Welcome MoveOn Media Action
Published by Mike Stark March 30th, 2006 in UncategorizedTalk radio is a bastion of the right, but it shouldn’t be. It is one of the last forms of truly egalitarian mass media. When you call these shows, millions of people hear you and what you think is important. Sure, the playing field is tilted against you, but follow the call-in tips linked at the top of this page and you’ll do fine.
I want you to join our team of “Wingnut Spinners”. It’s an organization of people that are willing to call talk radio when important events occur. It’s a group of people that are willing to take back our airwaves, and our country, by spreading our message to people that need to hear it. Did you know 20 million people get all of their news from talk radio? We need to reach out to these people.
Right now, as a kind of test run, we are demanding that O’Reilly remove the petition that calls for Keith’s show to be replaced from BillO’Reilly.com. Our method is to call Bill’s show, Monday through Friday from 12-2, EST. Bill refuses to allow any mention of Keith’s name, so we simply tell Bill (once we are on the air with him) that we enjoy Countdown with Keith Olbermann and wish Bill would stop smearing him.
You can sign up to join our efforts by sending an email to:
I know I’m asking a lot. This is a dangerous mission. Bill might call the local authorities…
Enjoy the attached call. Laugh at it. But remember, the airwaves are ours. We need to take them back.
28 Responses to “Welcome MoveOn Media Action”
Leave a Reply
Search
Login
Donations Accepted
Subscribe
Posts- Comments
- Podcast
Oooh, we should all be so scared of Bill O’Reilly! This boring blowhard has serious delusions of grandeur! If I were Mike, I would have him arrested for communicating threats. It’s baffling that this serial lier has any audience at all — not to mention gainful employment. But then again we’re talking about Fox news here, which has no standards, no sense of decency and no taste.
I’m trying to do much the same thing in online newspaper commentary and some of the more right-wing blogs. I’ve got an interesting thread going in the Seattle Post-Inquirer right now, regarding the fact that the Prestbytery of Seattle has voted to challenge this administration’s policies on torture. I’m always encouraged when others join in. If they hear one voice, speaking out with strength and courage, it empowers other people, who ordinarily might remain silent, to speak the truth as well. That’s exactly what you’re doing on the airwaves and I’m not the only one who’s glad your’re doing it!
As part of Media Matters and MoveOn, I would be happy to call wingnuts like O’Reilly, Carlson, Limbaugh, and all the other hack jobs. O’Reilly should be arrested for threatening that caller.
When I have to watch T.V., I try to watch Keith Olbermann. CNN and most of the other talk shows have taken too hard of a right-wing turn for me.
I used to enjoy politics until The Shrub came along. He is the worst “president” in history and should be impeached for war crimes and lying.
By the way, those camps they are building are not for “terrorists”, they are for us, THE DISSENTERS.
That just shows how much of an asshole Bill O’ Reilly is. Mike Stark never did anything wrong at all, all Mike did was call in to voice his honest opinion. Like the old saying goes, “The truth hurts” and talk show hosts can’t obviously take the truth. I really love what Mike Stark does. Mike has a lot of balls to go on talk shows on radio to get them asshole hosts “owned”. Kudos Mike. You do deserve your own radio show.
Mike said
“Did you know 20 million people get all of their news from talk radio? ”
What does he base this on? No source provided by him of course.
I DO NOT understand this. Does Mike understand that in law school you CAN NOT just spew stuff like “He’s guilty!” and not offer proof or evidence as to why. I mean if Mike is going to make all these calls and post these calls to action on this site based on nothing more than his opinions, it’s not going to gain any traction.
Mike is not alone though.
Lickspittle said: “By the way, those camps they are building are not for “terrorists”, they are for us, THE DISSENTERS.” What is that statement even based on? Some diary from Dailykos? Why do you people make these extreme assertions with no evidence, sources, facts, etc?
Hey Chuck2
Put down the Kool-Aid, son and take off your tin foil hat…LOL
O’Reilly should be held accountable, period.
Good job Mike!! O’Reilly and the rest of them need to know they cannot do this and get away with it, anymore. Maybe it’s about time O’Reilly “gets in big trouble” with his ratings…
Chuck
Have you ever heard of a gallup / zogby polls.. I think not because you’d realize the 20 million number is probably a conservative estimate. I’d post the links for you but I think its better you learn to do your own research instead of letting others do your thinking for you.
Chuck you stated ‘you CAN NOT just spew stuff like “He’s guilty!” and not offer proof or evidence as to why’ yet you failed to offer a source or any references to substantiate your claim. I’ll just assume you were being ironically clever.
I was stating common knowledge about our legal system. It is generally accepted in academic circles that such basic common knowledge does not need to be cited. But once you start making assertions that are not generally accepted in academic circles, you have to cite a credible source. Statements like Mike’s and lickspittle’s are not considered common knowledge in the academic community and therefore require citation. If you had a real education you would know my statement that in the legal system you need to prove guilt beyond a resonable doubt is common knowledge, which does not require citation.
