Latest Exchange between the Dusty, the O’Reilly-Loving faux-Democrat, and Jerry, Progressive Radio Advocate

“Baker, Jerry R )”
to Dusty
  1:17 pm (7 hours ago)

Hi Dusty,

We’re getting to be regular penpals. First of all, you don’t have to convince me of the viability or the audience for oldies. AND, there is no need to even speak of your own reputation, because it speaks for itself. I’m a baby boomer and I love oldies. When I moved to Cincinnati in 1973, I listened to you on the radio regularly. I’m not campaigning to replace oldies stations with Progressive Political Talk. I’m campaigning to restore this format somewhere in this town, anywhere in this town, for the audience who wants it. There is an audience. OK, it’s not as big as your format attracts, but I don’t think that’s the debate.

I wanted the HCDP [Hamilton County Democratic Party] to help promote this format because it presents the Progressive, Democrat[ic] views to this SW Ohio audience who are monopolized by the right-wing. I like the Ed Schultz show, as well as Stephanie Miller, because every day, they have major voices from the Democratic Party in Congress on the air giving their views. For example, yesterday, Ed had Senator Sherrod Brown on his show, but I was probably one of the few in this town who heard the interview. As long as the right-wing conservatives, like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Cunningham have exclusive rights to the microphone, the Democratic Party will always suffer as a near-silent minority in this town.

With your permission, I’d like to share with you some research on Arbitron ratings I had done which drives much of what I wrote about in the paper and my answers to you.

Here it is:

  • I looked at the Arbitron Ratings in January, 2006 when Progressive talk was still on WCKY (after one full year of operation) and the Sports Format (“the Homer”) was still on WSAI. At that time, WSAI was ranked 15th (out of 38) with a 2.4 share. WCKY was 18th with a 1.3 share. As I said in my mail to you, and in the paper, this isn’t great, but it isn’t terrible either. There are 38 stations in the ratings and by definition, that means there are going to be 38 stations ranked. Being in smack in the middle is bad? I say no, not when these people get a FREE license to use public airwaves.
  • In July, 2006 Clear Channel, i.e. Darryl Parks, moved the Progressive Format off of WCKY and over to WSAI. Here is an article which was written at the time. It has a celebratory tone about it, i.e. the “liberals” failed and they’re being demoted, but it also contains some data which I quoted in my emails and it mentions your name.

The article thanks email contributors like “Dusty Rhodes” for alerting them to the story. I’m guessing (?) your unhappiness over the format displacing your team on WCKY might have maintained your interest in this? It’s not clear what role you played in writing the article, but you got some credit.

  • This article which was written when Clear Channel pulled the plug on the format at WSAI in December, 2006:

The article backs up my email which quoted WSAI’s share as 1.5 and 18th (out of 38) in the rankings when this decision was made. What’s this mean? It means that even after the Progressive format got moved from a 50,000 watt station (WCKY) to a 5,000 watt station (WSAI) in July, it held the same share it had earlier the year on the stronger station! The audience was not large but it was loyal! The article also states that Clear Channel did this for “cost cutting”. I object to this. I think this was a smack in the face to the listeners who were loyal to the format. And further………

  • I then looked at the ratings for Spring 2007. WSAI is NOT EVEN on the LIST! Meanwhile, WCKY, the Sports Channel Darryl Parks moved to 1530 when he kicked Progressive Radio over to WSAI was ranked 20th with a .8 SHARE! They lost 66% of their audience! Meanwhile, your station WDJO 1160 has was listed with a 1.0 share and t ranked 18th. What a coincidence.

Ok, I’m sorry to bomb you with data, but that’s what you get for communicating with an engineer.

Dusty, The original point of my editorial in the paper was that the 1996 Telecommunications Act has resulted in a monopoly in the radio industry, and the owners are not on our side. I was advocating the three points the CAP stressed with their report:

  1. Amend the act to restrict Monopolies like Clear Channel, Cumulous, and others from buying up all the stations.
  2. Remove the rubber stamp process for license renewals. The Act had changed the renewal period from 3 yrs. to 8 yrs. and no longer required the stations to get any public comments about how well they are serving their communities – a requirement for having a license!.
  3. Therefore, roll the renewal period back to 3 yrs. and reinstitute public comments. Then those of us who wanted to keep Progressive talk on the airwaves could have at least had a chance to speak out.

I noted that the one point you said we might agree about was the 1996 Telecommunications Act and the subsequent monopolization of the radio industry. That’s interesting, because your article in the paper accused me of “socialism” when I advocated a repeal of some of the points in the Act.

Also, my comments about putting Ed on WLW was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but the serious side of it was that I’m sure if Ed Schultz were carried on WKRC, he’d do very, very well in Cincinnati. I listen to him every day, and I obviously am a fan.

Dusty, as for your lying comment, since this is email, I can’t tell if you’re serious or not, but lying about going into war pales when compared to President Clinton’s sex scandal. If you’re referring to Iraq’s WMD capabilities, regardless of what President Clinton said back then on this topic, he was not irresponsible enough to invade the country. But that’s another subject.

