Director at Premiere Radio Networks & ABC Radio calls Kennedy "piece of garbage"
August 26, 2009 3:11 pm ET by Karl Frisch
According to his LinkedIn.com profile, Eric Stanger currently works as:
Director of Affiliate Marketing, Premiere Radio Networks
Director of Talk Programming, ABC Radio/Citadel Broadcasting
Director of Affiliate Relations, The Sean Hannity Show
I wonder how Mr. Hannity, Premiere Radio Networks and ABC Radio/Citadel Broadcasting feel about his Facebook comment concerning Ted Kennedy's passing (emphasis added):
The irony is that the media is already positioning Ted as a champion for the little man against wealth and privilege. This piece of garbage was the poster child for wealth and privilege. Hopefully, this event will mark the end of this repugnant family and all the endless crap, entitlement, personal indulgences and collateral damage (Kopechne, Bessette, Bowman, Moxely, etc.).
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
HAHAHA Priceless.
But seriously, I think you're way off base. There is some group-think here, just like there is with any group. In order to fight it, it's important for people to point it out when they see it. If it's done thoughtfully -- not "this place grosses me out" -- then I'm confident it will be appreciated. Notice here that Brab only has thumbs-up ratings.
Also, I think you're very wrong about the amount of conformity here. Of course when someone acts as badly as Stanger has in this case, there will be near universal condemnation, as there should be. But there are a lot of intelligent, knowledgeable commenters, with enough diversity of political perspective to include any centrist or "dyed-in-the-wool liberal."
I'm the one with six thumbs-downs. :) And that was my first foray into the MM.org comments section.
I hope you're right.
What about the bad behavior of some of the posters here, like harley who is now dr matt. How come no one on the left criticizes him. It seems that the universal condemnation is only leveled at conservatives, never the liberals.
You may notice that supporting POV in his criticism of Harley's KKK reference would qualify.
The only thing that is surprising to me is that it took this long for the right wing crackpots to come out of the wood work on this one, I figured the time frame for this to happen would have been measured in minutes, not hours.
Why the stupid cowboy hat? Thinning on top there?
So, only poor people can be champions for "little people"? Great "logic" there, Erikkk.
Kennedy, and his family (look at Eunice who just died as well) did a lot for disabled folks, poor people, and the every day man and woman on the street. Why? Mostly because they were in a position where THEY COULD do something about the problems they saw, because they had power and sway in the country at large. They don't have to give up their riches in order to empower others, and or to help others. This is the same refrain we saw about John Edwards. How can he help poor people when he's rich?
People are really stupid.
And then, when poor people try to help other poor people (ACORN anyone?) they get trashed for that as well.
This should be droll.
Why do you feel the need for the constant kkk references? Because this guy said mean things about Kennedy he has to belong to the kkk. You are such an idiot. Does that make me a racist because I think you are an idiot? There are no racial implications to this story, yet you cant seem to help yourself.
You are a racist if you are current day Republican.
because there are no sane, responsible Republicans to be found in the public arena.
name one.
thanks.
My reasoning is simple. Republicans hate the poor (because they hate programs that help the poor) and the poor consists of proportionally more minorities.
This statement is wrong on so many levels starting with the Raptor is not a bomber. Worthless? Really?
Please go on and on though.
...Because there are more dems in congress! a trend that will continue so long as the republicans embrace hatred and name-calling as there primary means of political expression. Keep it up!
Not one Republican said Bush was not qualified (based on his birth), and not one Democrat either.
And yet, Obama is President and all these conspiracy theories come up? What is (physically) different between Obama and Bush?
I stand by my allegation. Current day Republicans are racists.
You are just another lib who when you have nothing factual to say,you pull out the race card and cry racism.
You define the word ignorant.
The context here was Stanger. He made a comment about Kennedy, and I have no idea why one would be connected to the KKK by making a hateful comment about a white Christian male.
