With an estimated audience of 1.7 million viewers nation wide, NPR's Diane Rehm is one of the biggest talk show hosts in the U.S.. She's considered by many to be one of the classiest acts on radio. Even though she doesn't bring in the top numbers in her field, she has had interviews with the top Generals, politicians and pundits in the U.S. and even abroad. She's interviewed both Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. She's had Al Gore and John Kerry on her show as well as nearly every major Democrat Senator or House Representative. She's even had quite a few Republicans show up, although they are treated quite differently. Despite her gravely voice, (she suffers from Spasmodic Dysphonia, a disease of the vocal cords) she's a regular stop for the top Democratic candidates in our elections. This is most likely due to her unfairly stacked panels and softball questions. If your a Democrat looking for a favorable interview to fend off an attack or promote your campaign, The Diane Rehm Show is the place to be.To prove my point, I'm going to go back to an interview she did on March 13, 2008. The Eliot Spitzer story was heating up and Diane couldn't really ignore it any further. Eliot Spitzer was once one of New York City's most feared prosecutors, and through his famous crime busting tactics, he managed to parlay his notoriety into the Governorship of New York. But, unfortunately for him, Governor Spitzer had a taste for high priced call girls (really high priced) and like a lot of politicians, his arrogance was his downfall. Tantalizing and with it's sexual undertones, Governor Spitzer's story soon hit the Talk Show Circuit and found it's way on to Diane's calender. So where's the foul? Allow me to demonstrate once again how this is done.
Eliot Spitzer is a Democrat, a Superdelegate, and an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter. While listening to The Diane Rehm Show (which starts at 10:00 am on my local radio station), I couldn't help but notice that the word "Democrat" wasn't in the "tease" leading up to her show. Curious, I started watching my clock to see how long it would take her to mention that fact. The opening introductions of her guests took up the first few minutes along with the setup of the Governor's misdeeds. Still no mention of his party affiliation. 15 minutes went by, and still none of the three guests felt it was relevant to even mention that he was a Democrat or a friend of Ms. Clinton. Soon a half hour had gone by, still no mention. Finally, at 10:37 am a caller brought party affiliation into the conversation. The first party brought in? The Republicans. The caller wanted to know why it was so bad that the Governor had a tryst when we had a standing President who had lied to us to push us into a war. 10:45 am finally brought the word "Democrat" into the conversation, but with no reference to Spitzer. 11:00 am ended that portion of her show, and if I didn't already know Gov. Spitzer's party affiliation, I would not have known.
On at least two occasions, I've heard Diane Rehm admit to being a Clinton supporter, but since the battle between Ms. Clinton and Senator Barack Obama has heated up, she no longer feels that information is necessary to repeat. I have no problem with talk show hosts giving their opinion on candidates or even supporting a certain party or ideology. What I do have a problem with is pretending that you are fair and and without bias when the facts do not support it. As you choose your Media sources (as I've said before), it's important to understand that Rush Limbaugh gives the Conservative opinion, not an unbias opinion. In the same way, it's equally important to know Diane Rehm is a tool for the Democrats. Nation Public Radio, like public television, is supported with public funds and for that reason has to be held to a higher standard. Deception of this kind has no place being supported with public funds. If the democrats want a safe haven, let them pay for it. And to Diane Rehm, I have this question, "Isn't it time you stopped this charade and started admitting what you're doing?" I understand that they, (the Democrats) come onto your show precisely because of your supportive tactics, but don't you feel at least a little guilty for misleading your fans, the people who follow you and keep your show alive? H.C.
7 comments:
With the overwhelming dominance of conservative talk radio and the all but murdered Fairness Doctrine, I wouldn't call Rehm a media "giant". At least not to the extent that she has the ability to shape perceptions of those who currently don't run in her circles to begin with.
Maybe I'm just alone in this one, but I think she's as powerful in the media as some clown like Sean Hannity...which isn't much. The only difference between the two is that she isn't nearly as obnoxious.
Hey Dre,
Well, since her numbers aren't nearly as big as say...Rush Limbaugh, (15 million vs. 1.75million) I'd have to say your right. However, if you look at her "star draw", she's every bit as powerful. I listen to her every day and she gets everyone on the Democrat side; Hillary, Nancy, Bill, and damn near every big name Senator and House Representative, plus any General willing to bash the war or the Bush Administration. No one comes close in numbers of politicians she can corral. So that's what I'm basing her power on. Sean Hannity is actually the #2 talk show host in America (as unbelievable as it seems). That's according to Talkers Magazine, the biggest talk show industry magazine there is. I guess the big difference is the others aren't on the public dole and therefore don't have a responsibility to be honest and fair. On your other point; I'll be for the "Fairness Doctrine" as soon as it applies to all media, not just radio. That only seems "fair". Why only go after the one media ruled by the conservatives?