How does one determine if a statement is considered common knowledge in the academic community thus requiring a credible source? Is there a national standards board? Is there a committee that issues rulings on such things?
I’d like to be compliant with your assertion ‘Statements like Mike’s and lickspittle’s are not considered common knowledge in the academic community and therefore require citation’ but sans a creditable authority to rule on the validity of a common knowledge claim I’m not sure I can.
Chuck, since you seem to speak for the “academic community” can I get common knowledge rulings from you when needed?
Thanks, I’d really appreciate it.
There was a really interesting profile of O’Reilly in The New Yorker last week. It didn’t fail to point out that he is so over-the-top that he has spawned a parody of his show: Steven Colbert’s “The Colbert Report” on the Comedy Channel. In fact, the author said that O’Reilly has been getting so outrageous that he seems to be doing a parody of Colbert doing a parody of him, which would mean he’s doing a parody of himself.
Which leads me to wonder, how serious are most of the rightwingnut TV personalities? The first one of these guys I can recall was a fellow named Joe Pyne. He worked in Los Angeles back in the 50’s. Before he died, he became a flaming liberal because all his buddies on the right deserted him when he fell on bad times — but some liberals looked after him. But even when Pyne was spouting the John Birch line, he seemed to be doing it just to be outrageous. It’s a good way to draw attention to yourself: be irate, be caustic, be xenophobic, be outrageous, get high ratings.
Rush Limbaugh was a cheesy disc jockey before he discovered that outrageous route to riches. Paul Harvey was a cheesy bit actor in Hollywood B films (bordering on C films) before he made his millions with his high dudgeon and brainless moralizing. I think these guys are the airwaves’ equivalent of pro wrestling — for them, it’s all a big act… a big act that pays a lot of money.
What isn’t a big act, though, is the mindset of some of the nutballs who listen to O’Reilly and all those other phonies. The constant danger is that some of those nuts could act on what they hear. There once was a liberal talk radio guy in Denver, Allan Berg. He was murdered by a right wing sociopath who didn’t like what Berg was saying.
When the pendulum starts swinging back to the left from the right, the crazies and the O’Reilly’s who feed their listeners’ paranoia will still be around. Watch your back, Olbermann.
Stewie, there certainly is a standard. If a statement is critical of Bush, the GOP, conservatives, or talk radio whores, it requires a link. Only links to the Moonie Times, talk radio whores, Fox News, and the 700 Club count. If a statement is critical of evuuulllllll liberuls, it is common knowledge.
Actually, Bill O’ Reilly seems like he really meant it when O’ Reilly said he was going to turn Mike in. I’m sure O’ Reilly and his staff tried calling the police on Mike many times. The authorities probably just laughed at O’ Reilly and denied the request. That’s why Mike is safely still posting in his blog here and still making phone calls at radioshows ’cause Mike didn’t do anything illegal. We all know Bill O’ Reilly is an asshole. He wants to take over Olbermann ’cause of jealousy. It’s all a competition in the talk show media. Like Mike said, I think we all should fight back, I know I’m in.
Here is a guide to citation from Dartmouth University.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sources/about/when.html
Their second point says:
“Cite sources for ideas or information that could be regarded as common knowledge but which you think your reader might still find unfamiliar.”
Stewie pointed out that a statement I made did not have a source. I regarded my statement as common knowledge. However, as the Dartmouth site points out, I failed to take into account the possibility that the basic tenets of our legal system would be something which my reader was unfamiliar with. My bad.
Second, gmhowell obviously has not read any of my posts. I never cite Fox News, nor Radio talk show hosts as credible sources of information. And as usual for someone on this site, he makes a statement and provides no evidence.
Also
Their first point says:
“Cite sources from which you paraphrase or summarize facts or ideas.”
Mike said: “Did you know 20 million people get all of their news from talk radio?” A source is needed to validate that assertion.
Littlespittle said: “By the way, those camps they are building are not for “terrorists”, they are for us, THE DISSENTERS.” Again a source is needed to validate this assertion, according to the Dartmouth rules.
gmhowell said: : “Stewie, there certainly is a standard. If a statement is critical of Bush, the GOP, conservatives, or talk radio whores, it requires a link. Only links to the Moonie Times, talk radio whores, Fox News, and the 700 Club count. If a statement is critical of evuuulllllll liberuls, it is common knowledge.” A source is needed to validate this assertion.
If sources cannot be found, these people should retract their statements.
Look people, I teach academic writing at a large university. Common knowledge is any statistic you can look up in about .0003 seconds on Google. And you should cite statistical information that is not readily available from four billion sources, if you are writing a paper for your PolSci 101 class.
But this is a freaking blog. Last time I looked, it wasn’t a peer-reviewed academic journal. Common knowledge is one thing, but common SENSE tells us that most bloggers who are serious about their craft and who want to be taken seriously (and avoid scathing scrutiny) are going to use solid numbers and expect their readers either already be familiar with the issue or to look up the validity of numbers/factoids, if they so choose.