POV was right about that. There are no racial implications here. But when he points this out, then he's a racist because he's a Republican. That is knee-jerk, logic-free behavior at its finest. Republicans didn't criticize Bush, but they criticize a black Democrat, therefore they're racist. Some Republicans also dismissed charges against Bush as conspiracy theories, while dealing in conspiracy theories about Clinton. They wouldn't question Bush's legitimacy after the 2000 theft of an election, but Clinton was supposed to lose credibility as an elected President because he didn't get 50% of the vote in a three-person race. But if there's a double standard while a black Democrat is in office, then it's racism.
Again, I know it's an emotional day, but you guys are losing it. POV responds to a post that says "you are a racist if you are a current day Republican" with "That is ridiculous. There are millions and millions of people who are Republicans, and to call them all racists shows just how far the loony extreme left will go" and gets three thumbs-down votes. Seriously, what the hell? There's no qualification there at all about any group or type of Republicans. An inflammatory blanket comment like that deserves a "loony left" response. If there was some clarification to be made there, then it should be made, but that reaction was completely justified.
I don't "pick sides". I try to follow the facts.
Or are you pretending to know things, when you're really only guessing?
There are a few people here who are critical of what he posts, that is good to see, I tip my hat to those people. But unfortunately most approve of his methods and do not have the integrity to call him on his behavior. He gets a lot of thumbs up from some of the bright souls here.
But now I am curious as to what you think of his postings, do you like his style? Do you agree with his methods?
I agree with you there, POV.
I wouldn't be surprised if he was fired due to A) The fact that Kennedy was highly respected(by members on both sides of the aisle) and high ranking senator and B) This occurring so soon in relation to Glenn Becks comments. Fox needs to save some face, they may not lose their hardcore viewers, but their less extreme viewers may see this as a continuing pattern of bad taste
The arguments you may be thinking of are ones where the specific behavior is defended as not being severe enough for such a punishment. That's not the same as what you're talking about, because a "right" to keep your job would preclude any need to defend someone based on circumstances. Why would circumstances matter, if that were the case?
Besides, plenty of people have lost their jobs over hateful, tasteless remark. Michal Savage, Ann Coulter, Don Imus, the list goes on.
He can continue his rants if everytime someone brings up Reagan we discuss his selling arms to Iran, violating federal law, lying to the American people and having the most convictions of his officials than any president in history
And mentioning how Reagan divorced Jane Wyman to marry an actress who reportedly gave oral sex better than anyone in Hollywood......
This guy, in a fake cowboy hat, apparently did not read Ted Kennedy's accomplishments in differing political climates. Or that him and the Reagan's were pretty good friends, not with standing political differences.
Ted Kennedy was friends with Orrin Hatch, of all people. He worked across the aisle, and sometimes it didn't turn out so good.
Big deal. He did a lot of good, more than this yahoo will EVER do in his life.
Eric Stanger- a real piece of garbage.
And we all no conservatives would never use it.
And anyway, the stupid ACORN thing is even more hilariously idiotic than the birther thing. Thanks for protecting our electoral system from Mickey Mouse, Tony Romo, and Hairy Ass McGee. Really, we couldn't do it without you.
A lady called his show yesterday and said she was at Howard Dean's town hall and screamed the whole time. When Hannity asked what Dean said, her answer was: We didn't come to hear him speak, we came to shout him down. Every time he tried to speak, we yelled louder.
Bravo Freedom of Speech; Bravo Constitution; Bravo what all of our soldiers in the past 230 plus years have died for: So we can shout each other down and not let each other speak, and god forbid, listen to each other. Thanks Rush, GW and Sean: You broke this country
He also then LIES about what he says when called on it by reporters.
Is there not anyone with a respectable amount of intelligence that you guys can send up to a microphone, or what?
That's rich. Thanks for the laugh.
How wonderfully un-American of you, Dick. The fact that you know your arguments are so baseless that you just prefer to shout people down says all we need to know about you.
Really? This guy is a private citizen sharing his personal opinions on his personal Facebook site. This is grossly irresponsible and petty.
It is also disgusting. I genuinely thought this place stood for more than this.
What private information is on this page? He put it out in public by putting it on Facebook. Am I able to call him up and threaten him because I know what city he lives in?
He did not make these comments on TV, on the radio, to a reporter, or in a op-ed column. He made them on a Facebook page to his Facebook friends. That is not grounds for calling him out in public media.
