The PoliBlog
Collective


Information
The Collective
ARCHIVES
Monday, January 15, 2024
By Dr. Steven Taylor

Via the NYT: Bloggers Take on Talk Radio Hosts:

A San Francisco talk radio station pre-empted three hours of programming on Friday in response to a campaign by bloggers who have recorded extreme comments by several hosts and passed on digital copies to advertisers.

The comments were also posted on Spocko’s Web site, spockosbrain.com. In response, ABC Radio Networks, which owns KSFO and which in turn is owned by the Walt Disney Company, sent letters to the site’s service provider, demanding the clips be taken down from its servers. The provider complied, raising the issue of what constitutes fair use of copyrighted material by a critic.

Without getting into the actual statements recorded by Spocko, let me note the following:

a)  There is no reason why a person cannot attempt to inform an advertiser of the content of the object of their advertisement.  It doesn’t always work, but there is nothing inherently wrong with the act. (Although I personally consider it to normally be a waste of time).

More importantly, however:

b)  If one can legally quote in print what someone else has written, then I see no grounds for saying that sentences and paragraphs of the publically spoken word can’t be recorded and replayed for the public.    While the forms may be different, I don’t see any difference in the actual activity.  Why should talk show hosts and persons on TV be able to speak and have their words disappear into the ether forever, never to be shared again in audio form when once a writer puts words on the page (on computer screen) they can live on forever?

If you are starting out in the public square, how can you turn-around and then complain when your words are subject to public scrutiny?  It seems to me that this is classic situation of live by the sword, die by the sword.

The remarkable thing is that there is no way that Disney’s lawyers would have sent letters if Spocko only had transcriptions of the statements on his site.  Indeed, the quotes would probably have had less impact on the advertisers had the words been on the page rather than in their ears.  All this indicates is that hearing people say controversial things is far more powerful than just reading what they said (indeed, the politics of YouTube underscores this fact).

Sphere: Related Content

Filed under: US Politics, Talk Radio | |

2 Comments

  • el
  • pt
    1. Being accountable for the things you say is a must for those who want to be taken seriously. That is one of the reasons I post using my full name rather than an online identifier.

      The greatest benefit of this type of recording and forwarding is not getting people in trouble with sponsors but making radio hosts think a little more before opening their mouths.

      Perhaps this will raise the bar and create a much more civil and informed talk radio world.

      Comment by Steven Plunk — Monday, January 15, 2024 @ 10:15 am

    2. I doubt very much if this will “create a much more civil and informed talk radio world.” I wish it would. But to judge by the rightwing’s sulkiness after the Nov. elections, they’re more embittered than ever! One of the KSFO talk show hosts refused to apologize for his remarks. I expect these people to be more, not less, violent and derogatory toward their political opponents, because they have suffered a crushing blow, and like a cornered wombat, they’re dangerous when wounded.

      Comment by Steve Heimoff — Tuesday, January 16, 2024 @ 12:24 pm

    RSS feed for comments on this post.

    The trackback url for this post is: http://poliblogger.com/wp-trackback-poliblog.html?p=11327

    NOTE: I will delete any TrackBacks that do not actually link and refer to this post.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.




    Visitors Since 2/15/03
    Blogroll

    ---


    Advertisement

    Advertisement


    Powered by WordPress