More Wilkow
Published by Mike Stark March 7th, 2006 in Podcast, Andrew WilkowI should apologize for the next clip… I forgot to hit the record button, so I wasn’t able to get the whole conversation…
Andrew’s got it on tape, but I’m sure he’s not going to share it with me… 
Anyway, the call picks up with Andrew telling a flat-out lie. He’s telling his callers that I played ten seconds of a clip that was taken out of context to make him look bad. Never mind the fact that I played the whole five minute segment - every bit of the call - and that I even included his rant at the end - I gave him his full last word.
Also in this call, you’ll hear more of what I like to call, “What we’re up against.” The very next caller was a gem… She was some old Christain lady that told Andrew that I was godless and he should expect challenges since he had God on his side…
(btw - in this call, I also mentioned the success of the fundraising that began last week. As a result of those donations, by Monday, my network guy tells me, I’ll be up on a powerhouse server connected to a giant pipe… I’ll never be Atrios’ed again!!!)
35 Responses to “More Wilkow”
Leave a Reply
Search
Login
Donations Accepted
Subscribe
Posts- Comments
- Podcast
oooooh….a letter will be coming from the attys
won’t happen
and this guy doesnt know what good radio is….so he will never get out of doing a local show
But you shouldn’t have gotten defensive with him.
Instead of saying that you made money…you could have asked him if he felt that bloggers have no life, then brought up every wingnut smear site on the net.
Mike, you are as much of a journalist as any hack sitting on the NY times.
Check your e-mail. You should be just fine. He has no case. You are even more protected when you post audio in which you are a participant.
GlazeOne has it right. You’re posting your audio conversation in which the other side is knowingly recording and deciminating on their own. Even then, for a proper suit they’d have to show damages. Unfortunately, I don’t think your resources can handle a suit just yet.
What MAY happen is these right wingnuts will start stating a disclaimer when you call in that you agree not to record this conversation or post it in any manner. Probably not a viable argument.
However, Mike, you did seem flustered by the end. Stating that you’re able to support yourself doing this is not the best defense. You should have just pointed out that the radio host sits on his butt 3 hours a day taking callers, why can’t he get a life? Stick to your guns that you just demand honesty from talk show hosts.
I noticed Mr. Savage is not included in the list of radio people to call and harass. Or he is not considered right-wing, rahter than just plain insaine?
Charles,
Are you the Charles that just got on with Malloy (who is guest hosting for Randi Rhodes) and talked about this website? If so, way to get the call to action out there!
Mike-
Cease and dissist you, you, you godless person. LOL. They have no case.
Andrew is such a fucking tool.
His whole premise is that because he’ll look like an idiot by answering a perfectly legitimate question… that the question isn’t fair.
THAT’S BULLSHIT ANDREW!
It isn’t a catch-22.
Have the courage of your convictions Andrew. For chrissakes. If you believe the petri dishes are worth saving then save them. Choose the petri dishes and have the courage of your convictions.
If you’d choose the 2 year old child then have the guts to stand up and admit that the 2 year old child is more cherished than a bunch of cells in a petri dish.
The problem is that Andrew doesn’t have the courage of his convictions. He’s a fucking coward.
Cease and desist my ass…. He can’t shut you down anymore than he you can shut him down from using your audio. It’s called FAIR USE Andrew. Look it up you pitiful asshole.
That’s an interesting clip, because it makes the point I made in a previous thread (that others were quick to yell “Troll” for (predictable)).
Here you are, talking to Wilkow, and he points out that you lied to get past the screeners in order to keep him “honest”. But you fail to understand that once you do that, you’ve lost your credibility to the audience as a whole. Your points don’t matter at that moment, and the host, as vile as he or she may be, becomes the victim in people’s eyes. How pathetic is that? You succeed in making the wingnut a sympathetic person! And that’s totally 180 degrees from your ostensible intent. It’s just a dumb way to go about things. And what does it say about your own integrity? How do you square lying to keep others honest? Must be the new logic. I just don’t get it.
Lets all chip in for a Lawyer who can issue Wilkow a cease and dissist on behalf of the “people” in the petri dishes. They don’t seem to have a say in the matter. Now you might say that it’s because they don’t have a mouth, and you’d be right. Lets fight for our form-challanged brethren. Let’s stop Wilkow from making money off of the sorrow they are bound to have, you know, when they can.
I’m just glad they don’t have the ears to hear his show.
(I’m sorry)
Seems to me that there’s a difference between disseminating false information and telling a little white lie to a screener. The credibility doesn’t disappear upon telling an untruth, but upon standing behind that untruth in the face of facts. “Truthiness.” Look it up.
