intimidation in the workplace. There will be no retaliation in the workplace for those who want to organize and entertain the thought, just entertaining the thought, of collective bargaining, which we know protects lives. And this is, whether you like it or not, on the heels of a horrific event, this is how change takes place in a democracy.
Amazon orders originating with clicks here benefit The Radio Equalizer's ongoing operations. Your PayPal contributions keep this site humming along. Thanks!
MSNBC Libtalker Ties Reagan Tax Cuts To 2007 Bridge Collapse
CREDIBILITY COLLAPSE
Schultz: Reagan Tax Cuts Led To MN Bridge Failure
Is Ed Schultz really trying to further the "progressive" cause, or is the joke on his fans? The MSNBC talker suffered a major credibility collapse during his radio show earlier this week after attempting to blame Reagan-era tax cuts for the 2007 bridge collapse in Minnesota.
Since then, most of the left has moved on to other subjects, but not Ed, who said this:
SCHULTZ (06:21): And so, you can make the case, well, Reagan cut taxes and turned things around.
You can also make the case that bridges fell down across this country and 13 people were killed in Minnesota and what the heck, maybe we better invest in our infrastructure. It's all what your priority list is.
Ed, your top priority should be maintaining at least a shred of credibility, don't you think?
Amazon orders originating with clicks here benefit The Radio Equalizer's ongoing operations. Your PayPal contributions keep this site humming along. Thanks!
While few would consider the Vatican's handling of abuse claims to be particularly stellar, the Church's traditional opponents on the left certainly have managed to exploit the situation for political gain.
Then, there is libtalker Rosie O'Donnell, who has found a way to take Catholic-bashing to a whole new level. In Rosie's twisted world, there's really no distinction to be made between the Pope and Jim Jones, murderous cult leader responsible for the deaths of more than 900 people in the Guyanese jungle.
Looks like O'Donnell's drinking her own Kool-Aid. What's it spiked with, Rosie?
From yesterday's Rosie Radio program:
O'DONNELL (42:39): If there was an organization, let's just say the Boys' Club [that] had the history of child abuse, child torture, and rape that the Catholic Church has, would you ever give money to the Boys' Club or the Girls' Club?
O'DONNELL (43:28): I'm saying that to support an organization where at the top of the infrastructure, are people willing to ignore the mass child abuse and torture and sexual molestation of its own constituents.
It's almost like when you read about cults, Jonestown, all these cults [that] allow sexual perversity and sexual behavior.
Amazon orders originating with clicks here benefit The Radio Equalizer's ongoing operations. Your PayPal contributions keep this site humming along. Thanks!
Though Hannity was jokingly referring to recent criticism of conservatives, a point his audience at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley clearly understood, "progressives" twisted its meaning to suggest he was expressing sympathy for Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.
In addition to leftistInternetsmear sites, libtalkers almost immediately jumped on board the latest effort, with two (of many) examples captured here. Transcripts from yesterday's respective Mike Malloy and Ed Schultz radio shows are included below, in addition to a clip that combines both comments.
Note Malloy's reference to "violent thoughts" about Hannity- this has been a recurring theme and previous threatening language has been used against Dana Perino, Matt Drudge and others.
MIKE MALLOY (20:10): Hannity is a sick puppy, he really is, he - he's been drinking his own blood for probably 20 years. That's what these superstars in talk radio do, they drink their own blood.
This is what Beck is doing, Beck has done it for a while. Limbaugh - you can tell Limbaugh does it because, just look at him. But, uh - I don't know how to answer that. On the one hand, you have this domestic terrorist in - in Wichita who was sentenced to 50 years to life for murdering a physician; and the killer's [...] whole attitude was, I'm protecting unborn children.
And then you have a pig, a filthy, filthy pig like Hannity, saying something in praise of Timothy McVeigh - who murdered - how many kids were in the day care center, nineteen? Innocent little children, blown to pieces! I swear to god, being the father of a little child, um, when I heard that today, I just - I- I start thinking really truly violent thoughts about a piece of human waste like Sean Hannity, who is paid millions of dollars to say that kind of stuff, and in his spare time, rips off the families of dead soldiers and Marines; steals money from them! And if I say what I really think, see, you know, I could lose my right to broadcast, I really could!
ED SCHULTZ (45:19): This is Sean Hannity broadcasting remotely on his radio show the other day at the Reagan library. Here's what he said --
HANNITY: I think we won the debate.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We did win the debate.
