News on 6’s Tara Vreeland did a story on RSU’s Bit by Bit issues on tonight’s 6 p.m. broadcast. Here’s the video.

Here’s KOTV’s web story.

Your opinion?

OK, I guess the talking point is that Letterman’s comments about the Palin family were “in bad taste.” I could describe it very differently. But what just blows my head off is how Matt Lauer on Today could not resist coming at Palin and asking her if it wasn’t in bad taste that her spokesperson said they intend to keep 14-year-old Willow Palin away from David Letterman. You have to be kidding me! What kind of moral eqivilization is this? I know some places here in Oklahoma where Letterman’s comments would have gotten him, at least, an arse-whoopin’ that even the Sheriff and D.A. would consider justified. I used to be a Letterman fan, but I—like most viewers—have abandoned him in recent years. Anyone who has not the sense to just admit his horrible mistake and truly apologize deserves a public uprising and channel-changing. And, as for Matt Lauer, I am appalled that his own political views and obvious disdain for Palin can allow him to make such an utter fool of himself. Neither of these two hacks would have ever behaved this way if Michelle Obama were substitued for Sarah Palin, and you know it.

Previously in this space, I have shared that I have been in a dialogue with Bailey Dabney, publisher of the Claremore Progress, regarding Claremore’s tea party last week and the Progress‘ coverage of it. What I did not share was that Mr. Dabney was gracious enough to invite me to respond on the pages of his paper as a guest columnist, rather than in a letter to the editor. He certainly did not have to do so. And when he received my column, he didn’t have to print it, but he did. You’ll find it on the Op-Ed page of today’s (April 21, 2009) Progress and also online here.

Since my reports on the Claremore tea party and subsequent responses to the Claremore Progress‘ coverage of it, I have had occasion to be in communication with Bailey Dabney, the still relatively new publisher of the paper. I won’t be sharing many of the details of our dialogue, other than to saw it has been cordial, fair, and friendly. I find him a reasonable man. I am also impressed with his level coverage of what he say when he was in attendance at the Oklahoma City tea party. It’s as if he actually got out of his car and walked among those about which he intended to report.

The Tea Party crowd was friendly and lively, with an interesting array of witty and creative signs expressing dissatisfaction with our current national fiscal policies. As an eyewitness to this sizable gathering, I was surprised the way these groups have been portrayed by national media. There was no anti-government, anti-American, or anti-establishment attitude, as one cable news network described them. Taxpayers did want to be heard regarding their distaste for the current fiscal strategy. The tone was civil and friendly as I walked through snapping pictures with my Blackberry. Watching this group actually made me proud to live in a country where this type of civil communication is allowed. I haven’t seen official estimates, but my unofficial estimate puts 5,000 or more American patriots in attendance as our group walked through. By my estimation, this is an example for other protestors to follow.

That’s strikingly different from the report provided by his underlings in regard to Claremore’s event. It’s nice to see a reasoned head at the helm, and I am hopeful that he continues to improve the paper’s reporting and editorial pieces. His staffers should take a page from his book (or should that be paper?).

This is a good sign. I’ve been critical of the Progress many times, but I have to give credit where credit is due. At this rate, they may get me back as a subscriber.

[UPDATE—April 17, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.]

In response to my (and others’) claims that the Claremore Progress’ audio report posted on their site was inaccurate (see original post below), whoever Twitters for the paper as WillRogersPaper just tweeted this:

Some RC folks upset as being characterized as being “angry” while at TEA Party and not in street. Todays Progress

And as proof that participants were demonstrating in the intersection, they offer a link to this twitpic (click for big):

Let’s do a little analysis, shall we? What you see here are not tea party demonstrators protesting in an intersection, though the Progress intends you to think that. You see one man (”Born Free – Taxed to Death”) standing off the curb, though not being a hindrance to traffic, holding his sign. The rest of the people in this picture, which the Progress obviously intends you to interpret as protesters in an intersection, are actually crossing the street at the designated point (i.e., the crosswalk). You see a couple young men transporting signs (obviously not waving them) crossing from east to west, and another group, appearing to be mostly women, crossing from west to east. Notice they all have a raised foot, caught by the camera in the action of walking across the street, at the legal place to do so (presumably after receiving the illuminated “Walk” indication). The woman in the red hoodie holding up her sign is on the sidewalk (notice her height). All in all, a weak attempt to substantiate a fabrication with a misleading picture. Seems the Progress continues to ratify everything people have been saying.