Other things that eat away at credibility (in the sense of what the listener hears):
-Raising your voice.
-”Shut up.”
-Emphasizing constants. (i.e. when Andrew says “bitter” and “fake”)
-Not being able to finish your sentence (consequence of losing your temper.)
-Empty threats.
-Invoking God. (No, I’m not advocating atheism, I just think that it carries a connotation of “Let’s put evolution stickers on textbooks.)
I just discovered your site through a DailyKos posting, and it’s incredible. Keep up the good work.
Glaze, yes. I called Mike Malloy subbing for Randy Rhodes after I got disconnected from Hannity. Oddly enough, the screener asked for my phone number for her to call me back tomorrow for a pre-screened segment. Sounds odd, but I gave it to her. Anyone else experience this today?
PS: The liberal ditto heads on Air America are just as annoying as right wing ditto heads. If you’re calling in to agree, at least add a point or two to the conversation. My hopes is that you have equal amounts of talk shows on both sides. And calling in are people willing to twist the wingnuts to keep them straight.
LeftIsRight,
Well, it gives him a freebie when the host knows your identity is fake. But most people instinctively know the “attack the messager” line of argument is flawed, even if they’ve never heard the term.
But you have a point, considering the host controls the platform - if they have something to rant about, they just cut the caller’s mic and attack without challenge. Callers have to be pretty disciplined to not let the host change the topic..
Opps, I typed that last bit wrong. May have been misinterpretted.
What I meant is that Hannity’s screener asked for my name and number to be called backed tomorrow for a pre-taped segment.
I was reticent given the couple of posts concerning contact by Fox Security. However, I see nothing wrong with what Mike is doing so I gave my number.
Andrew is fucking hilarioius! heh, you fucking go Mike. He’s a fucking idiot. heh. Post the cease and desist online.
heh, that lady is priceless too. he should go after you, that’s be free press! hahahah, Andrew, you idiot!
one more thing… the argument is NOT a Catch 22 Andrew! It only proves how Godless the “pro-lifers” are out there. Obviously you save the 2 year old child because there is no decision to be made. If he can’t make that decision, he needs to examine his own morals in the mirror and decide what they mean.
congrats on getting under his skin. I think andrew is starting to know how stupid he sounds.
Catch-22 hey Andy buddy isn’t that a the title of a book by the same name? are YOU profiting from using intellectual property copyrighted by someone else? I am sure if Joseph Heller where with us it would be HE who would be ordering YOU to cease and desist.
Good job, Mike - you DID not sound flustered, you told his listeners to go to your site, and listen to the whole call. Ha!! He is an idiot and he got caught and his idiocy was disseminated!! Intellectually defunct. Tee-hee!
OOOHHHHH - cease and desist!! I see that you are shut down.
I am going to email idiot right now!!
I need Wilcow’s email - it is not coming up for me!! Thanks!!!
wilkow@wgy.com
I am not a lawyer but here’s my opinion about the law…
Recording your own call and other parts of the radio talk show from the RADIO, FOR PROFIT, may be a violation of their property rights.
Wilkow threatened to send you a cease and desist order from publishing clips of his radio show on your FOR PROFIT website. Given these facts, I believe that order would carry the full weight of the law.
However, if your web site is NOT FOR PROFIT, you might be able to publish the clips under the fair use doctrine.
Just because your web site has income does make it FOR PROFIT. You could have a NON-PROFIT website with revenues that get plowed into the website, such as equipment and wages. You might need formal status as a non-profit.
Here’s another twist, recording your phone call from your own phone when you’re talking to the talk show host MAY BE your property to do with what you please, unless you agreed verbally with the talk show, to make the conversation their sole property.
Wilkow calls you “Commie Mike.” You could counter suit for defamation of character.
Could Mike be NOT FOR PROFIT and still pay himself a modest salary? Labor costs are not profit, right?
You rock Mike!
Mike. Talk to John at C&L if you’re worried about any potential legal problems. What you’re doing is essentially the same thing. He’s been there, done that, surely. And he’s still around ; )
Seems to me that you are reporting for profit (or just making enough money to cover costs)
If he can’t stand by what they spew forth every day well then they are just wimps.
I wrote him an email yesterday and mentioned that I thought you nailed him and his after-rant was unconvincing and pathetic (not an exact quote but close.) Of course he didn’t respond and I didn’t expect a response.
I say you are reporting and commentating on your interaction with talk show hosts. Reporting on the issue of their tactics, how they treat you and what they have said to you. Your tapes are to me research notes.
