Month: March 2007

KTLK: Dead And Distant

Posted by on March 4, 2007 at 4:45 pm. NO Comments :

An announcement from Clear Channel’s Los Angeles Air America affiliate unveils an unimpressive new line-up for the station. I can’t say that I’m particularly upset about most of the cancellations, but the additions are atrocious.

Gone from the schedule are Mark Riley’s “Politically Direct,” Lionel, “Harrison on the Edge,” and “The Young Turks.” The only one I might miss would be the Turks. What’s truly unsettling, though, is the new schedule that KTLK ‘s program director, Don Martin, says is intended to be more “live and local.” If that’s his intention, he’s failed miserably.

The most heralded of the new hosts is Marc Germain, the former “Mr. KABC” (Mr. KFI before that). He is a terminally bland radio presence that has no political identity or history. Yet this flaccid call-letter chameleon is being given four hours of the coveted afternoon drive-time on a station that bills itself as “Progressive Talk.”

Then there is the addition of Bill Press, the former chairman of the California Democratic Party and one of the parade of neutered liberals that appeared on CNN’s “Crossfire” opposite fire-breathing conservatives like Robert Novak and Pat Buchanan. Press represents a distinctly establishment view of Democratic politics that doesn’t even approach progressivism.

Finally we have the notorious Alan Colmes. Notorious primarily for being able to keep his lunch down while seated next to the nauseating Sean Hannity. Colmes is Hannity’s lapdog whose syndicated program is distributed by the Fox Radio Network. How convenient that this Clear Channel broadcaster has a Fox program it can embrace. Expect Colmes to deliver the same mush that passes for liberalism that he spews on his master’s cable TV show.

As to the claim that these changes were meant to steer the station to more “live and local” fare, it should be noted that Press broadcasts out of Washington, DC, and Colmes is based in New York. Only Germain, an apolitical cipher, originates from L. A.

I guess I’ll just have to be grateful for Stephanie Miller and Thom Hartmann, two legitimate and committed voices for the left. But I do wonder if their positions are secure. A conspiracy theorist might speculate that Clear Channel is purposefully sabotaging progressive radio in Los Angeles. Given the evidence before us, it would be hard to argue with that.

Contact KTLK and tell them that Mr. K, Bill Press, and Alan Colmes, do not constitute progressive talk. And feel free to advocate for your favorite progressive host, i.e. Laura Flanders, Mike Malloy, Sam Seder, Amy Goodman, Taylor Marsh, etc.

Fighting For A Free Press?

Posted by on March 4, 2007 at 3:03 pm. NO Comments :

The escalating hostilities in Afghanistan were evident today when a suicide bomber launched an attack intended for a convoy of American Marines. Initial reports estimate that the blast killed 16 civilians and injured up to 34. Witnesses say that following the attack, the Americans fled, firing indiscriminately at vehicles and pedestrians along a six mile stretch of a busy road. Accounts of these events come primarily from victims of the shootings at a local hospital as well as other eye witnesses on the road. But accounts from local media may not be forthcoming:

“U.S. forces near Sunday’s bombing later deleted photos taken by a freelance photographer working for The Associated Press and video taken by a freelancer working for AP Television News. Neither the photographer nor the cameraman witnessed the suicide attack or the subsequent gunfire. It was not immediately known why the soldiers deleted the photos and videos. The U.S. military didn’t immediately comment on the matter.”

I’m not sure where these soldiers got the idea that they had the authority to interfere with local journalists. I’m not sure how they came to believe that it was acceptable to destroy their photos and video. But I am sure that this is not the way to promote freedom. The Afghan people will certainly hear of these events and it will undoubtedly exacerbate the anti-American sentiment in the region. But suppressing the media, and the truth, will only make things worse by inciting further resentment, distrust, and hostility. And it doesn’t make for a very good example of American values either.