Hmmm...pretending to be fair and balanced? Isn't that what what Fox News credo is? They are horrible when it comes to their bias, and Andre was right to mention those tools Rush and Sean for their obvious bias towards the "fascist" party. AM radio is overly saturated with neo-conservatives spewing hatred and bile all over their microphones. So it doesn't surprise me that the "sissy" party wanted an outlet of their own. I think everyone on radio that has a a party affiliation should be shit-canned, and replaced by someone that actually has a brain, and can use it objectively.
I understand that public radio is supported by public funds and should be held to a higher standard. However, what about all the churches throughout the nation that openly endorse and sway voters towards their own misleading "facts" and plug the repubes as if they are the only ones that can carry out Jesus' will. Churches enjoy tax-free status. By your beliefs, you should also think that any church that openly endorses a political party should be punished too, because I guarantee their are a lot more people in this nation swayed by their preists and pastors than by some crusty old bitch on some AM radio station.
Hey Tabor,
You are colorful as always. Sorry I missed you over at Drew's, I couldn't get away. Where do I start? I would hope that anyone with any objectivity would know that FOX started out to be the answer to Liberal Media (read-conservative POV). As far as "shitcanning" anyone with a party affiliation, I have no problem with people having a bias toward a candidate as long as they are up-front about it. It's when they pretend to be "fair and balanced" when that's obviously not true that I have a problem. Rush and Hannity don't really bother me because I know where they come down-it's no secret. They're both (in my opinion) ultra-conservative Assholes and I can tell you where they're going to stand on any issue before they open their mouth. Now, as far as the churches: If they are openly supporting a candidate then they should loose their non-profit status. All of them! If fact, you might be suprised to know I support the elimination of non-profit status for churches. Then they could support whoever they want just like the Lions Club, Moose Lodge, the ACLU, Pro-choice Organizations, or any one of the hundreds of clandestine 527's on the web.
P.S. Calling Diane an "old bitch" might have been a tad harsh. Peace my brother.
Yeah Douche Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are pretty open with their affiliation but what about the guys like Bill O'Reilly and Brit Hume that constantly shove the term "fair and balanced" down our throats as untrue as it is? As for Fox News being founded as a liberal media source, well I'd say alot has changed since Rupert Murdoch took over. As for calling Diane a crusty old bitch, I was just trying to illustrate a point of how miniscule she is compared to the right wight evangelical machine that plagues our country. Plus, it wouldn't be a Tabor response without a bit of my flavorful lyrical seasoning. Hope things are good, tell Therese I say hi.
Hey Tabor,
Therese says "hi" and that we miss seeing you around. I think you misunderstood me-I said FOX was created as the ANSWER to the liberal media, not that they are, or ever have been, at all liberal. Bill O'Reilly is generally pretty honest about where he stands, but when he talks about FOX he puts a little spin on it. I think that after they say "Fair and Balanced" there should be a little disclaimer voice in the background that says, "by conservative standards". Sean Hannity is simply a flag waving dick. You know, the kind of guy that had "kick me, I'm an obnoxious jerk." signs on his back in high school. I don't understand why anyone listens to someone like him or why people like him always seem to succeed. I hope he chokes on his silver spoon.
"...if you look at her "star draw", she's every bit as powerful."
No argument there. But we all know that most celebrites are only socially relevant when they engage in scandalous behavior. Loyal subscribers to celebs are usually too socially dumb-assed to care about the politics affecting our world. So "Star Power" is not very...well...powerful.
Likewise, Rush's 15 million + viewers are not necessarily a reflection of power either. I'd estimated that around 99.993% of his listeners have subscribed to his lunacy for years. Media "power" (at least as I see it) involves ones ability to shape and effect someone else's thoughts. These media folks are preaching to their own choirs.
RE: The Fairness Doctrine: I agree that for it to be effective (and acceptable) it truly has to promote "Fairness" in all mediums. Blogs, for instance, are usually overwhelmingly progressive while Talk Radio is obviously more conservative. Then again, it seems a little more difficult to legislate against blogs (who literally have millions of different hosts) versus radio, who only has a few hundred major stations. I dunno.
Post a Comment