I agree that Mike at C&L would be a good person to consult with on the issue.
Mike…can you add Larry Elder to your list of wingnuts?
Yesterday, he was channeling Coulter, saying that McCarthy was right, and that there was a commie threat to overthrow the gov…and that Goodnight and Goodluck was all fiction.
Mike….you made it on Howard Stern with your call to lufa boy, where he threatened you….
Take a bow…you have made the a-list
Hi Mike,
One of the godless here….pretty funny stuff. At first blush this is just pretty funny, but as someone else pointed out, there are a LOT of people that think they are getting the straight scoop from these entertainment jocks. It has gone on for far too long. Keep up the fight.
Fucking beautiful bit of audio!
How on earth do talk radio jocks get away with so much lying over there?
Our broadcast laws would have him ripped off the air, and the station fined or shut down for breaking so many regulations:
*guilty of making untrue and defamatory remarks
*stating untrue opinions based on false evidence
*failing to protect consumers from harmful or offensive material…(”shut up John”)
*failing to give ‘right of reply’ (he knew it was you in the second audio)
Pheeeew, where do I start!
Godless from London, England.
So, are you shut down?
Will you post that horrible call you just made to Tony Snow?
I’m Bill O’Reilly? If that’s true, I’m headed right for the bank to make a withdrawal! Seriously, man, you gotta get some help.
I don’t know what it is about web sites where everyone is expected to be in total agreement about every point. It’s just nonsense. If I’m running an enterprise, and we’re all headed toward a goal, I don’t want a bunch of “YES” people surrounding me. That’s Bush to a tee. The fact that he apparently only listens to a chosen few is a primary reason for his miserable decisions. No, I want to hear honest opinions from everyone on my team, especially contrary ones. Only then would I be able to make the best moves.
Obviously, some people don’t like contrary points. Tough. Look, if this website is only going to be an “inside baseball” website, meaning that it’s just for entertainment of fellow frustrated Liberals, then it’s fine. Keep on doing exactly what you’re doing. But if it really has a mission to attract converts, particularly from non-ideological (aka “swayable”) people, then it’s prudent to go about the mission in a different way.
You can have all the facts in the world on your side, but if you end up turning people off by your methods and/or persona, then what have you accomplished? Nothing. In fact, you reinforce the “Liberals are just negative” stereotype. But if you challenge these right-wingers in a non-confrontational and reasonable manner, making sure you do your homework at the same time, you’ve got a real chance at making headway with the listening audience.
If that doesn’t make sense to anyone else, I can’t help ya.
An alternative question you could ask an anit-choice… oops, I mean a ‘pro-lifer’ (yeah right…) idiot…
If you were in a fertility clinic on fire, and there was a two year old child, and on the desk is a Petri dish with 20 unfertilized eggs next to a test tube of sperm, and you could only save one, do you:
a) Save the child, or
b) Go to the desk, dump the sperm onto the Petri dish and then save ‘20 human beings’.
I don’t care how screwed up and right winged this country becomes, any sane human being would SAVE THE CHILD!!!
Whiile I’m liberal and pro-choice, I try to be intellectually honest.
I’m still debating whether the question is indeed a “Catch-22.”
I suppose that the “pro-lifer” sees this question as equivalent to asking if you’d save your son or daughter from a fire. Obviously, there is no “right” or “wrong” answer to that question.
So, if you’re convinced that life begins at the fertilizing of the egg, then I suppose you couldn’t term either choice “right” or “wrong.”
Of course, the point of the question is highlight (what seems to us pro-choice folks) the illogic of equating a clump of cells in a petri dish with a living child.
I suppose that it could be an effective “eye-opener” for some people except that believing life starts at conception seems to hinge on a matter of faith which, by definition, is immune to logic.
Sorry to be such a mealy-mouthed liberal intellectual.
Yeah, it’s pretty funny how his problems with the question mean that you are cheating or lying, as opposed to say, exposing a flaw in his own views.
A Catch-22 is of course a very different thing in which both options are not just mutually exclusive, but each is impossible without first doing the other.
Wilkow can get away with that mistake, but his demonstration of total intellectual vapidness is inexcusable. Answer the question, jerk!
Mike. You rock.
“What’s this? An escape route so I can hang up on you and continue to try and bash you? And it has nothing to do with the current subject? Why I think I will take this real quick…”
I think it’s quite obvious from the date I am posting that his escape route was just a cowardly attempt to avoid being put on the spot. Great job getting under his skin by pointing out his mistakes.