Michael Moore's Commentary on George W. Bush and the Enron Corporation - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-01-2002, 08:38 PM   #16
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl:
Well then, Bubba, please don't call people in this forum "not that bright" when they agree with, or enjoy reading, someone you happen to disagree with. That, of course, is patronizing.

[This message has been edited by joyfulgirl (edited 02-01-2002).]
From Merriam-Webster Online:

Patronize: to adopt an air of condescension toward : treat haughtily or coolly.

I'd say your little comment, "That's nice. Feel better about yourself now?" fits the definition quite well.

At the very least, I was being forthright; I honestly believe what I said. I wasn't being sarcastic or jeering. I wasn't being an ass about it.

Now, I may be wrong about Moore fans: they *might* not be idiots. I should remember that some are just very gullible.

There is some room for disagreement, certainly. But Moore is so terribly wrong that I will not just say, "Oh, I guess that's how he sees the world, and maybe he does have good reasons for apparently believing that the United States is the most evil force on Earth."

He is wrong, and you are wrong to agree with him.

On to Melon.
__________________

__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 09:15 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zonelistener's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: six convenient metro locations
Posts: 14,747
Local Time: 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
No, even factoring in Stern, Imus, Larry King, Paul Harvey, and whoever else you want to mention, Rush is STILL undisputed King of the Radio....
What do you base this on? Ratings? Advertising revenue? Affiliate distribution? What makes him the "King of the Radio"?
__________________

__________________
zonelistener is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 09:40 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:26 PM
Well, I am not about to proclaim any "king" of the radio, but I'll tell you right now that talk radio is dominated by conservatives. Stating that anyone is the "king" of radio isn't much of a compliment, considering talk radio has a very low audience share...the true "king" of radio are Top 40 stations.

But a "king" is a "king," I guess, even if his "kingdom" only has a dozen subjects.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 09:48 PM   #19
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 02:26 PM
A dozen?

How about 20 million a week.

Rush has the highest ratings, the highest revenues, the most stations, and a contract signed last year (I believe) that was RECORD BREAKING.

Last I heard, Rush had 600 stations, and according to the most recent site I could find, Howard Stern has 42.

Given both the benefit of the doubt (Rush losing 100, Sterning gaining 10), Rush still has TEN TIMES AS MANY STATIONS.

No other individual so dominates a medium, even if his program is "talk radio", surely a format relegated to the easily swayed masses that just happen to make this country work.

While I have Melon's attention...

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 02-01-2002).]
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 09:48 PM   #20
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon:
Great article.

And the conservatives in this forum are right on cue. What do they hate? The fact that he is probably correct.
Riiiiight.

Quote:
Bubba, your argument makes you seem not that bright. If you dislike what he has said, the least you could do is state "why," rather than resurrect your post Sept. 11th dismissal of him, which, I might remind you, I found myself disagreeing with the articles as well then. Put aside Moore's continuing flaw--his partisanship--and read his description Enron's association with the Bush (I and II) Administrations.
My argument?

Melon, I'd love to see what forum you're looking at, because you've now gone from bad to worse. As I've asserted time and again, you have this really nasty habit of twisting my arguments into things that simply cannot be implied. NOW, you're finding arguments that I don't make.

I will quote myself, not that ever does ANY good:

"I have, in the past, picked the imbecile's pseudo-arguments apart, which has apparently come to naught. I may yet respond in detail to this shit, but I think I can summarize now:

"Michael Moore is an idiot.

"And if you agree with him, you are also not that bright."


I basically said, I'm not making any arguments, though I may later.

I admitted to not making any arguments. Melon, where the FUCK is "my argument" and how does all this make me seem "not that bright"?

Beyond that, why SHOULD I assert why I think he's horribly mistaken when the knee-jerks can get away with such meaningless responses as, "So true."

If the defenders of Michael Moore, a man who is an extremist on ANYONE'S scale, can defend him without being required to add anything thoughtful to the discussion, then the detractors should have that feedom as well.


That said, Moore's tirade falls apart on many levels:


It seems to me there are four situations involving a politician and the policies he supports, each starting with the premise that he ideologically supports Policy A.

1. Mr. Smith supports A; a group in support of of Policy A contributes to his campaign; he continues to support A.

2. Smith supports A; a pro-A group funds him; he changes his mind and supports B.

3. Smith supports A; a group that supports an alternative B contributes to his campaign; he STILL continues to support A.

