Shock Jocks

“It is our right and our duty to criticize the people who have put the fate of our country in peril,” Rush Limbaugh said this week on his syndicated radio show.

Although our country’s leading shock jock spoke in the aftermath of the massacre that left a federal judge and five others dead and Congresswomen Gabrielle Giffords critically injured, he was not referring to Jared Loughner or any of the many other well-armed gunmen who increasingly try to hold our democracy hostage. Instead, he typically assured his massive audience of self-described “ditto-heads” that the country is most imperiled by anyone who dares suggest that the daily hate fest on leading right-wing radio talk shows such as Limbaugh’s might have any connection with the violent acts that sometimes follow.

Rush is right” sort of. It is our duty to speak out! But Limbaugh’s assessment of who “has put the fate of our country in peril” is cockeyed. He says Democrats and progressives, who are trying to silence conservative voices, are to blame – but I say it’s El Rushbo and his fellow purveyors of hate speech on America’s public airwaves who are America’s real enemy. In fact, I wrote a whole book about it”

Limbaugh was among the shock jocks who “pushed back against arguments that their heated political rhetoric had played a role in the tragedy,” the New York Times reported in an article headlined “Talk Radio Hosts Reject Blame in Shooting.”

“Jon Justice,” Rush’s local equivalent, was another. Justice plies his talk trade at KQTH 104.1 FM, which calls itself “The Truth.”

“There isn’t any correlation,” Justice told the Times. “It’s like blaming Jodie Foster for the individual who shot Ronald Reagan.”

Justice and other local hosts “struck a defensive, even embattled tone” in response to remarks by Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik, who said at a news conference that Arizona had become “the mecca for prejudice and bigotry” and that local TV and radio hosts should do some “soul-searching,” the Times reported. “They said Saturday’s shooting had nothing to do with either their broadcasts or the state’s tense political environment.”

Some callers disagreed and “made it clear” they think the radio hosts bear some responsibility. “You ought to be ashamed,” one told Justice. “You are part of the problem.”

“People need to go and point fingers,” Justice responded. “It’s unfortunate, but some people do. They have to find somebody to demonize.”

Judge for yourself whether or not “Jon Justice” is being “demonized” – or if instead he is part of the problem. I profiled him back in August 2008 in a blog post called “The Truth, Jon Justice” and the American Way?”

In that post, I chronicled how Tucson’s bush-league Limbaugh (who reportedly lost a previous on-air slot when he pretended to drown a dog on-air) made anti-immigrant, racist and homophobic remarks on-air – and then posted sexist and racist videos on YouTube attacking Isabel Garcia, a well-known Arizona-based immigrant rights advocate.

“We’ve been facing down the forces of hate for years,” Garcia told me. “But it has never been like this before – until Jon Justice and hate radio 104.1 FM came around and began making derogatory comments and using hateful language while regularly fomenting lies, fear and misinformation about immigrants.”

Garcia’s associate Kat Rodriguez said she “would usually shrug this off as idiotic, but it has actually gained traction. This right-wing jerk, whose show is a constant stream of anti-immigrant, racist, and homophobic rhetoric, is leading the charge, even commenting the other day that we need “bloodshed in the polling places.” Nobody outside of Arizona knows what is going on, and the madness continues,” concluded Rodriguez.

Having been branded a lesbian, a communist and a terrorist, and likened to Al Qaeda, Garcia was then targeted by a local anti-Mexican immigration activist named Roy Warden. After threatening those he terms “Left Wing activists and Pendejo Thugs” that he will “draw my weapon and blow your freaking heads off,” Warden warned that he might “turn their skulls into red mush” in an attack that “will make the Shootout at the OK Corral look like a Sunday school picnic.”

Given that more people were killed in the recent Tucson shooting than died in the actual OK Corral episode, it seems fair to ask: Who is really putting the fate of our country in peril – hate-speaking shock jocks, or those who criticize them?

Don’t be a dittohead- make up your own mind! Here’s how my post from two-and-a half-years ago about on-air hate speech in Tucson ended:

“It’s not a stretch to ponder whether on-air remarks such as Jon Justice’s call for “bloodshed in the polling places” could one day prove to be the spark that turns such ominous hate speech into real-life acts of hatred – and real people’s skulls into – yes “real red mush”

Surprise! This just in — there’s “a push toward polarization” on cable TV and talk radio. How do I know? Michael Smerconish told me so, in the Washington Post.

Smerconish is one of the many nationally syndicated radio hosts (he’s also a columnist and MSNBC contributor) profiled in my recent book Shock Jocks. Now he’s suddenly reporting “from the front lines” that a quest for guaranteed “high ratings” has resulted in “a rapid escalation of extreme dialogue” The result, he says, has been a “climate in Washington…being shaped “by an artificial presentation of attitudes on cable TV and talk radio” as “politicians emulate the world of punditry.”

As one who has long argued that the real shock jock racket is the money racket – everyone but the victims makes millions, from national distributors and local stations to advertisers and sponsors to Rush ($50 million per year) Limbaugh et al — all I can say to Smerconish is, “Welcome to the Club!”

Who Knew? Atlantic editor Michael Kinsley listens “to a lot of talk radio,” where, he says, “you can often hear an idea or talking point spreading out among conservatives like a meme, or a weed…”

Recently, says Kinsley, “the theme was that anyone who criticizes Arizona’s new get-tough-on-illegal-immigration law is a hypocrite, because Mexico’s immigration laws are even tougher.” Kinsley, who lives in Seattle, says he “heard it on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved and a local guy named David Boze” and decided “it is an absurd point.”

Kinsley believes most Mexicans “would probably have no trouble agreeing with Rush and Sean and Glenn that Mexico is a dreadful place with a corrupt government that has terrible, onerous laws on many subjects.”

Obviously Kinsley doesn’t agree with the conservative shock jocks on this one — but I doubt many Mexicans agree with him either!

Zev Chafets, author of the forthcoming “Rush Limbaugh: An Army of One,” wrote a recent OpEd for the New York Times wherein he posited that, “Republican success in 2010 can be boiled down to two words: Rush Limbaugh.”

There’s a few large assumptions buried in that sentence, of course, starting with the idea that there has been — or will be — much “Republican success” this year. But Chafets IS correct in noting — as I have for some time — that El Rushbo is “the brains and the spirit” behind any conceivable GOP resurgence, as well as his assertion that, Limbaugh has consistently “mocked the notion that he was the titular leader of the Republicans even as he was becoming the party’s top strategist and de facto boss.”

His strategy was simple — but effective. “With Democrats controlling Congress, Mr. Limbaugh saw that there was no way to stop the president’s agenda… Instead he decreed that the Republicans must become the party of no, and force Democratic candidates “especially centrists “to go into 2010 with sole responsibility for the Obama program and the state of the economy. And that is what has happened.”

What will happen next? As Chafets notes, “Rush Limbaugh came along after the age of Ronald Reagan. He has never really had a Republican presidential candidate to his ideological satisfaction. But if the party sweeps this November under the banner of Real Conservatism, Mr. Obama will find himself facing two years of ‘no” in Washington and, very likely, a Limbaugh-approved opponent in 2012.”

Noam Chomsky tells ex-New York Times reporter Chris Hedges he has “never seen anything like this.’”

“This,” says the man Hedges believes is “America’s greatest intellectual,” is the frightening mood of the country — “the level of anger, frustration and hatred of institutions,” and the “self-destructive fantasies” that have Chomsky warning “that we have little time left to save our anemic democracy.”

“It is very similar to late Weimar Germany,” Chomsky told Hedges. “The parallels are striking.

“I don’t think all this is very far away,” he added. “If the polls are accurate it is not the Republicans but the right-wing Republicans, the crazed Republicans, who will sweep the next election.”

Apparently the noted linguist has been hearing some shocking things from America’s shock jocks — and their audience.

“I listen to talk radio,” Chomsky said. “I don’t want to hear Rush Limbaugh. I want to hear the people calling in. They are like [suicide pilot] Joe Stack. What is happening to me? I have done all the right things. I am a God-fearing Christian. I work hard for my family. I have a gun. I believe in the values of the country and my life is collapsing.”

In case you think Chomsky’s ire is limited to conservatives, however, think again! “Chomsky reserves his fiercest venom for the liberal elite in the press, the universities and the political system,” notes Hedges, “Who serve as a smoke screen for the cruelty of unchecked capitalism and imperial war. He exposes their moral and intellectual posturing as a fraud. And this is why Chomsky is hated, and perhaps feared, more among liberal elites than among the right wing he also excoriates.”

“I don’t bother writing about Fox News,” Chomsky says. “It is too easy. What I talk about are the liberal intellectuals, the ones who portray themselves and perceive themselves as challenging power, as courageous, as standing up for truth and justice. They are basically the guardians of the faith. They set the limits. They tell us how far we can go. They say, “Look how courageous I am.” But do not go one millimeter beyond that. At least for the educated sectors, they are the most dangerous in supporting power.”