Chuck 2 sounds like a first-year composition student who took his plagiarism lecture a little too seriously. If you have a point to make about the logic or the language or the validity of the numbers (because you LOOKED THEM UP BEFORE CRITICIZING THEM, then make it. But leave the plagiarism charges to the experts. Geez.
The good news is this -
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/q1_06_msnbcs_keith_olbermann_beats_cnns_paula_zahn_in_the_demo_34504.asp
O’Reilly’s rating have tanked 23 percent since this time last year -
Shire
Please state where I made “plargiarism charges” against Mike or anyone else on this web site.
Maria
Your statements are misleading. As the article clearly states:
1. “Bill O’Reilly averaged 450,000 IN THE DEMO (down 24 percent).”
2.”Zahn and O’Reilly still had a SIGNIFIGANT ADVANTAGE in the category of TOTAL VIEWERS, though.”
See Shire, I have read someone who actually put a source, and have shown how her short little post is misleading. Oreilly is down 24% in one demographic block, that is true. But he is still way up in total number of viewers.
Martin, you are right on about guys like O’Reilly. His is an “entertainment” show, not serious commentary or dialogue. He probably doesn’t really believe half of what he says. Unfortunately his gullible and devoted listeners take him all too seriously. The pro wrestling analogy is apt: show business taken for real life by the fans. As you point out, this is nothing new. I too remember Joe Pyne.
Anyway, I think calling in and calling Bill on his stupider efforts as with Olbermann is a great idea. His fans need to hear it.
I’m sorry, I should have stated that O’Reilly is down in that coveted demo - 25 to 54 years old -
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/q1_06_2554_demo_vs_q1_05_34498.asp
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/q1_06_total_viewers_vs_q1_05_34497.asp
The thing about O’Reilly’s show is that he has declined in this important demographic and his audience has declined in the US. Since last year his show has added countries to this broadcast such as New Zealand, Canada and a few others, which has stabilized his ratings somewhat.
In other words he has gained viewers in other places but lost them here. His average audience age in the US is 68 years old according to some outlets, including ABC News, Al Franken and Matt Drudge.
O’Reilly is a goofy populist who leans to the right. But…
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-quick29.2mar29,1,6680190.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
[For the first time in almost five years, the third-place cable news channel had a prime-time victory to crow about, albeit a small one: “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” beat CNN’s “Paula Zahn Now” in the key 25- to 54-year-old advertising demographic in the first quarter of 2006, according to Nielsen Media Research.
The MSNBC show drew an average of 164,000 viewers in that demographic to CNN’s 156,000, as Olbermann, who has been engaged in a colorful feud with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, enjoyed an increase of 25% in total viewers compared with this point last year.
Even though MSNBC won in that demographic, CNN’s Zahn still won in total viewership. “Countdown” averaged 404,000 viewers versus 626,000 for Zahn on CNN, and both shows trailed Fox’s “O’Reilly Factor,” which had more than 2.27 million viewers, on average]
It’s clear that he still blows away the other shows in his slot. Olbermann may be gaining, but he’s got a hell of a long way to go.
Second, gmhowell obviously has not read any of my posts.
Not quite right there chuckie. I read the first dozen or so posts you made here a week or three ago. Found them wanting, and now only skim them when I’m in the mood for a laugh. Still, I must give you credit for sticking it out, when some of your fellow flavor-aid drinkers couldn’t seem to maintain the idiocy.
The New Yorker piece on O’Reilly was excellent, btw.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060327fa_fact
Hey all newcomers:
chuck2 has installed himself as the resident troll. Don’t feed him.
I was just wondering if chuck2 is Ben Dominech? I mean the timing is curious.
BTW, Mike, keep up the good work. When they cut you off that means that they have no retort.
Good observation, I figured he was just the usual wingnut nut bag trolling our blogs…but Augustine he just may be…
Stewie,
I think you went right over Chuck’s head when you gave him the benefit of irony.
“Does Mike understand that in law school you CAN NOT just spew stuff like “He’s guilty!” and not offer proof or evidence as to why.”
So Chuckster, by your own assertion, the Bush administration is guilty, in many instances, of exactly this grevious crime. The illegal imprisonment of all Gitmo detainees who have not been charged with any crime, where no evidence has been presented, where no counsel is allowed, falls under your assertion. I’m sorry, should I have provided links, or is this old news enough to fall under “common knowlege” in your academic circle?
What about the administration’s many, many statements to Congress, the UN, the American people, etc., concerning Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons, as well as Iraq’s WMD’s? From Bush to Rumsfeld to Powell, all stated that the existence of these weapons was an undesputed fact. All quoted vague “sources.” Bush used these facts as his primary excuse for waging war on Iraq. So…by your own admission, you CAN NOT just do this…yet every major claim by this administration has been made in this shady way.
W probably SUCKED at the Bibliography aspect of every Yale term paper. How ever did that boy manage to graduate?
I guess you and the Republican party do not travel in the same academic circles, though you do sound SO familiar. Hmmmm.
What do you bet that we will never hear from Chuck2, ur, I mean Augustine again?