I will be watching Governor Granholm's State of the State address on PBS at 7 p.m. tonight, but if you are not fortunate enough to be close to a TV, try listening to it on NPR.
Amazingly, you will not be able to hear it live on Michigan's most powerful and most rightwing radio station, WJR. The great conservative voice of the Great Lakes is unbelievably carrying the state of the county address of Oakland County Executive and Republican gubernatorial candidate Brooks Patterson. Yes, you heard it right: the most powerful radio station in the state is carrying Patterson's speech on airwaves owned by the public instead of the Governor. Unbelievable. If there ever was a reason for the Fairness Doctrine I can think of no better illustration as this outrage as the reason why.
Even funnier is the station's management reason for it? Get this: Patterson had is hand up first.
It never ceases to amaze me that WJR continues to cling to its rightwing lineup despite broadcasting from a state that has been blue since 1992 and located in one of the most Democratic cities in America. Did they not see the result of the last election?
The have all the national hatemongers on the air, like Rush Windbag, Sean Haity, "Dr." Laura and Mark Levine, and the local line-up is also rightwing. Paul W. Smith subs for Windbag on occasion; I can't believe this guy is from my hometown of Monroe. Bill O'Reily wannabe Frank Beckman was voted one of the most biased reporters, columnists and commentators in Michigan.
But I almost fell out of my chair when I read the headline from Detroit News columnist Neal Rubin: "WJR: No vast right-wing conspiracy." He was correct, however, when he said "WJR-AM (760) leans so far to the right it almost topples over."
Really? If there is no conspiracy then why are there no non-rightwing voices on the station? Rubin falsely claims "Liberal equivalents have historically struggled." That’s' because they are not on as many stations as rightwing tools. When they go head-to-head liberal formats do as well or better.
The likes of Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, Bill Press, Randi Rhoades and Thom Hartman are very successful, and I will put them up against anyone.
Let's let WJR program director Steve Stewart how insane it is to bump the Governor for the head of just one of Michigan's 83 counties, and while you are at it, also ask him why there is no balance on WJR.
You can call them at (313) 875-4440 or toll free at (800) 859-0957; email them via their web site at http://www.wjr.net/contactus.asp or even snail mail at
News/Talk 760 WJR
3011 West Grand Blvd.
Suite 800
Detroit, MI 48202
6 comments:
I seem to remember you saying that WJR was a rightwing station in the past. Now you want the fairness doctrine because of this. I probably should be more forgiving because liberals don't understand business, ratings and earning money.
I know you said that Schultz, Miller, Press, Rhodes and Hartman are top talk show hosts, but the facts don't bear that out. Schultz is apparently, the number one of the liberals but in head to head matchups with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, he doesn't make the grade.
Randi Rhodes has been all over, but she doesn't qualify as a top host either. In fact, she's been in a free fall since claiming she was mugged when in fact, she got drunk, fell and broke her teeth. Air America blamed on right wing haters, but it came out that she was just sloshed.
I tried to look up the ratings of all of the people you listed and couldn't find them anywhere. The closest is the following:
McQ over at QandO has an interesting analysis of Ed “The Left’s Rush Limbaugh” Schultz’s ratings numbers as stacked up against the two biggest conservative talkers, Sean Hannity and Limbaugh
...in markets where I could determine Schultz and Hannity/Limbaugh went head-to-head, Schultz was in 50, won 7* and lost 43. . .
hile Schultz isn�t represented in NY, the largest radio market, Air America is, and they get buried. The Limbaugh/Hannity station, WABC pulls a 3.7 while WWRL, the AA crew, pulls a .6
But Schultz does show up in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th markets and gets buried in them. Number 2 is LA and even progressive LA isn�t interested in progressive talk. KFI, which carries Limbaugh and mostly local hosts pulls a 4.2. KABC, which is all conservative talk and includes Hannity has a 1.8. KTLK which has the AA gang (Bill Press, Stephanie Miller, Tom Hartman, Randi Rhodes, Mark Germain, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow and Alan Colmes) pulls a dismal 0.7
In number 3 Chicago, it�s about the same. The top rated talk show is WGN with all local talent (5.3). WLS which carries Limbaugh and Hannity comes in second at 3.4. Coming in at #6 in a six station race is progressive talk radio with the AA gang and Schultz. Rating? 0.5
Detroit, another market in which you�d think progressive talk radio might do well. It�s the #10 market in the US. Limbaugh/Hannity? A 5.9 on WJR. Schultz and the AA crowd? 0.6 on WDTW. 4th in a 5 talk radio market
Probably most enlightening is the #4 market, San Francisco. If progressive talk can�t make it there, it can�t make it anywhere. And, as it turns out, progressive talk is tops in SF. It�s just not the progressive talk with Schultz. Instead it is local progressive hosts along with a mix of medical and legal shows which leads the ratings. KGO pulls a 5.5 in the market. And how do Limbaugh/Hannity do? Well not bad considering. KFSO, where they are carried, comes in at 3.2. And Schultz and the AA gang? 1.1 on KQKE. That�s number 4 in a 5 talk station market
What�s that tell you?