This goes perfectly to my previous point. One can report what actually happened, or because of bias, agenda, or just sloppy journalism, they can report what they want and offer up a clearly mischaracterized picture  as support.

I reassert my previous points: protesters were not demonstrating in the intersection, the demonstrators were certainly not a disturbance to traffic, they were not angry, raving maniacs. It was an orderly demonstration by patriotic Americans, which–judging by the public response as it happened–has significant support. Guess it’s too much to ask that the Claremore Progress get it right, or at least correct the record when they are shown to be wrong.

Oh, and just one question for Progress reporter Krystal Carman, who received photo credit for previous Progress pictures and presumably this one: “Did you cross the street, and if so, where? If you were photographed doing so, would it be fair to accuse you of practicing the craft of alleged journalism (or photography) in the intersection?” Didn’t think so.

[End of Update]

[Original Post]

I was on the scene at yesterday’s Claremore tea party. Loyal readers will recall I provided audio reports from the scene throughout the morning demonstration. I did this using a nifty little program called AudioBoo. Lo and behold, today I see that the Claremore Progress has updated its report about the tea party by uploading an audio report using AudioBoo. I wonder where they got that idea? I don’t mind being a trendsetter. But, the Progress is missing the point. The beauty of technology is that it allows one (in this case, me) to do reports from the scene of the action as it happens. It’s a waste of the technology to use it as the Progress has.

What did they do? Well, according to the Progress website:

Progress Managing Editor Randy Cowling and Staff Writer Krystal Carman talk about the event.

Click the play button below to listen to their commentary.

What a joke! Were these people even at the same event I was? Aside from seemingly missing the metaphorical meaning of a tea party, they seem to be awfully concerned with the distraction to traffic. I was at the 11 a.m. event the entire time, and I never once saw anyone in any intersection. There were ROCO sheriff’s deputies on scene who I witnessed showing demonstrators where they could and could not stand (from the sidewalk out). If there were ever anyone in an intersection, the deputies would no doubt have dealt with it. Demonstrators were lining the streets at intersections, but that is not being in an intersection, and they were certainly not a distraction to traffic. In fact, if you listen to my reports from the scene, you will hear lots of honks of support from the allegedly distracted passersby.

Further, I spoke with several people there, and no one was emotionally angry. Sure, people are passionate about where they stand. But it was no hateful crowd ranting and raving. It was a very collegial and good-spirited gathering. Again, if these were raving lunatics, you could have heard that in my reports. Judge for yourself. It’s also shocking to hear the surprise in their voices as they share that the public is allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights without a permit. Maybe the Progress should be required to get a permit to exercise theirs.

And finally, I would challenge the numbers quoted. There were far more than 50 at the 11 a.m. event, and if they’re off by that much once, how many other things are being slanted by this rag? I’ve alleged the Progress‘ bias for a long time, and these two hacks have proved my point. For too long, certain papers (which are rapidly dying) have reported the news after the fact and after it has passed through a less-than-objective filter. And in print, they can use certain verbiage that makes them seem fair. Audio is another thing. You can hear the bias in the Progress‘ audio report. Just give a listen and judge for yourself.

Back when the Republican-controlled Senate talked about giving President Bush’s judicial nominees a straight up-or-down, simple majority consent vote rather than requiring the typical 60 votes needed for cloture, it was called the NUCLEAR OPTION. Ohhhh, scary!