Shareholders Are Killing Newspapers

Posted by on March 3, 2007 at 5:12 pm. NO Comments :

This week’s episode of PBS’ “News War,” includes remarks by the vice-chairman of Ariel Capital Management, the fifth largest investor in the Tribune Company, which owns 23 television stations and 11 newspapers. Charles Bobrinskoy’s comments present a picture-perfect illustration of everything that’s wrong with the newspaper business. Here are some examples of why stock pickers (never a particularly reliable bunch) should not be allowed to shape the future of media:

“People want to read about what’s going on in their own communities, and the Web usually can’t provide that. The Web can tell you what’s going on in Iraq; the Web can tell you what’s going on in Washington, D.C. It can’t tell you what’s going on in Des Moines if you live in Des Moines.”
Somebody ought to tell Bobrinskoy about Iowa Blogs. In fact, Bobrinskoy could use a remedial course in Internet 101. While the newspaper’s intended audience is much more narrowly focused than the worldwide scope of the net, that audience is no less interested in the world outside the city limits than it is in the affairs of city hall. Just because the web has a global reach doesn’t mean it cannot serve a community. Conversely, just because a newspaper has a local audience doesn’t mean it should ignore the rest of the globe. But that is exactly what Bobrinskoy proposes:

“Readers care about the local entertainment industry, which they don’t do a very good job of covering in the L.A. Times. They care about things like fashion, which The New York Times does a very good job of covering; the L.A. Times doesn’t. They should care about issues like immigration.”
Thanks for telling us what we should care about. Bobrinskoy goes on to make some remarkably contradictory comments about what makes a paper successful. He rebukes the L. A. Times for not being to local enough, then complains that, “The paper, in hindsight, probably could have used a little bit more management out of Chicago.” Continuing to bash the Times for its global perspective, Bobrinskoy advocates reductions in news staff and the elimination of foreign bureaus:

“It’s trying to report on why Bush went to war in Iraq instead of what’s going on in Southern California” [… and …] “the L.A. Times could focus on providing news, better news, investigative news on what’s happening in L.A. City Hall and be more focused and provide a better, higher-quality news product. And allow CNN and Fox to cover Istanbul. And then we’d all be better off. The shareholders would make a better return, and my news coverage would be better.”
I’m sure the shareholders would be quite happy if we were to divvy up news coverage so that the Times would get L. A., give Western Europe to CNN, the Middle East to Fox, Asia to Reuters, etc. Every news organization would have a geographic monopoly and consumers would get a single, unchallenged view of world affairs. This plan would, to the delight of shareholders, eliminate competition in both the financial markets as well as the marketplace of ideas. But this plan completely ignores the fact that most original reporting (estimated to be as much as 80%) is currently is done by newspapers, not CNN or, God forbid, Fox. Surprisingly, Bobrinskoy feels the need to go further and insult every reader of the L. A. Times and, in fact, every consumer of local newspapers:

“Do we really need the L.A. Times devoting the resources it has to [international events]” [… and …] “We’re saying there’s a role for probably three national newspapers — The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and USA Today. Each has its own niche; all three are national newspapers. We don’t think there’s any demand for a fourth. The L.A. Times is trying to be that fourth.”
I’m going to let Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times answer that:

“…the idea that the L.A. Times is going to say to readers, ‘Buy the L.A. Times, we will tell you what’s going on with the traffic and the schools and the cops and the local stuff, and if you want to know what’s going on in Iraq, go buy The New York Times,’ that doesn’t sound like a terribly sound business approach either. And if I were a Los Angelino, I would be a little insulted by that. Why are the two mutually exclusive?”

They are not mutually exclusive, and I am insulted. We can only hope that the views of investment bankers like Bobrinskoy are rejected for the low-brow, short-term stupidity they represent. His logic is flawed and dangerous and only accelerates the rapid concentration of media voices into small groups of powerful, multinational corporations whose loyalties are bound to owners and shareholders, rather than to consumers and citizens.