HANNITY: When you think of the vast majorities that they have in Congress, and they had to bribe, backroom deals, corruption. That's all because the tea party movement, the people, all these Tim McVeigh wannabes here, as they say. (applause)
SCHULTZ: All these Tim McVeigh wannabes here. And he gets a hand, a round of applause. Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, killed almost 200 people, and was put to death, executed. I mean, sometimes I think that broadcasters, we become so close to the story or so ideologically bent in one direction or another, we don't even realize what the heck we're saying.
Schultz is the MSNBC / syndicated radio host who's leading the effort to "socialize" talk radio. Cooking up examples of "extreme" rhetoric from the right helps build his "case" for a government takeover of the airwaves.
Another key objective: by booting Hannity and others from the stage, the left's longstanding desire to see Glenn Beck installed as "leader" of the conservative movement can finally be fulfilled.
Amazon orders originating with clicks here benefit The Radio Equalizer's ongoing operations. Your PayPal contributions keep this site humming along. Thanks!
Libtalkers Turn Up Heat In Battle To Socialize Talk Radio
TALKING SOCIALISM
Libtalkers Push Dem Allies Toward Federal Radio Takeover
Aided by far-left cable outlet MSNBC, struggling libtalkers have embarked on a new crusade to bring socialization of talk radio to their party's legislative front burner.
Spearheading the campaign for a government takeover of broadcasting content (but by no means alone in the effort) is syndicated talker / MSNBC host Ed Schultz, who devoted both of yesterday's programs to the subject.
Joined by fellow libtalker / former CNN personality Bill Press and a longtime Rush Limbaugh foe based in the broadcast industry, Big Eddie built his case using a widely discredited2007 "study" tied to at least one individual with connections to Schultz's employer.
Schultz has gone further, running a viewer poll to determine whether MSNBC's viewers believe Congress should control the content of talk radio.
Here are the clips and transcripts:
BILL PRESS (ED SCHULTZ RADIO SHOW GUEST, 31 MARCH 2010 - 26:09): It would mean that a station couldn't just have all one side all day long, that they would have to have a mix of voices. They could be as extreme as they want on the right or as strong as they want on the right - I hope strong, not extreme - but, you know, they have to serve the community because they are public airwaves and so they have to make sure that the other part of their listening audience had a chance to hear somebody of a different point of view.
But, you know, Ed, I think more importantly, you and I have talked about this, is ownership. There's no reason why one company ought to be able to come into a market whether it's Minneapolis or Seattle or Boston or wherever and buy up five radio stations in there and make 'em all right-wing radio stations. So, we need to get at that too and that's the FCC.
ED SCHULTZ (THE ED SHOW, MSNBC 31 MARCH 2010): First, the story that has me tired up tonight. I guess hate talk is entertainment. At least that's what the righties say. A USA Today / Gallup Poll asked, "who's to blame for incidents of vandalism and verbal threats that followed the health care bill passing the Congress?"
Forty nine percent, 49% Say Democratic tactics are a major reason for the incidents? Hold it right there. The tactic? The Democrats used to pass health care is called the legislative process. There's a reason that Americans believe the Democrats are to blame for the hate talk. It's called the conservative media. This very same poll shows that 46% blame harsh criticism by conservative commentators on television and on radio.
Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and the rest of the hate merchants on the radio dial on the right have been on a mission to destroy this president and the Democrats since day one. They have a stronghold on the market. Ever since President Obama took office it has really turned ugly.
[... CUT TO COLLECTION OF SOUNDBITES FROM CONSERVATIVE TALKERS]
SCHULTZ: Yeah. Saving lives, 30 some odd million people going to get health care insurance in this country and of course the discrimination is going to be over because of the pre-existing condition. That's the kind of garbage that's pumped out every day on the airwaves by the righties. We're doing "psycho talk" early tonight. This is what passes for entertainment in America. So Americans believe this stuff because it's really what they have access to. The only thing they have access to.
An exhaustive joint study conducted in 2007 by the center for American Progress and Free Press titled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio" shows some shocking figures. The analysis of the political talk programming on the 257 news talk stations owned by the five largest commercial station owners reveals this- 91% Of political talk radio programming on stations owned by the top five commercial station owners is conservative.
Only 9% is progressive. Here are the numbers on the hours. 2,570 Hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast each weekday on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk. Now, 92% of these stations, 92% of these stations do not broadcast a single minute of liberal talk radio programming.