That’s when that Gang of 14 swooped in to save the day and the nation. Seven Dems and 7 RINOs came together to preserve some Sentaorial dignity (oxymoronic, I know). The Dems are very noisy when in the minority, and they suddenly came to understand how important the rights of the minority are. Then they became the majority again. And now it’s not the nuclear option. It’s “a parliamentary procedure called reconciliation.”

Specifically,

Reconciliation reduces the number of votes needed to pass legislation in the 100-seat Senate to a simple majority rather than the 60 required to overcome resistance to major bills. The tactic also limits debate to no more than 20 hours and imposes restrictions on amendments.

We’ll see how those seven Dems who felt it so imprtant to preserve the traditions and dignity of the chamber when they were in the minority vote when they are in the majority. And we’ll also see how the media never mentions the term “Nuclear Option.”

Consent for the nomination power of presidents is very different from the legislative process. We’ll see where the chips fall.

KRMG FM Coverage Map (from Radio-Locator.com) - Click for big.

The big announcement from the Big KMR today is that it’s AM signal will now be simulcast on the 50,000-watt 102.3 FM frequency (formerly Spirit 102.3, a contemporary Christian music  jukebox). Though some of my online pals are underwhelmed by the announcement, the concept of an FM talk station makes me giddy (especially in that I don’t live in Tulsa proper). KRMG’s signal is notoriously weak up north (approaching Bartlesville), and both the Tulsa AM talk stations frustrate me when they have to drop their power each evening. I shared on my last WynnCast that we had applied for a non-commercial, educational (NCE) radio license for our home town. Our main format, had we been successful, would have been talk (on FM).

KRMG will be the Tulsa radio king as long as it carries Rush Limbaugh. Frankly, KRMG has a heftier overall lineup of syndicated shows (with the exception of the legend-in-his-own-mind Michael Savage). That said, I am a fan of Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin on KFAQ. But, KFAQ’s real mode of attraction (when it started up) was the passion of the live and local Michael DelGiorno and its running shows live so that listeners could participate (they even ran promos about it). Heck, in the early days of KFAQ, MDG replied to every email he received. The station’s popularity grew so rapidly that he couldn’t keep that up. That was a good thing for the station…and for Tulsa.

With the departure of John Erling (good riddance), we got Joe Kelley in the morning drive on KRMG, and with MDG heading to greener pastures in Nashville (and after the short-lived Freeman-Medlock show), we got Pat Campbell in the morning drive at KFAQ (KFAQ passing over my obvious talent). Joe and Pat are both consummate professionals and good at the mechanics of what they do, but I find them both terribly…bland. I get the real feeling they are trying so hard to walk a line of non-offensiveness that they offend me. But, I don’t get to listen to radio like I used to, so it could be all in my head.

As far as KFAQ goes, it’s not enough merely to be the other talk station in town. Newspapers are learning they can band-aid their dismal situations by cutting local reporters and filling space with nationally syndicated columns, but that doesn’t fix the big issue. Radio, in the same way, can fill time with any number of nationally syndicated hosts, many of them very good, but none of them provide the localism radio must have if it is to be successful in a market. If your national hosts are largely second-tier, if your local news team is second-best, you better out-passion and out-local-issue the other guys.

Further, KFAQ’s handling of the Medlock dismissal betrayed years of positioning. No one buys that the station that claims it is “standing up for what’s right,” did the right thing by dismissing Medlock, the only daily injection of passion and loyal opposition in Tulsa, especially so suddenly. They added insult to injury by not allowing him to say goodbye and then removing every trace of his existence from the station’s website (though it is a fairly typical practice in radio).

So, I am thrilled that KRMG is on the AM dial (and I wish KFAQ would make that leap, too), but it’s not enough merely to broaden your signal. You must broadcast something of interest to the local citizens who you want to dial in. After all, those listeners—and not the generic “they”— are the ones laying down their dollars to buy Thermal Windows, Primeaux Kias, and Inlow Tractors.

