Sue's Response to
Rush Limbaugh:
SacBee Laments Right-Wing Talk Radio as a
"Threat to Democracy"
May 12, 2008
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: As you know, ladies and
gentlemen, my adopted hometown is Sacramento,
California. I worked out there at KFBK, 50,000 watt
blowtorch, 'til this day carries the program, been on the air there since 1984,
so 24 years at KFBK Sacramento, number one.
And while there, one of my nemeses was the Sacramento Bee, the local
newspaper owned by the McClatchy clan.
It is still owned by the McClatchy clan, and it has still refused to
accept what has happened to me, as evidenced by a story that is special to the
Bee published yesterday. Headline: "Federal Rules Give Corporation-Backed
Conservative Radio all the Local Voices."
This is a story, this is a hand-wringing, tear-jerker story of how
liberal talk radio couldn't make it out there, and damn it, it's not fair, it's
not right, and it's because federal rules give corporation-backed conservative
radio all the local voices. Listen to
how this thing starts, by Sue Wilson, who I don't know. She was probably still in diapers when I was
in Sacramento.
Hmmnn… I
worked under the Fairness Doctrine, which went out in 1987, so my age must be
at least …. well, you do the math.
"There's a mournful hush
in Sacramento
these days, the empty sound of an entire political viewpoint quieted. More than
32,000 weekly listeners who once tuned [to the local lib outlet] to hear
partisan Democrats beat up on President George W. Bush, now hear only Christian
hip-hop." Now, if that's not the
funniest opening of a news story that I have ever read, I don't know what
is. Thirty-two thousand weekly listeners
is nothing! People don't understand
radio ratings. Thirty-two thousand
weekly listeners would add up to about 1,500 every 15 minutes, the average
quarter hour would be about 1,500 to 2,000 listeners. I mean, for crying out loud, it's a 0.1 or
0.2, but it barely shows up as an asterisk in the rating books.
That 1,000
watt station was getting 20% of KFBK's ratings, the market leader. So by Rush's math, if KFBK had a 1,000 watt
station instead of a 50,000 watt station, KFBK would get a whopping 0.5 or 1.0? Maybe
he has a problem with mathematics. Math
is precise, kind of like facts.
Now, Sue Wilson says, "There's nothing
wrong with Christian hip-hop; it's a great outlet for artists breaking out of
the gansta rap mold. But there are six other commercial radio stations licensed
in the Sacramento
area programming the Christian message. In the political realm, three local
radio stations program 264 hours of partisan Republican radio talkers beating
up on Democrats every week. Now, zero stations program any Democratic view
whatsoever: 264-0." So it's 264
hours of partisan Republican bashing to zero hours of partisan liberal
bashing.
That he
got right.
"This follows the
national trend revealed in the 2007 Free Press and Center for American Progress
study, 'The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.'" This is a John Podesta group, this is a far
left-wing group. We remember their
report came out, and their report was filled with lies and distortions.
Pity, every time the facts contradict his
personal beliefs, Rush calls them lies. What
a great way to create an oral history by the man who is famous for telling his
audience "I'll do the reading so you won't have to." If he questioned the study, why didn't he invite
Podesta or the study authors onto his show to discuss it? Think, folks.
There's a good reason he won’t debate.
He can't win when someone stands up to him with actual facts.
The liberal station shared
"another characteristic with other liberal radio stations: It had a tiny,
1,000-watt transmitter." Oooh! So it was Womper Room. "Tough for a little station that barely
reached Sacramento's suburbs to compete with
50,000 watt giant KFBK, whose signal stretches from Chico
to Modesto, from Reno
to that little town of San Francisco.
Despite KFBK reaching millions more potential listeners, KSAC mustered an audience
nearly 20 percent that of KFBK's." (laughing) At any rate, it wasn't that the lib station
didn't have any listeners; it's that it didn't have any advertisers. I -- (interruption) No, that's what it says
here. Well, not necessarily. H.R. just said if it had listeners, it would
have advertisers. Not necessarily.
Now he
agrees with me… that's scary.
I would defy anybody outside
of a couple of markets that are probably in the top ten, I would defy anybody
to find me a liberal network show, nationally syndicated liberal show that
registers any significant ratings anywhere.