It tells you that despite all this twaddle about �structural problems� in talk radio, that where at least Limbaugh and Hannity and progressive talk go head-to-head, listeners have consistently and overwhelmingly chosen the Limbaugh and Hannity.
------------------
Those liberal talk show hosts may be your hero's, but they don't make a dent in the talk radio listings. They can't even come out on top in their own markets like Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco.
You seem to remember me saying that WJR was a rightwing station in the past because it is. You can’t possibly doubt that? Not only did I say it, I provided links where I said it.
I want the Fairness Doctrine because radio stations don’t own the airwaves, the public does. We should give newspapers free newsprint and ink. Why is radio getting a free ride? Decisions are being made on politics, not fairness or on business.
I have no idea where you got these ratings from, but excuse me if I am skeptical of anything you present. Randi Rhodes never claimed she was mugged, and she is a top host.
As for the rest of your rant, try using your own words instead of taking it from somewhere else. Even this guy provides no references. He provides a link to ratings, but no where does it break down shows and hours.
Liberal talk show hosts are not my heroes, they are informative and entertaining. They don’t make policy and speaks for the party like your heroes. Liberal talk has not been around as long as rightwing talk but its doing OK. If it had the same amount of stations with more power they will do as good or better. Perhaps you missed the results of the last election?
I have to pay a monthly subscription fee to listen to the Stephanie Miller show because I can barley hear show on WLBY-1290 AM out of Ann Arbor or 1310 WDTW out of Detroit. Just think how well she would do if she 50,000 watts on WJR.
http://watchingthewatchers.org/news/1311/police-deny-reports-randi-rhodes-mugging
I believe that I said Air America claimed that she was muggged.
Radio Stations don't own the airwaves. They have to pay for the airwaves. As such, they have to raise money for those airwaves. If liberal talk show hosts made them money to pay for those airwaves, they'd have them on. But they don't. Conservative talk shows do produce the ratings, which is what advertisers want and they pay to advertise their products and services where they'll get the most exposure.
Radio stations don't get a free ride. They have to pay. They pay for the air, they pay for the on air personalities, they pay for the syndication on the programs that are syndicated. Advertising pays them for spots, so radio stations can earn more money.
If the fairness doctrine is re-implemented, it won't open up the airwaves to liberal talk shows. The stations will just change their formats. They'll have to get rid of the smaller personalities that don't bring as much money and they'll keep the ones that do. So you won't eliminate Rush and probably not Hannity, but you will eliminate some of the lesser ones like Beckmann. The fairness doctrine will restrict free speech not open it up more.
Of course, the fairness doctrine won't apply to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC. So you'll still have your liberal television without interruption.
Ink and newspaper is not free. You can't really believe that profits aren't made from the sale of ink and paper. Did you really think they just type their stories on a computer, push a button and it magically appears on paper with ink? Someone has to put the paper in the machines and has to put the ink or toner in the machines. That ink, toner and paper costs money. If you don't believe that then you really have some explaining to do about the environmental wacko's that are complaining about trees coming down to make paper.
If Limbaugh sets policy and speaks for the Republicans then you must believe that those disagreements that Rush had with both President Bush's were just made up in someone's head or that you were hallucinating while listening to Rush.
I really don't like sending links to you to back up my statements because it's a waste of time. You don't believe them or just make excuses. If you were intellectually honest, you'd do your research before saying things and find out for yourself. I doubt you'd write the truth, but you'd read it and know before you write things that you were lying to the other two liberals that read you.
Well, you can believe all you want, but you said, "she's been in a free fall since claiming she was mugged when in fact, she got drunk." Note the word She. You should read what you write before you make a claim like that. None of what you said is true. That's two lies in one sentence.