[Update @ 5:18 PM]

KXOJ, the Tulsa commercial Christian music station, is already capitalizing on the news. This via their email newsletter:

Dear Friends,

You may have heard the news already but this afternoon Cox Radio decided to change their Christian music station to Newstalk. Certainly we understand that this decision was a difficult one brought on by very real financial pressure in these difficult times. A decision of this magnitude is never easy and we do not think anyone should take it lightly. More people than ever now know how great Christian music is and for that we are very grateful.

As for us, we just want you to know that we are not going anywhere. 32 years ago KXOJ began playing Christian music and we haven’t stopped since. KXOJ represents who we are as a company and who we are as individuals, from top to bottom. In the words of Third Day, “This is who I am”.

If you had gotten used to flipping back and forth between the two stations, welcome back to KXOJ full-time. Let us know how we can serve you better and join us in putting the focus on a God who never changes.

Sincerely,

Bob Thornton
Program Director
100.9 KXOJ

Over on the American Thinker Blog, Lance Fairchok reports what we already know. There is collusion between the political and media rails of our society. This, my friends and readers, is why we pitch a fit about the Big Liberal Media.

This is especially prescient because of the recent discussion here on the WynnBlog regarding Second Amendment rights. It has long been my position that First Amendment rights to free speech are as potentially dangerous—if not more so—than the Second Amendment right to possess weapons. Yet, we require no license from the government to exercise one’s right to free speech. Any schmuck former political operative can end up hosting a supposedly objective news program one one of the dinosaur media’s networks.

And just as some irresponsible idiots can abuse their Second Amendment freedoms and do great harm, even evil, some of the talking heads America relies on for news and information abuse the right of free speech and abandon all objectivity for the sake of politics.

From the column:

Every morning, a group of old friends have a nice chat. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, CNN’s James Carville, CNN commentator Paul Begala, and Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel have a wide ranging conference call, usually starting just before dawn. Democrat Pollster Stan Greenberg is a frequent participant. They examine current events and how they fit into the new administrations policies. They determine how to best get their message to the public.

***

When they next appear on various programs as interviewers or interviewees, their comments do not conflict with each other. They have coordinated the broad themes and the topics, and after that early morning phone call they coordinate with their personal networks and associates, influencing and coaxing the comment and reportage on specific issues nationwide.

But why should this bother us? Shouldn’t we all just get along?

From an information consumer’s standpoint it is disturbing that several main networks are so tuned into White House message shaping. How can the citizen expect accurate analysis and reportage when the “journalists” that present it are so tied into the party in power? Obviously they cannot, as we have so clearly seen in the blatant bias and advocacy of last year’s campaign media coverage. The “prevailing political and media interpretation” is a nice way to say “political message.”

Those in the media should remember that it is the nature of those in power—from any party or political persuasion—to do everything possible to retain it. If you choose to be willing accomplices, there will be a price to pay, which we are already seeing with the mass downturn in traditional media viewership and readership. When you start doing your jobs—objectively—you might save the industry…and maybe the country. If you choose to stay in either party’s back pocket, you will feel the considerable heft of their backsides bearing down upon you eventually.

Oh, and there will be new permit program established to authorize you to exercise your First Amendment rights. You will be required to take an 8-hour training course at a cost of approximately $60, provide pictures and fingerprints to your local sheriff’s office (at a cost of approximately $35), undergo a background check, and pay a fee of $100 per five year period of licensure. The line forms to the right (or would you be more comfortable on the Left?).

Political cycles are cyclical. If one looks to the U.S. presidency, especially in modern times, we see a pendulum swing from left to right and back to left over and over again. Hoover to FDR, then Truman when FDR died, then to Eisenhower, to Kennedy and Johnson, who succeeded upon JFK’s death, to Nixon and Ford, who took over upon Nixon’s resignation, to Carter, to Reagan, then his VP, Bush 41, to Clinton, to Bush 43, and now Obama. It’s almost like a marching cadence (former band members yell with me), “Left, right, left, right!”

