I'd like the panel to discuss the conflict of interest re: the New York Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief Ethan Bronner. Bronner's son serves in the Israeli Defense Forces and readers alerted the New...
Brown nosing: Talk radio blows off fairness, fears Fairness Doctrine
posted by Emily Rooney on January 20, 2010
It did not escape anyone's notice that Boston talk radio was, for the most part, in the bag for Scott Brown. WTKK's Michael Graham, Jay Severin and Michele McPhee used every breath of their substantial airtime the last few weeks to push the candidate - with Brown frequently appearing as the only guest, as in, no Martha Coakley, or Joe L. Kennedy for that matter. Same went for WRKO's Finneran's Forum and The Howie Carr Show - even WBZ's Dan Rea was on the Brown wagon. Only 'TKK's Margery Eagan and Jim Braude offered a little balance.
Okay. But now libertarian blogger David Gold, an edgy force in talk radio, is raising the tired old saw that Scott Brown's win, fueled by talk radio, will bring more liberal pressure to regulate the air waves, even though there's no evidence that's true.
The quirky local writer and essayist, Steve Almond says of all the "lies told by the pooh-bahs of talk radio," the most desperate and deluded is that the Fairness Doctrine would quash free speech. He's even challenged any conservative talk radio yakker to a debate. No one locally has accepted.
While I don't think a Fairness Doctrine would quash free speech either, I certainly don't want to see it come back. I would however, like to see some basic fairness when it comes to balance on the airwaves.
Full disclosure: Emily Rooney is also a radio talk show host, appearing daily on "The Emily Rooney Show" on WGBH-FM 89.7 at noon.
Tags:
21 comments
Comments
I agree that Boston talk radio was a non-stop Scott Brown commercial. But I wonder - was Martha invited to join those shows, or was she shut out? I would imagine she would have been a welcome guest, even though she wouldn't get the same soft time Brown got.
Now Emily,
ST: Emily's Inside the Beltway (128) Track
ST: FOX and Fairness
OK Emily you know who from WTKK to invite on your show. You have given them plenty of positive air time so they can give it back to you.
It's time to ask: Did Martha screw up by a Non-Show???
FOX is pushing the campaign against the Fairness Doctrine as a Strategy.
It makes them look like the "Little Guy/gal" Champion. Remember like Rush, Truth and FOX are disconnected on purpose.
Hey WMD's in Iraq, WMD's WMDs and Sadam was responsible for 9/11 by harboring terrorists that would do us harm. Yep 1 Trillion plus harm and going up by the day.
Hi Again,
ST: A positive Globe note and relief
Well at least we don't have to worry about calling her
a female Senator
OR
a woman Senator
Geez that would have been difficult and caused great conflict.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/12/20/the_female_q...
I support reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine only because it makes the right-wing yackers apoplectic, not that it will really change anything.
I'm old enough to remember when it was in place, and folks with opposing views were offered the 4:40 AM spot to offer their viewpoints.
Remember too that the old "Emily Litella" bit on Saturday Night Live was lampooning the very "Fairness Doctrine" the right-wing seems so scared of today.
They are scared of Emily Litella. That's why I support it.
I have noted that in many of your "balance" pieces on Greater Boston, you have assumed the role of inquisitor to those whose views you dislike, and serve-up puff ball questions to those whose views you endorse.
So, please, Ms. Rooney, don't insult the intelligence of your viewers and listeners by claiming that you have some semblance of fairness in your offerings.
The Boston talk-show landscape is rife with right-wing yakkers because people listen to them and the stations can sell advertising space.
Ask this question of yourself: How long would you survive on air on a station the derived its operating revenues from advertising dollars?
You'd probably not last as long as Al Franken did.
"I have noted that in many of your "balance" pieces on Greater Boston, you have assumed the role of inquisitor to those whose views you dislike, and serve-up puff ball questions to those whose views you endorse."
So you're saying that Emily is in the habit of presenting views she both endorses and opposes.
Interesting.
"The Boston talk-show landscape is rife with right-wing yakkers because people listen to them and the stations can sell advertising space."
That's fine and all, however airwaves are licensed and regulated by the FCC and are chartered to broadcast "in the public interest."
The FCC, should they so desire, has the power to ensure that opposing views are aired. And after all, isn't that what "free speech" is all about?