They don't.
Thom Hartmann beats Rush head to head on
KPOJ in Portland… and Ed Schultz has as many listeners as radio
Bill O'Reilly. Be careful, Rush fans,
Rush tells you what he wants you to think, not what the facts actually reveal. Don’t believe me (or him.) Look it up.
And even those that get some
numbers do not have advertisers. Sue
Wilson here swerved into it. There's a
very simple reason why. (interruption) What are you saying? No, it's very simple. Mr. Snerdley, it's not that nobody wants to
be part of the environment. Well, that's the overall thing, the umbrella,
nobody wants to be part of the environment.
But if you are a corporation or a small business, why in the world would
you spend any money on a radio station or a show which is demonizing you and
the business community as the greatest modern focus of evil in the country
outside of the US
military? Why in the world would you do
it? Not to mention advertising on these
stations got no results because their audience hears a commercial for
corporation, "Screw that corporation, I'm not going there." If the corporation doesn't do commercials
bashing Bush -- I mean this is an insane, lunatic fringe audience these people
are trying to reach.
Does he
mean the insane, lunatic 72% who do not support George W. Bush?
They've gotta start asking
themselves, why does liberal programming not work? But they're wringing their
hands, "It's just unfair, because corporations won't put liberal talk
radio on powerful stations. That's right, Mr. Limbaugh, it's really not fair.
You get the big station, and they get the little Podunk stations. No
wonder." I got the big station and earned the right to be there, as has
everybody else on KFBK, via content, content, content. This is not hard to
understand, but these libs and the Drive-By Media want to portray this as some
sign of corporate unfairness.
Rush
recently ran a full page ad in Time Magazine, calling himself "America's
Anchorman." But he is not a newsman
at all. Rush is an entertainer, and a
good one. Apparently, if Rush Limbaugh
had to answer his falsehoods on the air, if he had to be accountable to the
facts, he doesn't think he would be so entertaining. Entertainment rules, did we forget
that? Long live Britney Spears.
"Why are corporate
dollars the sole arbiter of what information we the people get to hear on
publicly owned airwaves?" This is the reporter asking the question, which
illustrates glittering ignorance of how the market works.
Yah,
right. He's gotta keep pushing that line.
It's not true, but it's all he's got.
Let me answer your question,
Sue. Corporate dollars are not the sole arbiter of what information you the
people get to hear on publicly owned airwaves. Your little lib station, your
little lib programming has had a couple of opportunities in Sacramento. Nobody wanted to listen to it.
Corporations are not required to lose money in order to present a point of view
and in such a way that irritates people just so there is so-called fairness.
Nobody's
asking corporations to lose money… don't forget, conflict is drama. Real debate gets real ratings…. but do the
corporations dare to have that debate?
(Why should they when they now control the message?)
Besides, you've always got
NPR, Sue. There's an NPR outlet out there and assorted other liberal outlets
with no ratings and no advertisers because they don't have to. They're paid for
by the government! There is not one conservative radio network in the country
paid for with government dollars. You got NPR. NPR is paid for with government
dollars -- radio and television. So go there.
Two
things: First, ask yourself when you
have ever heard an NPR station bash Democrats with the vitriol that Rush and
his minions bash Republicans? They
don't. They actually report facts and
air both sides. There is really no
comparison.
Second, just fifteen
percent of public radio and public TV funding comes from the government. The rest comes from listener, foundation, and
– shudder! – corporate support.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: All right, a couple more little blurbs
here. Sacramento Bee, Sue Wilson:
"Considering a 2003 Gallup
poll showing that 22 percent of Americans get their information from talk
radio, we're not just talking about what is fair play; we are talking about a
threat to the democracy we hold dear."
Lib talk radio dying. Lib talk radio "has been taken off the air in
Boston; Fresno; San Diego; Madison, Wis.; Eugene, Ore.; Austin, Texas; New
Haven, Conn.; Columbus, Ohio and other markets all across the country,"
because it failed, because it got no listeners.
He's just contradicted himself. Earlier, he agreed there were listeners. Flip flop, flip flop.
You know what this really
says?