And while “change” is everyone’s new favorite word, I don’t see that we’re in for a change to anything new. Largely what I see being offered are repackaged things that didn’t work before, and many of which in fact led us into the morass that was the 1970s. That said, this post is not about politicians’ politics. They make their promises, we hold elections, and someone is ceded power for a time. We’ll see how it works out, though many of us are sure we have a good idea where it’s headed.

No, the change I crave, and the change that will save our civilization is a fundamental change in the news media. It was long understood that an objective and free press was essential to the success of our Republic. It was so important that it was protected in the First Amendment, along with freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

But we have just finished an election cycle when we have seen newsmen and -women weep on air for a candidate. The inauguration again brought tears to the eyes of supposedly professional members of the media. Does it not strike anyone else that when newspersons have become so invested in a person’s success they can no longer be looked at to report objectively and truthfully on that person and his administration? If Nixon had been this adored by the press, Watergate would still be just a hotel.

When the news bureaus have been co-opted as extensions of the White House press office, it is a very bad thing, regardless of who the president is. And, it is thoroughly disingenuous for the media to have nothing but criticism and rancor for Republicans and undying love and affection for Democrats, while expecting us to believe it has nothing to do with party. We’re smarter than that.

We need newspersons who will report the news and allow us to draw our conclusions. We need newspersons who are committed to asking hard questions of every president. We need newspersons who understand that while we grasp the historical significance of President Obama’s election, wish him well, and respect him as the leader of this nation, there are over 58 million Americans who did not vote for him, nearly half (22) of the 50 states are still “red,” and some of us our here are still clinging to God and our guns. The president is most certainly entitled to his inauguration, and he is entitled to the spoils of victory, but we are entitled to unbiased and un-spun information.

A media that is in a president’s back pocket (especially when it was largely responsible for the destruction of his predecessor) is bad for the president and the nation. It is allowing the fox to guard the henhouse. And President Obama needs to learn one huge lesson from John McCain: live by the press, die by the press. If they make you, they can destroy you.

And so there are really two solutions here. One, the mainstream media could demand and reward true, genuine objectivity (and punish its lack) from its correspondents and anchors. A just-the-facts reporting style would certainly be welcome by me. That’s probably too much to ask, so alternatively the press could just give up any semblance of objectivity and fully disclose their leanings. “Good evening and welcome to the CBS Evening News. I’m Katie Couric, I am a liberal Democrat who voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 elections, and here’s my version of the news.” Honesty goes a long way with me.

A passel of celebrities, including Ashton Kutcher, Demi Moore, Marisa Tomei, Jason Bateman, Laura Linney, Josh Groban, Cameron Diaz, etc., have decided that now that the person they preferred for president has been elected they are Americans who pledge their service and loyalty to our new president and working for the good of all mankind. It’s nice to see celebrities concerned with someone other then themselves, but it is a bit striking that can seem to muster this great nobleness only when they are pleased with the outcome of an election.

Here’s their inane video:

MySpace Celebrity, Katalyst, and a Bunch of Moronic Hypocrites present The Presidential Pledge

The hypocrisy of these people is astounding. They start a video about the loneliness of the presidency with a message to President Obama that he’s not alone when these very self-same people and their ilk (not to mention their willing accomplices in the media) have worked tirelessly over the last eight years to demean, belittle, alienate, and excoriate President Bush. I have no words.

Hollywood boys and girls, welcome to the real world where many of us work toward these goals, and the objective of bettering our world in general, every day of our lives, regardless of whether we are happy about who serves in elected office. It’s nice to have you on board with this whole society thing.

Also, I can’t help but wonder is Alyssa Milano’s pledge to “be the voice for those who have no voice” extends to the womb?

Frankly, the only pledge I really wanted to hear was absent from the video. “Hello, I’m [insert name here], and I pledge to quit producing trash.”