4. Smith supports A; a pro-B group funds his campaign; he changes his mind to B.

In (1) and (2), what we have is a group supporting a candidate because he already supports their cause. It's like the NRA supporting an established pro-gun candidate. I believe it is the normal way of politics; groups support candidates that already champion their causes.

In (1), the candidate still supports A, but he would have done so without the funding from the group. The funding didn't affect his behavior; thus, no scandal.

Honestly, (2) seems quite rare, and one certainly can't assert that the group's funding changed his mind. I think it can be safely disregarded here.

In (3) and (4), the candidate supports one thing and the group supports another. It seems clear that they are trying to influence the candidate so that will change his mind at a later date. This is also probably quite frequent, but it's not necessarily cause for alarm.

In (3), the candidate ignores the funding and sticks to his principles. The funding doesn't affect his behavior; again, no scandal.

In (4), I think we have a reason to raise an eyebrow or two. It appears that the groups funding influenced and altered the man's behavior. That's very bad.

Basically, it's only bad if the contributions caused the politician to do something he wouldn't have done without the funding.

The problem is, everything Moore mentioned is either quite speculative or falls under (1) or (3) - NOT (4).

As an example, the suggestion that Enron's chiefs "interviewed" candidates for Administration positions is so speculative that very few others are touching it. Given that there are quite a few who in the mainstream press who desparately want to find a scandal, this seems to indicate there's NONE to find.

An example of (1)? Bush hiring people he personally knows in the oil and energy industries should be expected; presidents hire who they know and can trust, just as Clinton hired lawyer friends. Bush's handling of the energy problems in California, energy policies in general, and tax policy fall clearly under conservative ideaology. Thus, one can't point to Enron and say, "That's why he did it!"

An example of (3): the fact that Bush did NOT help bail Enron out. I believe this is most telling. Here you have an example where Bush could have chosen a big contributor over the principles of the free market, and HE CHOSE HIS PRINCIPLES. Whether you agree with the decision is irrelevant; what matters is that he appears to have chosen his conscience of contributions.

There's no reliable evidence of (4), the only scenario that matters.


Another major complaint is related to the fact that Bush refused to help Enron. Quite a few partisans (Daschle in particular) have been so desparate to find a scandal - ANY SCANDAL - that their accusations are contradictory and illogical.

Bush has Enron ties, so he must have helped Enron, right? Doesn't look that way, so the new argument is, "Well, he just stood there and let it happen! He should have helped the little guy!"

And Moore has followed Daschle's suit, proof that his partisanship comes above his "compelling arguments."

The suggestion that Bush was wrong to do nothing BEGS the question, what, then, should he have done? No president has ever, should ever, or probably will ever announce that a company is collapsing and that its employees should sell its stocks immediately.

K-Mart has been on the brink; Bush did nothing there, so I suppose that's his fault too?

Picture it, Melon: Say Bush makes the announcement that Enron is falling apart and employees and stockholders should sell while they can.

WHO THE FUCK IS GOING TO BUY THAT STOCK?

No one.

Bush would make Enron stock immediately worthless. The only thing he COULD have done was somehow convince others to buy up that stock, but you're still stuck with the problem of people having a less valuable portfolio - a problem presidents have never addressed. To use Moore's analogy, to save the people in the house, he would have had to convince others to take their place. The suggestion is absurd.


Finally, my last major complaint is that, as a writer, he's sloppy. The title of the article is "George W. in the Garden of Gethsemane", an allusion to Christ's final prayer before being turned over to the Romans. If he's making the comparison between Bush and Christ, then he's ignoring a REALLY salient part of the story of Gethsemane: Christ was falsely accused.

Beyond that, the "Gethsemane" bit never enters into the article, and the only other reference to the Bible is, "The cock
has crowed for the last time." This is a reference to Peter's betrayal, which doesn't even occur in the garden, and probably has nothing to do with the analogy he was trying to make.

Michael Moore is a hateful, hateful man; his hate makes his arguments unreasonable and his prose unreadable.