There is no such thing as balance on political talk radio in this country. Conservatives own it. They program it. They syndicate it. Major radio companies like Salem, Bonneville Broadcasting and Citadel have never had one minute of progressive talk syndicated on their station. Ever. 98% Of Americans consume some type of audio every single day.
Conservatives have used this practical monopoly to push their agenda for years, here's a perfect example, 93% of the folks there registered voters, they are Democrats. Now, there were two talk stations that broadcast conservative talk.
When CBS decided to flip one of their stations to a talk, a signal calling it The Big Talker back on November 10 2008, The program director refused to consider progressive talk saying there were, well, they're just going to take the station hard right. So in an overwhelmingly liberal city with the Democratic votership at 93% they decided it was a good business decision to saturate the airwaves with more right-wing talk.
Even though they have, you know, superstar Glenn Beck on the air. Defy this, Glenn. You have zero ratings in Washington DC. Zilch. Nil. Nada. Zero. Now, the second tier radio talk station, WTNT, ranked 30th in the market with a 0.4 share.
Now, this kind of imbalance goes unchallenged. We're supposed to believe this is the free market. I think it's ownership. I think it's time for Congress to get involved. It's time for the Fairness Doctrine to be reviewed by the congress and implemented.
The airwaves are public. It's not in the public's interest to have 92% of, you know, right wingers out there filling the airwaves. That is just so anti-anything the liberals want to do. Tell me where the fairness is. Don't tell me it's the free market. I gave you an example of the beckster and what he's doing in Washington DC. They decided to put that garbage on the air anyway. It's not about business. It's about ideology and about getting Obama big time. Get your cell phones out. I want to know what you think.
Tonight's text survey is, do you think Congress should take action to balance political talk radio? Text "a" for yes, text "b" for no to 622639. The results later on in the show. Joining me now, is Holland Cooke, with McVeigh Media, one of the best in the business and regular contributor to Talkers Magazine. Holland, good to have you with us tonight.
GUEST: Thanks for having me.
SCHULTZ: What they're doing, is it entertainment or is it electioneering?
GUEST: Objectively what you and Rush Limbaugh and I do for a living is the same thing. We're in the business of attracting an audience and get them to listen to as many commercials as possible. It is intertanment in that sense.
What concerns me is what Rush and the legion of Rush wannabes who are dominating this conservative conversation are doing to attract that audience. Three things. Number one is the potty mouth. I don't think you should say bastards on the radio. I'm embarrassed just quoting rush on my show because my mom and dad are watching. Now there are words coming out the dashboard of the SUV that soccer mom does not want the munchkins parroting back.
Then there's the hate speech. How can you say that Barack the Magic Negro is not hate speech? That's not the biggest problem. You know how they say high blood pressure is the silent killer? I believe what is most dangerous is what's right below the surface of talk radio and it is a deliberate overstatement for the purpose of rising above the cacophony. As the president was pursuing health care reform, Rush Limbaugh said, quote, Obama wants to put your personal, private medical records on Google to that everyone can see them.
Now, he's a smart enough guy to know that that's not true, but what about these nine heavily armed nut jobs hopping around out in the forest in Michigan who have been getting a steady diet of that, of Glenn Beck saying the FCC is going to scrub the Internet so you better start stacking up canned goods and guns in the cellar. This stuff didn't happen overnight with those nine guys in Michigan. Why I have spoken up in conscience is because I don't just think there's nine of them.
Spot the smears and lies: how many do you see? Did Barack The Magic Negro really come from conservative talk radio, or a Los Angeles Times column?
Has Schultz verified these companies have no liberal talk in 2010, or lazily relied on the deeply flawed 2007 study (think Citadel's KGO in San Francisco and Bonneville's KIRO-FM in Seattle).
What about public radio- does that no longer exist? Does it not provide balance?
Why didn't Schultz note how "The Big Talker" in DC debuted with a morning show hosted by an adamant Obama supporter?
The bottom line: the "progressive" temptation to seize control of the airwaves has become much too tempting. Freedom of speech advocates should ignore this at their peril.
Amazon orders originating with clicks here benefit The Radio Equalizer's ongoing operations. Your PayPal contributions keep this site humming along. Thanks!
Heck, that sure sounds like an on-air good-bye (captured in the clip below), complete with tirades against some of those on the MSNBC host's ever-growing media enemies list.
Heck, that sure sounds like an on-air good-bye (captured in the clip below), complete with tirades against some of those on the MSNBC host's ever-growing media enemies list.
