Friday, September 01, 2006

Lib Bloggers Cry as AAR Bites the Dust as Expected

BrentBozo
Posted 31 August 2006 12:37
On Malloy's website, his wife says they were told that this was an "economic decision"

Must mean they're going to run re-runs late at night, as I imagine (in my own imaginings) that Malloy would not demand as much money as Randi Rhodes or Franken.

Malloy is about 65 yrs. old. and not wealthy.
Quite possibly he needs this job enough that he would be negotiable on salary.

Werbe is good, but I can't imagine it would cost much less to have him than Malloy.

Too bad. Malloy is a better host than either Randi or Franken.

I'm thinking I might just have to stick to KBOO with decisions like this coming down from the "suits".
Posts: 458 | Location: beautiful downtown Portland | Registered: 01 July 2005

BrentBozo
Posted 31 August 2006 13:05
Or, on second thought, I guess what "economic decision" really means was that Malloy's show was not attracting enough advertising revenue.

Malloy has often said he's not a socialist. He should be forgiven for that, as should Thom Hartmann. But maybe the in-your-face style of Malloy was too much for the sponnsors?

Ah, capitalism. The market has given us scores of insane, fascist talk hosts and one AM liberal network which has to let its best talent go because the merchants are scared.
Posts: 458 | Location: beautiful downtown Portland | Registered: 01 July 2005

Julian II Posted 31 August 2006 13:16
I only got to hear Malloy once, when he was filling in for Randi. I thought he was very good, but definitely very "in your face." I could see where the suits might want to get rid of him. Too bad.
Posts: 16 | Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Registered: 25 August 2006

Buckaroo Posted 31 August 2006 14:04
quote:
Originally posted by Julian II:
I only got to hear Malloy once, when he was filling in for Randi. I thought he was very good, but definitely very "in your face." I could see where the suits might want to get rid of him. Too bad.
This is very unfortunate. Mike is awesome and "in your face" is where we need to be. I'd much rather listen to Mike than Al Franken, who is becoming very mediocre.
Posts: 42 | Location: NE Portland | Registered: 04 October 2005

red
Posted 01 September 2006 09:03
What I find interesting is that progressive media seems to be operating by the same shibboleths as corporate-rightwing media.

Such matters as how/why shows come & go; what advertisers have to say about it; what advertising is permitted on progressive stations (should tobacco, pharmceutical, oil or other destructive-product advertising be accepted?); should the decisions of stations be driven exclusively by markets and advertising (why not a mix of solicited listener support donations and advertising, for example?) and a hundred other items that have largely been borrowed wholesale from the formulas of purely capitalist, rightwing media.

Shouldn't there be far more visibility about how progressive station boards operate, what their books look like and why certain decisions are made? Shouldn't the listeners be given far more information than they are about what goes on in the back-rooms of our stations so that we may influence these decisions. Or are we satisfied with the models that find secrecy and deniability are good-for-business.

Sure, AAR and others initially started from a rather risky and uncertain position, one that faltered and which the right swore would never get off the ground. But, now I wonder if we shouldn't be asking what are appropriate ethics and practices for stations wearing the mantle of 'progressive' and should these not be made more consonant with the values of progressives?

Getting rid of Malloy seemed to be done for reasons and in a manner typical of how capitalist decisions are made and the agendas of capitalism are promoted. I am neither socialist nor capitalist (as if those were either/or choices); but, I would ask if it might be time to give the shibboleths about the operation and presumed 'necessary' practices of our stations a much closer examination than we have before.

I know that if I were a big-time corporation determined to manipulate media in my favor I would certainly include the tactic of advertising on progressive stations and getting them to depend on my big money to the point that I could call their tunes. When we say things like "Well, Malloy wasn't bringing in the ratings and advertising dollars," consider what else we are really saying about how we permit our media to operate and who we permit to decide what we will or will not get to listen to.

