On a day when Pontiac is going to the glue factory, Sen. Arlen Spector is calling himself a Democrat, and 'swine flu' is a pig virus not named Rush Limbaugh, you most certainly have a right to be befuddled. And if you're a progressive talk fan in Boston, well, you have even more right to scratch your head in bewilderment.
So, for those of you keeping score at home, let's see if you can follow all of this.
1. Last fall, sports-formatted WWZN (1510AM) in Boston added a local progressive talk morning show, by way of Jeff Santos, who had previously worked with WXKS and WKOX, the Clear Channel combo that had dropped progressive talk two years earlier. Santos was leasing time on the station, and planned to add Peter B. Collins' syndicated show to another time slot. The new juggernaut started its own barebones website for the venture, revolutionboston.com.
2. The state of the Santos/WWZN alliance seemed a bit confusing to us out-of-towners (and likely area residents as well). It never seemed to gel.
3. Last week, Jeff Kline, the general manager of WAZN (1470AM), only one letter and one slight turn to the left on the radio dial, announced plans to add Dial Global's liberal talk lineup via delay in the nocturnal hours of the otherwise ethnic-formatted station.
4. Kline opted not to do the lefty talk thing on WWZN, but said it would pop up on the dial anyway. Instead, the other Jeff, Mr. Santos, announced that WWZN would program a 6A-7P ET slate of progressive talk, including his morning show (6-10A) and the Dial Global lineup, which includes Stephanie Miller (10A-12P), Ed Schultz (12-3P)and Thom Hartmann (3-6P) (a 6-7P show will be forthcoming).
5. So, WWZN was in. Then WWZN was seemingly out. Then WAZN was in. Then WAZN was out. WWZN is now back in. And that's what it's all about.
Confused?
All in all, it looks like progressive talk fans in Boston have found a new station, and yes, it will be on WWZN (1510AM) starting next Monday. And it will be on a much stronger signal than the two Clear Channel peashooters that carried the format before in the market.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Boston's ball of confusion (or, a tale of two Jeffs)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Eureka, CA 
10 comments:
I love the entertaining heading, photograph, and hokey pokey allusion, but it's really not as confusing as you might think.
For more than two years, Santos has been working steadily with a number of progressive activists, political and business leaders, and industry contacts. His ultimate aim, now fulfilled, was to have a combination of local talk and nationally syndicated shows.
Santos's local show has been on the air on WWZN since Election Day. I can tell you that it was quite a kick to listen to it while driving through Concord, New Hampshire, to participate in a get-out-the-vote effort. He felt, though, that the full lineup for the station should only be publicized after it was all in place. This was undoubtedly wise. However, it may have had the side effect of leading Kline (and you) to conclude, due to the lack of public news, that Santos's announced goal of lining up nationally syndicated progressive hosts had stalled. In fact, as is now clear, it was closer to fruition than ever.
In any case, as you point out, Boston listeners can now celebrate having a full lineup of progressive talk on a strong signal. All's well that ends well!
Rush Limbaugh is many things but he is NOT "Pig Virus."
"Pig Virus" is Kevin Metheny, former program director at WNBC, New York and so named by Howard Stern (the name was changed to "Pig Vomit" in the movie "Private Parts).
Pig Virus was cluster PD at Clear Channel in Cleveland and on at least once occasion filled in for Jerry Springer during Springer's foray into liberal talk radio. Pig Virus currently is PD at WGN, Chicago, working for Randy Michaels, who at one time produced Ed Schultz' show (original meaning of "producer" as distinct from call screeners and board ops who are called "producers").
Baba Booey
Emacee (or whoever you are this week) -
You act like everyone besides you in this world is an idiot. We all know what you wrote. C'mon, everyone's read "Private Parts". Sheesh!
However, whenever I think of something like a swine virus (pig, hog, etc.), I think of Limbaugh.
Bragging about your SAT scores from 30-40 years ago does not make you superior to those of us that you look down your nose upon as being 'ignorant pissants'.
Dear LT/Fighting Irish or whoever else you are...
I have re-read my post carefully and I find no reference to my SAT scores (or my GRE scores, for that matter).
There are valid criticisms one can make of Rush but it seems the one to which you keep coming back is his weight. Is that the best you can do? Or are you jealous that God loaned him talent?
I have re-read my post carefully and I find no reference to my SAT scores (or my GRE scores, for that matter).
Oh really?
link
I didn't say "superior." There are things at which I excel and there subjects about which I am knowledgeable.
I don't say more than "everyone." My SAT, GRE and MAT scores put me in the 98th-99th percentile.And I find it highly ironic that you criticize the way others criticize people. After all, you're the one who paints people in tiny boxes so you can make broad generalizations. That makes you a hypocrite. And you wonder why nobody likes you. It's not them, it's all you.
Seriously, why do you even bother posting here, even after flinging personal attacks at me and others who post here, after you threaten to sue me, and after all this time of obviously detesting this very blog. Seriously, why do you do it?
And let me ask you this, as I've asked time and time again. If you think you're so mentally superior to everyone here (myself included), why don't you have your own blog? Surely your ego would love the opportunity to school us peons, right? Imagine, you could enlighten the world with your infinite wisdom. You could be King Shit of the internet! That's gotta stroke your psyche. But I ask you this time and time again, and all I get is smarmy cracks and silly little bits of trivia gleamed from radio trade magazines in a feeble effort to make people think you know what the hell you're talking about.