You are correct, radio stations do not own the airwaves, but they do not pay for them. Radio stations do get a free ride. Liberal talk show hosts made them money. Newspapers pay for all of the things you said radio has to pay for, but they also have to pay for the medium- the paper and ink – radio does not pay for the medium: the airwaves.
The Fairness Doctrine will never return, but it should. It also will not produce the fairytale scenario you spun. You need to stop listening to Limdick and haitey. The Fairness Doctrine will not get rid of those two hatemongers, unfortunately, and it was never intended to do so. That's just a scare tactic those two clowns are using because they know if they had to compete with liberal talk in every market on a level playing field, they lose.
"Liberal television?" Give me a break. The only clearly biased network is Faux "news."
Yes, I know "Ink and newspaper is not free," and I never said they were. Considering I was a reporter for 12 years, I know how newspapers work.
Yes, limdick speaks for the republican party. Wow, he had disagreements with President Bush. Considering his approval ratings the last year or so, everyone, even ass-kisser Mike Rogers, was distancing themselves from Bush.
You mean you don't like sending links to back your statements because you can't. I impeach the few weak sources you provide. I don't see how that is not "intellectually honest." Wait, you make an outrageous, unsubstantiated claim, and I'm supposed to do the research for you? It doesn't work like that. If you make a claim, you should back it up.
If I don't "write the truth," then why is it you can never disprove what I write? If only two liberals read this blog, then why are you bothering with me? Wouldn't your time be better served commenting on a more widely read blog? You know better.
You're wrong. They must be licensed to use those airwaves and must pay for those licenses and they must be renewed.
I'm quite certain that you do believe that Fox news is the only one that is biased. It's called paranoia and you have that in abundance.
Sorry, I don't believe that you were a reporter. First, there is no such thing as reporters any longer. They are commentators.
It's funny to watch you misuse Limbaughs name and I'm assuming the other one is Hannity's name. It shows the level of your childishness. You didn't hear me mangle Randi Rhodes name by accident nor on purpose.
You are not qualified to tell me what my reasons are for anything. The fact is that I gave up sending you links because you twist them or hem and haw and then dismiss them as right wing web sites that have no credibility. If you weren't paranoid, you'd pay attention to the words, and the sources they give rather than whine about them being from a Conservative position.
I do not expect anyone to do my research for me. I expect you to do your own research for yourself. I know that's hard for you to understand, but I honestly don't give a rats ass about you or your opinions. It's just fun watching you spin. I will give you credit though. Through all of your spinning, I have yet to see you throw up on yourself, but then it's hard to see that through a blog.
You are a lapdog that walks in lockstep with the most extreme of the extreme left wing. You have debunked nothing, except maybe in your own mind. There is none so blind as those that won't see.
I understand that you must deflect all of the stuff that is falling apart around the new admiinistration. Keep spinning.
I've made my point. I know you don't like others opinions but that's what makes it fun watching you cringe.
Sorry, I am not wrong. Paying for a license has nothing to do with the free use of the airwaves. Faux "news" is biased. There is no way you can doubt that. It was created because there was no rightwing 24-hour news station. There is no liberal one. It's not a problem if Faux is rightwing, but don't give us this crap about being fair and balanced.
I could care less if you don't believe I was a reporter. To say there is no such thing as reporters any longer is just another ridiculous statement from you.
By my guest and "mangle" Randi Rhodes name. But she has never been caught returning from a trip from the Dominican Republic with a bottle of Viagra in her bag in someone else's name.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/27/national/main1753947.shtml
Of course I'm "not qualified to tell you what your reasons are for anything." What I am doing is simply pointing out the facts. You don't provide links because you can't. You have yet to provide an unbiased source.
If you truly don't "give a rats ass about me or my opinions" then why do you keep coming back? I kick your ass, you have never won a debate with facts and you claim I only have two readers. I don't get it.
Well, tell you what, if I'm in "lockstep with the most extreme of the extreme left wing" then so is the rest of the country. You did see the results of the last election, didn't you?
There is nothing "falling apart around the new administration." The good news is that nothing the President can do is as bad as the last eight years.
The only point you have made is how misinformed you are. If I didn't welcome opinions, I would act like the leading rightwing blog in the state, wrongMichigan.
Post a Comment