The suggestion is that Rooney attack her pets as ferociously as she attacks those with whom she is opposed.
If I were to interview you, Harry, and imply that you are a scumbag throughout the interview, would that be fair?
Something tells me that you would be screaming that is was a hatchet job.
That is, unfortunately, Ms. Rooney's style far too often.
Here's post-script about the efficacy of left-wing yakkers: Air America is declaring Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
See: http://airamerica.com/
@Curmudgeon: Air America does not equal liberal talk. Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, both liberal talk-show hosts, are among the most popular in the country, and they have never been on Air America.
Ms. Rooney, thank you for bringing up this topic.
My opinion is that trying to look for fairness by copying what the popular Boston radio hosts are doing is a mistake and a long run for failure. I agree with @Curmudgeon. If you want fairness without failure you have to compete with sensationalists such as WTKK with a different twist. WTKK knows their target and they know that radio talk shows with boring tones of serious conversations are no longer attractive for listeners. Without listeners there are any advertisers= no sustainability.
This is the time to be more creative. With this wake-up call of Scott Brown’s victory we Bostonians should jump from our seats and bring a more colorful, global, interactive, cultural and diverse radio, and show the audience that the majority of this town is intelligent, belligerent and global. You have to find the Ted Kennedys of the new millennium, not only on the political arena but in the local media. We need controversial, screamers, socialites in front of your microphones. I am sure Dan Kennedy knows what I’m talking about.
Howie has been saying for days that he invited Martha Coakley on and she never accepted
Emily, you left out the sports talk radio hosts who were all-Scott-Brown-all-the-time. WEEI even aired commercials with at least one of their hosts endorsing Scott Brown. Personally I'd love to hear more progressive talk radio but progressives don't have the taste for the incivility (think Limbaugh, Savage) or sophomoric, male humor (think Severin, sports talk) that seems to grab attention and boost ratings.
You piece on Friday night failed to mention that Martha ducked more than the talk radio shows. Seems to me she ducked the Greater Boston interviews of the primary candidates in their homes by Jarred Bowen.
"Seems to me she ducked the Greater Boston interviews of the primary candidates in their homes by Jarred Bowen."
Yeah, but in fairness, who wants Jared Bowen in their house?
(Kidding. Huge fan, Jared!)
Talk radio is a food-fight. They are largely irrelevant; they always pick the right-wing candidate, and in Massachusetts they nearly always lose. Scott Brown won because he is pretty and had nice commercials, not because of food-fight radio. Coakley would have been wasting her time trying to engage that crowd. You don’t spend time trying got engage a drunk on the street who screams an insult; you simply walk on by. Although they are largely irrelevant, the right wingers on the radio are interesting in one way; they show us what the world would look like in a Republican dominated world. Quite a view.
You obviously don't know what is going on in talk Radio. All of the conservative shows asked her to be on, and she never returned their calls. As listeners, we would have been glad to hear her views on the race -- even if we didn't agree with them. But she never gave us that option.
D&C and Howie both asked her multiple times to be on their shows, and she never returned calls. Se obviously felt that she wouldn't get a fair hearing on her candidacy.
The fact of the matter is that Martha ran a lousy campaign and was a lousy candidate. She either didn't care about winning, or didn't care about the electorate to get out there and meet them. Given these facts, I believe the right person was elected to serve us.
Why didn't she go on the shows when she was asked to? Get out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat!
Fed up - how do you know D&C invited her on? I have heard D&C's producer Jason Wolfe quoted saying exactly the opposite.
Many of the the talk shows cited above (Finneran, Dennis & Callahan, Howie Carr) say that they extended near daily invitations to Martha Coakley; the candidate declined them all, and no wonder - she was a gaffe machine whenever she spoke extemporaneously. It was on Dan Rae's show that she made the now-legendary "Shilling is a Yankee Fan" statement. Did she appear on Emily Rooney's radio show? Not that anyone would have known if she did.
Hey E. Be a good loser. If Martha wasnt a woman she probably wouldnt have had your support, and also the support of many others who only favored her due to her gender. She might not have even been a candidate.Tell it like it is.Substance has overcome the novelty of the exotic candidate. And stay out of sports for crying out loud.........
I do think this is a most incredible website for proclaiming great wonders of Our God!