That is why I dislike the man and disdain those who find him so profound.
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 09:58 PM   #21
The Fly
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: wrapped around Bono's little finger
Posts: 196
Local Time: 07:26 PM
Got really dizzy and nauceous scrolling through that Actung, appro. name isn't it.
__________________
U2live is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 10:42 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
How about 20 million a week.
Compare that to the fact that 136,218,800 people listened to the radio weekly for at least 15 minutes in Spring 2001, according to Arbitron. That "20 million" amounts to approximately 6.18% of listeners. Not exactly worthy of a "king," now is it?

Quote:
While I have Melon's attention...
Oh I am all ears...

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 11:05 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
I admitted to not making any arguments. Melon, where the FUCK is "my argument" and how does all this make me seem "not that bright"?
When you made a blanket statement that people who agree with Moore aren't that bright and don't even substantiate it with a reason is why it sounded "not that bright." I think we've argued enough over personal attacks over time, to the point that it just goes in circles and goes nowhere, so, hopefully, we can leave it at that.

Quote:
If the defenders of Michael Moore, a man who is an extremist on ANYONE'S scale, can defend him without being required to add anything thoughtful to the discussion, then the detractors should have that feedom as well.
In case you haven't picked up on public opinion outside of your immediate environment, the general consensus is that Rush Limbaugh is a right-wing extremist not even worthy of listening to. Shall I now call everyone who listens to him (which does include you) an extremist and "not that bright"?

Quote:
It's like the NRA supporting an established pro-gun candidate. I believe it is the normal way of politics; groups support candidates that already champion their causes.
And if the former leadership of the NRA dominated the inner circle of a president's administration and the head of the NRA starting personally crafting policy next to the Vice President, we'd have Enron. "Support" is one thing, but this has potentially gone beyond "support."

Quote:
Basically, it's only bad if the contributions caused the politician to do something he wouldn't have done without the funding.
I'm not even talking about campaign funding at this point.

Quote:
As an example, the suggestion that Enron's chiefs "interviewed" candidates for Administration positions is so speculative that very few others are touching it. Given that there are quite a few who in the mainstream press who desparately want to find a scandal, this seems to indicate there's NONE to find.
Bubba, Bubba, Bubba...are you trying to tell me that if the "action news" doesn't report on it, it isn't true? Our media, nowadays, is little more than broadcast tabloids and quick snippets. Much of what Moore is talking about here is what the "action news" crews consider "ancient history." It's just like Jon-Benet Ramsey and Gary Condit/Chandra Levy...still happened, but it is old news.

Quote:
An example of (1)? Bush hiring people he personally knows in the oil and energy industries should be expected; presidents hire who they know and can trust, just as Clinton hired lawyer friends. Bush's handling of the energy problems in California, energy policies in general, and tax policy fall clearly under conservative ideaology. Thus, one can't point to Enron and say, "That's why he did it!"
Here's another example. California, during it's energy crisis, asks for help to stop the wholesale energy price gouging, which was selling for several times more than what it was normally worth. The Bush Administration refuses. How funny, considering Enron is in the business of wholesale energy trading. Now did the Bush Administration really not regulate the price out of true "supply and demand" concerns, or to make his pal, Kenneth Lay of Enron, happy? The "action news" won't report on this, because the California energy crisis is ancient history.

Quote:
WHO THE FUCK IS GOING TO BUY THAT STOCK?
I really would love to see the scenario if you had worked at Enron for twenty to thirty years and watched your $1 million pension fund fall into oblivion, helpless as you are forbidden to sell. Meanwhile, Lay runs off with over $100 million. But I guess this thing called "empathy" doesn't fit into "supply and demand" theories.

Quote:
Bush would make Enron stock immediately worthless.
As it is now.

Besides, I actually believe Cheney when he says that Bush was ignorant of all this. I don't think Bush is the one running our nation anyway.

Quote:
Finally, my last major complaint is that, as a writer, he's sloppy. The title of the article is "George W. in the Garden of Gethsemane", an allusion to Christ's final prayer before being turned over to the Romans. If he's making the comparison between Bush and Christ, then he's ignoring a REALLY salient part of the story of Gethsemane: Christ was falsely accused.
Well, that is a worthy criticism of Moore. In the midst of his arguments, he resorts to histrionics and partisanship. But I am not talking about that. I think you are smart enough to discern the attempts at comedics from actual factual discussion.

Quote:
Michael Moore is a hateful, hateful man; his hate makes his arguments unreasonable and his prose unreadable.

That is why I dislike the man and disdain those who find him so profound.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but, likewise, I see your pal, Rush Limbaugh, as a hateful, hateful man. The difference, of course, being that you agree with your despot and I tend to agree with my own. That, Bubba, is the nature of politics. In the middle of it all, the truth never comes out.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-02-2002, 12:42 AM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zonelistener's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: six convenient metro locations
Posts: 14,747
Local Time: 02:26 PM
Wow, this was fun! Can we do it again tomorrow?

Melon, I would say 6% of listeners would be high. I'm sure Mr. Stern's program is up there. And ad revenue, I doubt you can beat Mr. Stern. Wish I could actually find the numbers on the web.

Bubba - Melon's right. Limbaugh is just as bad as Moore - and the people who follow him like puppy dogs, waiting on his every word (I knew a few in college, God save them), could also be viewed as Idiots.
__________________
zonelistener is offline  
Old 02-02-2002, 12:48 AM   #25
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 02:26 PM
Four things stuck out in your last post:

In no particular order...

Bubba, Bubba, Bubba...are you trying to tell me that if the "action news" doesn't report on it, it isn't true? Our media, nowadays, is little more than broadcast tabloids and quick snippets. Much of what Moore is talking about here is what the "action news" crews consider "ancient history." It's just like Jon-Benet Ramsey and Gary Condit/Chandra Levy...still happened, but it is old news.

No, but I *am* saying that enough in the media and in Congress are gunning after Bush that the mainstream media is covering the biggest stories in this so-called scandal.

And I can say this because I remember Clinton protraying the Republican Congress as wanting to starve children and kill senior citizens - and he WASN'T nailed for what was clearly bullshit.

(Oh, I know, Melon. We DO want to kill old folks, right? We're also homophobes and racists who want nothing more than seeing the little guy in the world bled dry. Did that cover all the stereotypes?)


Here's another example. California, during it's energy crisis, asks for help to stop the wholesale energy price gouging, which was selling for several times more than what it was normally worth. The Bush Administration refuses. How funny, considering Enron is in the business of wholesale energy trading. Now did the Bush Administration really not regulate the price out of true "supply and demand" concerns, or to make his pal, Kenneth Lay of Enron, happy? The "action news" won't report on this, because the California energy crisis is ancient history.

The question is, would Bush be doing this if it weren't for the Enron contributions? If so, it's further evidence that the contributions don't matter, and there is no scandal.

You can certainly dispute whether the policy is good, but that's beyond the scope of the seemingly brilliant Moore article.

(By the way, it's not really an article, is it? I mean, he wrote it, sure. But is ANYBODY on God's green Earth publishing this? Is this thread alone doubling or tripling the number of people that give a shit about what Moore thinks?)


I really would love to see the scenario if you had worked at Enron for twenty to thirty years and watched your $1 million pension fund fall into oblivion, helpless as you are forbidden to sell. Meanwhile, Lay runs off with over $100 million. But I guess this thing called "empathy" doesn't fit into "supply and demand" theories.

No, empathy fits, just not government-funded empathy.

And it still begs the question, what should Bush have done? Reminding us of the tragedy the Enron employees have gone through brings us no closer to an answer to that question.

Or should I simply lump you in with Moore and suggest that neither of you have anything constructive to say?


Finally, I'm damn tired of the comparisons between Moore and Limbaugh. Moore is clearly more extreme, even within the liberal movement; obviously less popular, as no one apparently publishes him; and more hateful, in that I've yet to see him actually suggest any solutions to the apparent problems.

In case you haven't picked up on public opinion outside of your immediate environment, the general consensus is that Rush Limbaugh is a right-wing extremist not even worthy of listening to. Shall I now call everyone who listens to him (which does include you) an extremist and "not that bright"?

No, I haven't picked up on the "consensus".

And I don't think you have either.

Do you have any - oh, what's the word? - EVIDENCE to support your claim?

Yes? No?

Care to retract your claim?
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 02-02-2002, 12:55 AM   #26
The Fly
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: i don't know. if someone finds me send for help
Posts: 53
Local Time: 07:26 PM
dano, thanks for the post. had to forward it on, priceless. to those that disagree or are offended, i have this to say: i respect and enjoy healthy debate, but when one resorts to name-calling and insults, it screams volumes about the one insulting and says nothing about the one being insulted. for that reason i rarely choose to post in these political discussions. although i have read many interesting threads, i choose not to waste my days engaged in pissing contests with total strangers. to that end-a brief word of knee jerk support----so true! lynn
__________________
hotasahandbag is offline  
Old 02-02-2002, 01:08 AM   #27
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by zonelistener:
Melon, I would say 6% of listeners would be high. I'm sure Mr. Stern's program is up there. And ad revenue, I doubt you can beat Mr. Stern. Wish I could actually find the numbers on the web..
Up there? Did you miss my post covering that?

Stern: 42 stations.

Rush: SIX HUNDRED STATIONS.

There are two web sources, one being part of the Official Rush Homepage, the other a Stern fan site.

Now, Stern's clearly a New York kinda guy, and to prove it he has five stations in that state alone.

Rush has fifteen - five of which are on Stern's list. This means Stern does NOT air in a city without Rush's presence.

California, our largest state? Stern has four, Rush has FORTY, including the four on Stern's list.

TEN TIMES AS MANY.

Think about this: nine out of Sterns 42 stations are in just two states. That leaves 33 stations to be distributed among the other 48 states. Surely, quite a few states don't hear Stern at all.

And yet, Rush is heard in ten stations in Montana alone. (Wow! Rush is heard on ten stations in just Montana, and Stern is on only nine in NEW YORK and CALIFORNIA.)


Logic suggests this:

Stern might POTENTIALLY be able to draw as large a following as Rush with fewer stations, assuming that he simply DOMINATES those markets - and assuming those markets are all large markets.

But, if that were the case, if he drew big numbers whereever he was, MORE STATIONS would pick him up.

And yet, he has one-third the cities Rush has in New York and one-tenth in California.

I *think* Dr. Laura is actually the second most popular radio talk show host in the U.S., but either way, it's unavoidable: as much as you clearly love Howard Stern, his numbers pale in comparison to those of Rush.

Howard Stern is not "King of All Media" as he often professed. He's not even king of his OWN media. He's not even heir to the throne.
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 02-02-2002, 01:09 AM   #28
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by hotasahandbag:
dano, thanks for the post. had to forward it on, priceless. to those that disagree or are offended, i have this to say: i respect and enjoy healthy debate, but when one resorts to name-calling and insults, it screams volumes about the one insulting and says nothing about the one being insulted. for that reason i rarely choose to post in these political discussions. although i have read many interesting threads, i choose not to waste my days engaged in pissing contests with total strangers. to that end-a brief word of knee jerk support----so true! lynn
CLAP.

CLAP.

CLAP.
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 02-02-2002, 01:27 AM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zonelistener's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: six convenient metro locations
Posts: 14,747
Local Time: 02:26 PM
Yes Bubba - Rush wins the big "more stations" argument. Great for Rush!

And I will again state that they are probably lower-reach AM stations in smaller markets all over America. Yes, again you are correct.

Stern is in major markets on high-powered FM stations. You won't see Stern in Keokouk, IA because 1) the station probably cannot afford to have Stern in their market and 2) he too brash for many of these smaller markets.

Dr. Laura and Rush are both distributed by the same company (Premiere Radio Networks). I would not be suprised if many affiliates have a distribution agreement that says "run more than one of our programs, you get a cut on the price." Smart business - quick distribution! Makes for highly distributed programs - but does not mean superior programming (and I will NEVER argue Stern is superior programming - truly lowest common denominator stuff - Rush's stuff is more intelligent).

As for sources on the web, I was hoping to find some Arbitron stuff - not a Stern fan site and Rush's site. That would be like soley using Moore's site to argue the whole Enron thing - it's just a propaganda beast. Better example - could you possibly believe everything you read about U2 you find here?
__________________
zonelistener is offline  
Old 02-02-2002, 01:48 AM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zonelistener's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: six convenient metro locations
Posts: 14,747
Local Time: 02:26 PM
...and Premiere Radio Networks is a subsidary of Clear Channel, which owns more radio stations than any other group in the country - so of course this "Rush" program is distributed widely throughout the states. Does that make him the "King" of the medium? No, it makes Clear Channel the "King of the Medium." He's just a pawn.
__________________

__________________
zonelistener is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com