As for Al Gore, I hope to God he runs for President. This country needs leadership and he’s showing more now than Bush could in a lifetime.

Yours in the cause.

Jerry Baker

P.S. Senator Sherrod Brown totally supports the above measures. I’ve attached his response to me, for your own information.

—–Original Message—–
From: Rhodes, Dusty []
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 12:45 PM
To: Baker, Jerry R

Subject: Response 2

My turn to “clarify”. I wasn’t “aggravated” when our oldies format was ditched. I thought it was a dumb programming move made to appease left-wingers who were complaining about successful conservative talk show hosts who attract a significant number of listeners.

I was proven right when the “progressive talk” format lost over half the audience we had in the first rating book after the switch. That came in spite of a huge paid and free publicity blitz, more than any other station in the market has had in the past decade at least. I’m not bitter about it. It’s just a fact. And, if anything, it gave them the best shot at success as any new format has ever had here.

As for the “talking points” buzz words, the only ones I’ve ever seen are those which are e-mailed from Alice Germond at the Democratic Party headquarters in Washington. It’s almost as if hurling the phrase “talking points” excuses you from having to deal with my arguments.

You may not want to believe it, but it is absolutely correct that the so-called “Progressive Radio” has been a failure almost everywhere. It was dead on arrival in Boston (Massachusetts) and Rush Limbaugh consistently out rated Al Franken by four-to-one or more in New York City, a city that went 83% for Kerry in 2004.

I’ll grant one or two exceptions, but that is all they are. Hannity is on over 500 radio stations and Limbaugh is on upward of 600. How many is Schulz on? If that program was the rip-roaring success you seem to think it is station managers across the country would be clamoring for it. They are not. There is no real difference in selling right-wing talk, left-wing talk, oldies or Swiss bells and gypsy fiddle music on radio. It’s listeners who count. Believe me, if progressive talk had any kind of reasonable audience they could and would sell it.

I don’t care if Hannity is afraid to appear with Ed Schulz. If I was trying to promote a new format on a new station, I’d be putting my best known personality forward. Like it or not, for WCKY that was Jerry Springer. Who cares about “national promotion” of a local station? Their interest should be local listeners. I’ll wager Springer is a bigger, better known name here than Schulz. Heck, I’ll bet he also has better national name ID than Schulz.

If we’re going to talk about “serving a segment of the audience”, the numbers show the oldies segment has a greater claim on service than left-wing talk. What about our “minority”? What about age-discrimination? As for the technical programs and signal complaints, we dealt with the same issues with our oldies format. Did I mention we had twice the audience “progressive talk” ever had on that station? Did I note we had virtually no outside promotion?

The folks at Clear Channel are not “my bosses”. They haven’t been since they dumped me for the “progressives”. Why shouldn’t they put me (back) on WLW? I had better numbers than Schulz ever did. Why the heck should they “kick off” Limbaugh or Hannity? Both those shows have plenty of listeners and advertisers. You have to be kidding on that one. You appear to be saying the vastly larger audience for Limbaugh and Hannity should be canned for the handful that listened to Schulz. Maybe we should also hire people to go around and force people to listen to Schulz as well.

Yeah, “Bush Lied”…and so did both Clintons, Gore, Kerry and most of the Democrats in Congress as well as our international allies. I’d say when a major network uses forged documents to try and affect a national election that is a pretty solid indicator of ongoing bias. What’s worse is, they present themselves as objective.

—Dusty Rhodes—


From: “Sherrod Brown” <>
To: “Baker, Jerry R

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 18:44:02 -0400
Subject: Reply from Senator Sherrod Brown
Dear Mr. Baker:

Thank you for expressing your concerns about the loss of Air America, Radio Free Ohio, and other liberal talk shows on Ohio radio stations.

A number of Ohio radio stations owned by Clear Channel Communications recently dropped liberal talk show programming on their radio stations and switched to alternative formats. While Clear Channel has the freedom to broadcast material of their choosing on radio channels they own, this situation does bring up issues of media consolidation.

The increasing consolidation of media ownership is troubling. The clearest example of ownership consolidation is radio. The most recent study shows that since passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, there are at least 1,100 fewer radio station owners, a decline of nearly 30 percent. In almost half of the largest markets, the three largest corporations have captured 80 percent of the radio audience.

During my Congressional career, I have been very active in fighting efforts to further consolidate media ownership. Competition is critical to ensuring a diversity and balance of news reporting, investigation, and ideas. You can be sure I will continue to fight to protect and encourage diversity in media ownership and oppose efforts to remove ownership caps. Thank you again for contacting me.

Sherrod Brown

Published in: on July 13, 2007 at 8:06 pm  Comments (1)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

One CommentLeave a comment

  1. Alas, Dusty Rhodes is typical of Cincinnati “Democrats”. It goes a long way toward explaining how an idiot like Jean Schmidt could be elected TWICE.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: