So today I have become the poster child for all that is wrong with evil conservative talk radio -- and Exhibit A in the Left's case for the return of the fairness Doctrine. An article in the new Milwaukee Magazine focuses on Jeff Wagner and me… but mostly me and their his genuine excitement among the netroots. The article, which purports to be an "insiders" view is written by Dan Shelley, a former news director here.  

The uber-lefty website the Daily Kos is exultant because a new expose on “The Secrets of Talk Radio” confirms all of their cartoonish stereotypes:

 Yes, they get White House talking points. Yes, they purposely echo other wingnuts. Yes, they play the 'victim' card. And above all: yes, yes, yes,  IOKIYAR.

WTMJ is host to the wingnut Charlie Syke's show. The ex-news director, Dan Shelley, spills the beans about how the wingnut radio format works.

No news here - except here it is black and white, from the trenches. Reading this article made me yearn for the Fairness Doctrine.

 My reaction: This is the best they can do: a liberal news guy who doesn’t like conservative talk radio? Death threats from enraged tennis fans? My opposition to endless on-air weather hype? Apparently a diatribe by a disgruntled former liberal news guy rehashing liberal stereotypes about conservative talk radio was simply too good to check.  (No one from the station was interviewed or contacted by either Shelley or the magazine or given a chance to comment in the magazine’s December issue. Although the magazine has fact checkers, they apparently were not used. We were offered a chance to respond, but only a month from now, in the January edition. Who wants to wait that long?)

Obviously Dan and I  had different points of view. I'm conservative. he's liberal. I'm a talk show host, he was a fierce defender of the MSM. When I did talk with him (as a colleague) it was because I wanted to get a different (liberal journalist) perspective, which seems to undermine his central point, doesn’t it?  

Unfortunately, you’ll learn more about how I do my show by actually listening to it than by reading this piece, but by all means read the piece: In Dan’s critique, no cliché goes unturned. No liberal urban legend goes un-repeated. Unfortunately, it tells you more about liberal media loathing for talk radio than about what actually goes on, about which the liberal media is amazingly uninformed. Much of it is actually kind of silly, some of it misleading and the article contains at least one glaring falsehood.  

But let’s start with the good stuff:  

Consider the very first anecdote of the Dangers of Talk Radio: 

One year, Charlie targeted me because I had instructed my midday news anchor to report the Wimbledon tennis results, even though the matches wouldn’t be telecast until much later in the day…. I was flooded with hate mail, nasty messages, and even one death threat from a federal law enforcement agent whom I knew to be a big Charlie fan.

You know those scary, bloodthirsty TENNIS fans…. Who listen to talk radio. The folks beyond the well-known phenomenon of tennis terrorism, tennis riots, etc.  Seriously, I’m not making this up. It is, however, interesting what scares liberal news guys. Seriously, isn’t it time to expose the underlying simmering rage among fans of things like Wimbledon?

 **

There is no way to win a disagreement with Charlie Sykes. Calls from listeners who disagree with him don’t get on the air if the show’s producer, who generally does the screening, fears they might make Charlie look bad.

Actually, the producers are specifically instructed to find an opposing caller to put on FIRST. That makes for the best call topics. That’s talk show 101. For most of the last decade Joe Scialfa has been my producer and the executive producer of WTMJ. His response: "The callers that I screen out who "do not agree" with Charlie, usually get screened out because the are not on topic.  They want to take the converstation in a completely different direction in order to get to their agenda.   I will also at times screen out "regular" callers who believe that it is their show."

 **I witnessed several occasions when Sen. Russ Feingold, former Mayor John Norquist, Mayor Tom Barrett or others would call in, but wouldn’t be allowed on the air.

"Any moron who listens to the station knows that conservative talk radio hosts work to craft a message that appeals to conservatives. (I know what a crazy concept!).  What shocks me is how factually wrong he is throughout the piece.   I was "the producer" who would have been in position to do many of the things that he references.  Rest assured that Russ Feingold has NEVER called Charlie's show to be on the air.  I can also count the numerous times that Mayor Barrett or former Mayor Norquist called the show and was immediately put on the air.  In contrast I can only think of a hand full of times that either called the show and were not put on the air.  The idea that Dan was in the studio many times when these people called the show and he saw them get denied is farcical.  The ONLY time Dan was ever in the studio was when he filled in to do a news cast, severe weather or during news conferences.   I am curious how often CBS simply lets a person on the air who simply stops in the studio or calls on the show when they had not been pre-scheduled? I can guarantee we have done it about a thousand times more than any other form of media." 

Actually, conservative politicians have tried to get on the show and given the bum rush far more often than liberal pols.  

Conservative talk show hosts would receive daily talking points e-mails from the Bush White House, the Republican National Committee and, during election years, GOP campaign operations.  

Despite the passionately held faith of the left, we don’t use daily talking points. We have a technology that allows us to send incoming emails directly to “Junk Mail,” so my only interaction with these spam/spin emails is when I hit the “Delete Junk Mail” button. Sorry, Dan, for an “insider” you just bought an urban legend (but one that will be eagerly believed by folks on the left.)

Charlie and Jeff would also check what other conservative talk show hosts around the country were saying. Rush Limbaugh’s Web site was checked at least once daily. Atlanta-based nationally syndicated talker Neal Boortz was another popular choice. 

 Yes, I do check the website of Neal Boortz, but neither I nor my producer uses Rush Limbaugh’s site for prep --- as Dan ought to know Rush’s show comes on after mine. Anything on his site is a day old: we widely distribute my producers prep sheet to other staffers and as far as I can find there is not a single instance where anything from Rush’s show has been used as part of our prep. Another beautiful myth dashed.

If Dan or anybody else from the magazine would have asked we could have showed them our actual sources of prep, which include the Wall Street Journal, the Journal-Sentinel, the Racine Journal-Times, the Madison Newspapers, FARK, The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, Real Clear Politics, Forbes, The LA Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, Time magazine, Newsweek magazine, the Weekly Standard, National Review ABC, CBS, along with websites like Powerline, Hotair, Drudge, the Huffington Post and a dozen or so local bloggers, including Boots and Sabers and Badger Blogger.  

Dan probably knows this, but mentioning all of the sources would have ruined his….talking point. 

As listeners know, none of this is a secret, because I often cite articles from different sources and frequently publish links on my blog (just scroll down.) Again, no secret here.

Then there is the notorious Battle of the Snowstorm:

One day during a very bad snowstorm, I walked into the studio during a commercial break and suggested to Charlie that he start talking about it rather than whatever conservative topic he’d been discussing. Charlie assumed, as he usually did in such situations, that I was being critical of his topic. In reaction, he unplugged his head phones, stood up and told me that I might as well take over the show because he wasn’t going to change his topic. I was able to quickly strike a bargain before the end of the break. He agreed to take a few calls about the storm, but if it didn’t a strike a nerve with callers, he could return to his original topic.  

Ok, this is probably true. I didn’t immediately give in to pressure to drop everything and hype the weather. Except, that in this case, I did agree to do what Dan suggested. The problem? 

 The fact is that we did disagree about weather coverage. I used to joke about Dan’s obsession with hyping every storm or threat of storm. He would become aroused by STORM ALERTS! of any sort, from a spring drizzle to lake effect snow. Dan took his weather hype, very, very seriously. Obviously he was offended. But I honestly don’t think we really needed any more media-driven weather hype and did, indeed push back on occasion. My bad.

 When news of the alleged massacre at Haditha first trickled out in the summer of 2006, not even Iraq War chest-thumper Charlie Sykes would defend the U.S. Marines accused of killing innocent civilians in the Iraqi village. So he spent lots of air time criticizing how the “mainstream media” was sure to sensationalize the story in the coming weeks. Charlie would kill the messengers before any message had even been delivered.

 Um, somebody needs to tell Dan that 7 of the 8 Marines have been cleared of the charges. So, as it turns out, much of the media coverage WAS sensationalized and misleading. The Marines are still waiting for their apologies….  

**

I’ve saved the most serious point for last.  

Nor will hosts spend their credibility on an issue where they know they disagree with listeners. Charlie, for example, told me just before I left TMJ that Wisconsin’s 2006 anti-gay marriage amendment was misguided. But he knew his followers would likely vote for it in droves. So he declined to speak out directly against it.

  Au contraire.

As Dan said, I had reservations about the amendment, which I expressed publicly both in print and on the air. This was not enough; Dan insisted I take a public stand against the amendment.  We disagreed on many issues, but Dan was passionate about this one. He was strongly opposed to the amendment banning gay marriage and pleaded with me to come out against it. (Remember, this was the non-ideological, non-biased news director.)  

Dan was deeply disappointed when I did not, and chooses to mischaracterize my motives, which he assumes were craven; that I was simply afraid of my audience.  

What a load of crappy crap crap. And this time, I can prove it. 

I spent hours on my radio show, on television (you can watch a clip here) and wrote extensively on the issue, including this lengthy article. I also wrote an article for a Madison newspaper titled: "Gay Marriage Amendment: I'm Undecided." Shelley have missed it, but my ongoing and very public commentary on the issue created quite a stir at the time including this and this. I also hosted an hour long debate on my show between supporters and opponents of the amendment.

 So, far from having a private position on the issue, my doubts and concerns were aired repeatedly, some would say ad nauseum. As were my reasons for ultimately not opposing the ban: on balance I feared that an activist Supreme Court would mandate gay marriage, as they have done in other states.  I made that case here. No secrets. It's right there.  

And here is where Dan exposes his hand: he obviously did not actually listen to what I said on my show. He did not hear what listeners of my radio show and viewers of my television show saw and heard.