But I guess we all know why you won't accept my challenge. You're too chickenshit, too lazy and you're not willing to do the hard work to actually create something. Instead, you just vomit all over everyone else's hard work. Some would call someone like that a parasite.
And I've ribbed Limbaugh over many other things besides his weight. And just because I made a 'swine flu' comment does not mean I swiped at his girth. Shows how narrow-minded you are.
Mega dittoes, dimwit!
A bit of a preview? Someone emailed me and said they heard a bit of Steph Miller on 1510 today, plus an Ed Schultz rerun --poss. testing the sat. feeds? But when I tuned in at 2:35 pm it was Snoring News Radio again, talking boxing.
Let's see if I've got this right.
You posted something Tuesday.
I commented on that post the next day.
The day after that, you responded to my post by commenting on another post from last July.
Then you repeat your tired refrain that I don't know what I'm talking about, still without offering any facts or logic to rebut what I said. I suppose you assume (along with Goebbels) that if you repeat something enough, people will believe it.
Then you equate anything other than "mega dittos" (or the equivalent) with "shitting" or "vomiting" all over your blog.
Doing a blog is a lot of work. I acknowledge that. That's why I'd rather comment on existing blogs.
I will resist the temptation to speculate on how you came to have zero tolerance for differing viewpoints but I will note that is a characteristic you share with Rush, Maloney and others you attack.
Yes, I have been known to read the trades (among other things). Are you saying you don't?
Have a nice day.
If you look around my blog (and I can tell you are constantly dissecting it, looking for things to needle me on), you obviously know that I do tolerate differing opinions. Typically, I'll only delete comments that are blatant spam, vulgar, offensive, uncalled-for personal attacks, and outright assholes like you that I have attempted to ban many times in the past.
And it's not just me. How many message boards and blogs have you been 86'ed from? Do you think it's just their problem and not yours?
And comparing me to a Nazi? Real classy.
Thing is, you are once again showing your hypocrisy and cowardice, attacking me for my tolerance when you have none yourself. You dish out tons of personal attacks, yet you go crying to mommy when someone needles you. You need to toughen up, boy!
As I've said before, you obviously can't stand me. Hell, you even threatened to sue me! So, I gotta ask, why me? Why are you so obsessed with what I do? There's hundreds of radio and media-related blogs out there. Why not annoy them?
So here it is. I'd like you to go away. Seriously. No, it's not because you disagree with me. Actually, I like people that disagree with me. Adds a little spice to the comments sections. But it's obvious that you're simply just an insecure, narcissistic jerk, and that's all you really care about. And quite frankly, this back-and-forth is getting quite old. You have refused my invitations in the past to take your differences with me to email, which shows just what kind of person you really are. Rather, you'd rather hang your dirty laundry in public. In essence, I feel like I'm talking with Courtney Love. So again, I'd like you to leave. Go away. No, I won't ban you, but just be warned that I may just delete your comments at random. Why? Because I feel like it.
Don't like it? Call your congressman. Or sue me.
So goodbye, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Trolls are small and powerless in their real-world lives. Yet they like to think they're superior to other people. In cyberspace, no one can see that they're a midget. (Figuratively speaking -- no offence meant to people of small stature.) You can pretend to be a tough know-it-all. So the troll comes onto another person's blog, someone he feels superior to. That's why he spends so much time quibbling with you, even though his philosophy is 180 degrees opposite to your blog. He can't nitpick someone he likes! He must go after you, because it makes him feel like he's big and strong, which he is not.
And keep up the good work. LTR. I've been checking your blog from time to time wondering what was going on with Randi. Although in her absence, we've been downloading podcasts of Jeff Farias and learning a surprising lot from him. For a small-timer who's essentially Internet-only (at least until May 4) he gets some good guests and has great in-depth interviews.
Thanks Bukko, good points made.
And I'd like to apologize to all the readers here for this little ongoing soap opera. See, Mike's been a thorn in my side for years. He's used my blog to air his own dirty laundry and insult anyone he happened to hold a grudge against that day. He's been booted from various blogs and message boards for pulling that same nonsense. I 'banned' him and started deleting his comments after several instances a year ago or so, in which he fired off rather vicious attacks at one particular known liberal talk personality who posted a comment here. It was way over the line. Then he attacked my own religious/ethnic background (okay, if you call Irish-Catholic 'ethnic'). I can deal with that. Hell, I've been hearing drunk Irishman jokes all my life, and the only thing that offends me about them is when they're not funny. But he crossed the line, and it was intended to be very personal and mean-spirited. I did a hell of a lot of work over the past four and a half years creating this blog, and quite frankly, I don't have to put up with some cranky asshole trying to deface it.
And then this chickenshit moron threatens to sue me! Hey, I'm not going to invite the guy to dinner after he tries to burn the house down.
Needless to say, the drama's over. I'm washing my hands of it. Whatever else he posts here will be deleted. I'm done.
And again, I apologize to all the readers who had to suffer through all that nonsense. I put up with a lot. And quite frankly, I welcome opposing opinions here (regardless of what Emacee/FSL/Bierkenstock/etc. claims). I think it makes the debate a bit spicier. But blatant trolling designed just to deface blogs is really unnecessary.
Post a Comment