I know that I have already begun to find the formulas for progressive-talk radio a bit tiresome and threadbare - formulaic - regardless of the host. Malloy, at least, was a little out of the mold (who else would read Poe's 'Tell-Tale Heart' on the air?). Its history folks, but its our history. How do we want to write it in the future - like it was written for the Malloy? Something to think about.

best to all,

Red

**********

Do not insert yourself into the slot
of machines that do not return change.
Posts: 24 | Location: California | Registered: 21 October 2005

BrentBozo
Posted 01 September 2006 11:20
Yes, Red.

Are "progressives" any different from the people they criticize if they want things to be run the same way as the people they criticize?
Posts: 458 | Location: beautiful downtown Portland | Registered: 01 July 2005

Friday, August 04, 2006

Cynthia McKinney Auditions for Planet of the Apes

Sunday, July 23, 2006

Moron of the Week From Bizzaro Hartmann Side

memory_hole
Posted 22 July 2006 11:05
That's interesting, because I was listening to Thom yesterday morning on the Middle East, on Israel in particular, in response to an insightful caller, and I thought Thom was disappointingly wishy washy. Israel is definitely the oppressor with respect to Palestinians, there is no getting around this obvious fact. That doesn't justify Palestinian suicide bombers, either. But Thom presented it from the Israeli perspective to the effect that they are surrounded by all these hostile Arabs that want to wipe it out. In 1950 or 1960 one could make that case. But the Israeli govt. knows damn well it is a military superpower, the second most powerful military in the world, and its survival is not threatened and has not been threatened for a long time. So let's stop pretending otherwise, Thom. Are there some who fear that Israel is in imminent danger of being wiped out? Undoubtedly, but they are not the policymakers, not the knowledgeable ones.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Here is what Thom, Turbin Durbin and their ilk want for America

7 soldiers killed, 2 snatched in Hezbollah border attacks

By Amos Harel, Avi Issacharoff, Jack Khoury and Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondents, and Agencies

Seven Israel Defense Forces soldiers were killed and two others were abducted Wednesday in attacks by guerillas from the militant Hezbollah organization.

Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said Wednesday evening that a prisoner exchange was the only way to secure the release of the soldiers, who he said were being held in a "secure and remote" location.

"No military operation will return them," Nasrallah told a news conference in Beirut. "The prisoners will not be returned except through one way: indirect negotiations and a trade."

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Where's Criminal McKinney?



McKinney Fails To Show Up At Two Debates

Sunday, July 09, 2006

And the Winner of the Dumbest Lib Over in thomhartman.com

It took a while for the judges to make their decision in such a target rich tard environment; but the winner is actually one of the moderators of the site. And the "winner" is:

bill king Moderator

Posted 09 July 2006 08:34
quote:
Did you know that just over the past 11 quarters, dating back to the June 2003 Bush tax cuts, America has increased the size of its entire economy by 20 percent? In less than three years, the U.S. economic pie has expanded by $2.2 trillion


Did you know that just over the past 11 quarters, dating back to the June 2003 Bush tax cuts, America has increased the size of its entire debt by 20 percent? In less than three years, the U.S. debt has expanded by $1.7 trillion

Friday, July 07, 2006

The Mind of a Global Warming Chicken Little

David Hosansky
UCAR Communications
Telephone: (303) 497-8611
E-mail: hosansky@ucar.edu


BOULDER—A new analysis of satellite data collected since the late 1970s from the lowest few miles of the atmosphere indicates a global temperature rise of about one-third of a degree Fahrenheit between 1979 and 1999. The results are at odds with previous analyses that show virtually no warming in the satellite record over the 20-year period.

1/3rd of a degree over 20 years? How are the results at odds with the statement "virtually no warming"? I'd say that .016 degrees a year qualifies as "virtually no".

Wonder why they only pick that 20 years? Bet is that if they used the past 100 years, there would be 0.000 increase in temps.

Morons.