What this really says is that
good talk radio, done well, is far more effective than any of those other
media, like cable TV, like the broadcast networks. It's far more influential; it is far more
effective; it's far more popular because audiences are far more tied to it in a
direct way, in an active way. The libs
want to control everything. But if they
can't do it on radio, they should take solace in the fact they own everything
else.
Rush has been spreading this lie for years:
the myth of the liberal media. Can Rush name one liberal on free broadcast television
or radio (not cable, that's a different animal) who tosses aside the facts in
favor of propaganda? Outside of talk
radio, he can't. What he really doesn’t
like are those pesky facts that come out on the nightly news which undermine
his agenda. He doesn't dare argue the
facts, so he calls them names instead.
Here's where we're really headed with Sue
Wilson's piece. "What to do? The
FCC (five commissioners, appointed by the president) could bring back the
Fairness Doctrine. But Republicans in Congress, such as Indiana Rep. Mike
Pence, are fighting tooth and nail to prevent its return. And even groups who
favor media reform, like Free Press, believe restoration of the Fairness
Doctrine would face First Amendment challenges. But as a producer who actually
worked under the Fairness Doctrine, I personally don't see what's wrong with
proving to the community that I at least attempted to provide both sides of the
story." This is embarrassingly
ignorant of what the Fairness Doctrine is, how it works, and what it would
achieve. Maybe it's not ignorant. Maybe she knows full well that the Fairness
Doctrine would destroy talk radio.
Rush
knows that actually being fair would destroy his schtick. He has built an entire career out of mischaracterizing
the left, the middle, and the facts. It
is very easy to do when he never has to actually face those he's demonizing. In the days of the Fairness Doctrine, he
would have to give anyone he attacked the opportunity to respond to him. He knows he can't survive that. Only if he can attack unanswered can he
remain King of the radio hill.
But let's be clear: reinstating the Fairness Doctrine is one answer,
but it is trickier to achieve than it seems.
That's why many media reformers believe that restoring radio ownership caps
to their pre-1996 levels (one owner could have a maximum of 40 stations
nationwide, rather than the unlimited numbers they can own today) is a better
idea. More owners would mean more
diverse voices, and that's better for democracy. I think the reform we really need is to make
broadcasters once again accountable to their local communities.
She's an out of work liberal
producer writing this piece for the Sacramento Bee, pure and simple.
Uh
huh. Wait until Broadcast Blues comes
out, and he'll find out how out of work I am.
~Sue
P.S.
Define "Liberal."
Sue, Rush may be a blowhard, but it is a free country, and there is nobody stopping liberals from starting their own network and taking on the right wing.
ReplyDeleteAir America failed once, but so try it again! Rush would be the first to encourage you to do that. NO LAW STOPS YOU.
And by the way, radio ownership limits were lifted under the Clinton administration. He supported it. It's the most conservative thing he ever did. That's what ruined radio. Not the repeal of the fairness doctrine.
But let me repeat - it is legal to have your own left wing show and never allow right wing commentary. If you don't have the money and can't find supporters, well, that's too bad. Try, try again. That's the American way.
Forced fairness is never fair, and besides both sides deal in rhetoric and very few facts.
Also, you said it yourself (as has Rush), he's an entertainer, not a politician. Maybe spend more time encouraging people to research candidates and vote for the best one? Based on something more than race or looks.
People don't have time to research candidates, sadly, so they DO go by race or looks or religion. And most have figured out that ALL politicians promise one thing and deliver another.
That's sadder than Rush being on 365/24/7.
You wrote, "Air America failed once, but so try it again! Rush would be the first to encourage you to do that. NO LAW STOPS YOU."
ReplyDeleteWhat stops us is science. There are only so many radio frequencies in the air. If you have enough money, you can start a newspaper or even a university. But there aren't any frequencies left because the big corporations snapped them up in 1996 and they aren't selling.
(Their very scarcity is why they are deemed public property, and why broadcasters must legally "serve the public interest" in order to get a broadcast license.
So fine, if Clear Channel is willing to sell us a 50,000 watt station in Sacramento for a properly appraised price, we will raise the funds.
Otherwise we will continue to demand our rights to have our voices heard on the microphones on OUR public airwaves.