I recently had the pleasure of sitting down for an interview with Russia Today journalist Anastasia Churkina to discuss a wide range of media issues. Inevitably, the subject of shock jocks and their targeting of vulnerable members of American society came up and…well, see for yourself!

Internet shock jock and F.B.I. confidential informant Hal Turner beat the rap again when his second federal “Death-Threat Trial,” ended in yet another mistrial.

Turner, charged with threatening the life of three federal judges who issued rulings supporting gun control, claims federal agents encouraged his seemingly dangerous rants over the years, and told him to “ratchet up the rhetoric” while asking for help in identifying a white supremacist killer. Government officials admit using him as an informant (beginning in 2004 and culminating in 2007) for intelligence on members of white supremacist groups, among whom he had a devoted following. Turner’s background as a paid F.B.I. informant has now become the main issue in the thus far unsuccessful prosecution.

As the New York Times reported, “Before, during and after his employ as an informant “sometimes to the chagrin of his handlers and sometimes at their request “Mr. Turner continued to use his radio show and Web site to spout racist and, at times, violent rhetoric aimed at elected officials, public personalities and judges.”

Suddenly last summer, however, Turner was arrested, accused of posting photos of the judges and saying they were “worthy of death.”

In his hours on the witness stand, Turner detailed his ascent as a shock jock, as well as his relationship with the F.B.I.. Michael A. Orozco, one of Turner’s lawyers, offered as a defense that his client is “nothing but a shock jock.” Turner’s “hand was guided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” Orozco said. “He was providing a service. This is betrayal.”

Turner has long been notorious for making anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic, white supremacist remarks and encouraging violence on his Internet radio show and companion Web site.

Last June, for example, he posted this message: “The government “especially these three judges “are cunning, ruthless, untrustworthy, disloyal, unpatriotic, deceitful scum.” The judges all testified at trial that they felt threatened. Turner later took the stand to say his rants were an F.B.I.-sanctioned ruse to “‘flush out’” dangerous members of his audience.

Were Turner’s comments a clear threat, as prosecutors alleged, or simply “the type of free speech that the F.B.I. had encouraged and condoned in the past,” as defense lawyers contended? Despite the fact that the government actually brought in the judges who were Turner’s targets to testify in the second trial, two sets of jurors have now failed to come to a consensus on that crucial question.

A new trial date has been set for April 12, and lead prosecutor William Hogan, says “it’s highly likely” the government will take another bite at the apple. Third times a charm?

Turner also faces state charges in Connecticut, for telling his followers to “take up arms” against state lawmakers who voted to give Catholic lay members more control over church finances.

Testifying at his federal “Death-Threat Trial,” Internet shock jock and FBI confidential informant Hal Turner said federal agents — while asking his help in identifying a white supremacist killer — told him to “ratchet up the rhetoric.”

Turner, on trial for threatening the life of three federal judges who issued rulings supporting gun control, claims he followed the agents” suggestion immediately, posting a picture of Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow of Federal District Court in Chicago on his blog below the headline “Gotcha!” and later appearing on television to declare the judge “worthy of death.” In exchange, Turner said, he was paid by the F.B.I.

In his five hours on the witness stand, Turner detailed his ascent as a shock jock, as well as his relationship with the F.B.I. , which he says encouraged his seemingly racist rants over the years. Turner’s first trial ended with a deadlocked jury last year, with prosecutors admitting then that he was an F.B.I. informant.

In that trial, Michael A. Orozco, one of Turner’s lawyers, offered as a defense that his client is “nothing but a shock jock.” Turner has long been notorious for making anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic, white supremacist remarks and encouraging violence on his Internet radio show and companion Web site. Last June, for example, he posted this message: “The government “especially these three judges “are cunning, ruthless, untrustworthy, disloyal, unpatriotic, deceitful scum.”

Offering that opinion was certainly Turner’s right “but going on to say, “These judges deserve to be killed” may not be. “That is not just political rhetoric,” said the prosecutor, assistant United States attorney William R. Hogan. “It is not O.K. “very definitely not O.K. “for him to call for their execution and their murder.”

That’s when Orozco chimed in. Not only was Turner just a “shock jock” offering constitutionally-protected “opinion,” he was also speaking and acting in accordance with guidelines the F.B.I. had set out for him as a confidential informer, Orozco noted. In fact, he added, the F.B.I. had even requested that Turner turn up the heat and the volume of his remarks to impress “and perhaps infiltrate “certain shadowy groups the Bureau was looking into. Turner’s “hand was guided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” Orozco said. “He was providing a service. This is betrayal.”

Prosecutor Hogan acknowledged in his opening statement that Turner was an informer for the government, beginning in 2004 and culminating in 2007.

In his retrial, Mr. Turner has claimed he is opposed to the racist views he expounded, and said he never wanted anyone to get hurt.
Instead, he says, he is a a patriot who worked on behalf of the government to infiltrate the white supremacist movement, and never believed the messages he put forth supposedly at the behest of the feds. As proof, he offered a letter he wrote to an F.B.I. agent that noted, “the person you hear [or hear about] on radio is not real life.”

Turner also faces state charges in Connecticut, for telling his followers to “take up arms” against state lawmakers who voted to give Catholic lay members more control over church finances.

The memorandum below was distributed to the staff of Air America Media on January 21, 2010:

From: Charlie Kireker
Date: January 21, 2010 4:36:59 PM EST
To: All
Subject: Air America Operations
It is with the greatest regret, on behalf of our Board, that we must announce that Air America Media is ceasing its live programming operations as of this afternoon,
and that the Company will file soon under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code to carry out an orderly winding-down of the business.

The very difficult economic environment has had a significant impact on Air America’s business. This past year has seen a “perfect storm” in the media industry generally.
National and local advertising revenues have fallen drastically, causing many media companies nationwide to fold or seek bankruptcy protection. From large to small,
recent bankruptcies like Citadel Broadcasting and closures like that of the industry’s long-time trade publication Radio and Records have signaled that these are very difficult and rapidly changing times.

Those companies that remain are facing audience fragmentation as a result of new media technologies, are often saddled with crushing debt, and have generally found it
difficult to obtain operating or investment capital from traditional sources of funding. In this climate, our painstaking search for new investors has come close several times right up into this week, but ultimately fell short of success.

With radio industry ad revenues down for 10 consecutive quarters, and reportedly off 21% in 2009, signs of improvement have consisted of hoping things will be less bad.
And though Internet/new media revenues are projected to grow, our expanding online efforts face the same monetization and profitability challenges in the short term confronting the Web operations of most media companies.

When Air America Radio launched in April, 2004 with already-known personalities like Al Franken and then-unknown future stars like Rachel Maddow, it was the
only full-time progressive voice in the mainstream broadcast media world. At a critical time in our nation’s history — when dissent on issues such as the Iraq war were
often denounced as “un-American” – Air America and its talented team helped millions of Americans remember the importance of compelling discussion about the most
pivotal events and decisions of our generation.

Through some 100 radio outlets nationwide, Air America helped build a new sense of purpose and determination among American progressives. With this revival,
the progressive movement made major gains in the 2006 mid-term elections and, more recently, in the election of President Barack Obama and a strongly Democratic Congress.

Laws have changed for the better thanks to this revival…..but all the same our company cannot escape the laws of economics. So we intend a rapid, orderly
closure over the next few days. All current employees will be paid through today, January 21. A severance package will be offered tomorrow to full-time current
employees with more than six months of tenure.

We will strive to assist affiliates and partners in achieving a smooth transition. Starting at 6 pm EST today, we will provide our affiliates, listeners and users a
selection of encore programming until 9 pm EST on Monday, January 25, at which time Air America programming will end.

We are proud that Air America’s mission lives on through the words and actions of so many former radio hosts who are active today in progressive
causes and media nationwide. In the years ahead, as we look back, we should all be proud of our passionate determination to assure that our nation’s
progressive voice would be heard loud and clear. Through the hard work and dedication of current staff, and those who preceded you, a lasting legacy
was forged which will now continue through other voices and venues.

Thank you.

Charlie Kireker
Chair, Air America Media

Max Blumenthal explores whether newly-elected New Jersey Chris Christie granted legal protection to Neo-Nazi radio host Hal Turner for his undercover role in a federal program to “flush out” violent far-right plots…

Turner walked out of a Brooklyn courtroom a free man on December 7, after being charged by federal prosecutors with incitement for urging his listeners to kill three judges who issued rulings supporting gun control. He escaped conviction when the jury deadlocked, forcing mistrial. But Turner will return to trial soon –a retrial was scheduled for March 1 in Brooklyn, where the case was moved based on a change-of-venue request — as well as in Connecticut, where he faces state charges for telling his followers to “take up arms” against state lawmakers who voted to give Catholic lay members more control over church finances.