As far as relevance, I think everybody could probably assume that someone who works with the Sean Hannity show has conservative opinions. Calling him out into the public for opinions made on his Facebook page because he hurt your feelings is completely irresponsible and an abuse of power.
Now, if you wanted to call him out on your Facebook page as his Facebook friend, fine. Or in your personal blog.
Why would it be any better in a personal blog than here? This isn't TV, radio or newspaper. If it violates some sort of privacy standard, then that would be contemptible as well.
But we're talking about someone who is not a public figure. Let's drop the veiled death-threat part. What if he'd made extremely racist comments? That would be worth sharing on a blog. It would still seem petty, but at least it would seem personal because personal responsibility would be taken by a single author. Secondly, an entire website would not have been made to seem like a bullying tabloid rag kicking around a guy who deleted some hostile comments on his personal, friends-restricted Facebook profile.
Most importantly, MediaMatters has the reputation and the look of a legit news fact-checker and bias-exposer. If it sinks to personal hit-jobs on low-profile figures, showcasing screenshots from personal Facebook pages of off-colour but not *dangerous* comments, it is not worthy of any such reputation.
This is why the hypothetical is relevant. You're not drawing any distinction regarding the offensiveness of the comment. The hypothetical should carry the same response from you, since it's still the personal Facebook page, and his personal opinion. I'm not sure how it's a veiled threat to say that you wouldn't care if someone else did something.
So even if it was just something blatantly racist, it belongs on a "blog" and not anywhere on MMfA? You do realize that there are different sections to this site, I hope. If you look up at the address of this page, the word "blog" is right there. Why it has to be a "personal" blog is unclear, as is how pointing out someone's clear racism would be "petty".
"Low-profile"? Seriously? Read the bio. He's involved with the launch and daily management of Hannity, Imus and Mark Levin. He also coaches major-leage talk radio talent. That's not influential? I don't see the argument that such a person has no relevance to the blog page of a site that deals entirely with the state of the media.
I'm getting a little tired of clarifying everything I say, because so much of this seems self-evident. The "blog" section of this site is otherwise indistinguishable from the supposedly legit, major-website front. It is not a personal blog. It should be a "personal" blog because then it would be kept in its proper realm: as a whiny hit-job by one person on some other one person who deleted the Facebook comments of a presumed Facebook friend and said something mildly offensive. This is not the kind of stupid, low-class, mundane, everyday partisan bickering that Media Matters should blow its top over. It makes it seem like a tool used at the whim of an elite group, like a bully, and frankly, just stupid.
He is "low profile," not uninfluential. He is low profile in the sense that he is behind the scenes. Nobody has any clue who this person is until you explain it to them. He does not have a show that needs fact-checking or bias-watching or hyperbole-whistleblowing. He is not a public figure. He is a private citizen making private comments. He also did not say anything terribly troubling, like how it's all an evil plot or how he's going to blow up a building. He said something mildly offensive in his capacity as a private citizen on his private Facebook page.
The line here is clear to me and it is not to you, so I don't think we're going to get anywhere explaining the same things to each other over and over.
Saying something violent is not the same as a threat. A threat would be criminal, but otherwise it would just be offensive.
The blog is listed as a blog, and the people who post items here are mentioned by name. It's pretty clearly separated from "research", which is more objective and relating to actual misinformation.
If someone has influence in the media, then the general mindset and behavior of that person is relevant. Is this the sort of attitude that this person brings with him to his professional duties? That would have some bearing on the tone of those programs, and the attitudes of people that he is coaching into radio shows. So if we have any interest in why our media is in the sad state that it's in, people like Stanger are worth noting.
Saying something violent like your example, "I wouldn't care if he got shot in the head," is a very dangerous thing. It is a veiled threat. It is veiled because it's not direct. Violent, graphic language like this is clearly very different from calling Senator Kennedy a piece of garbage.
The "blogs" here are hardly different from the everything else. Indeed, this post was originally in ANOTHER SECTION and moved to the "blog" section. This meant that a single label changed. That was the only change. The background and format are the same. It is not by any stretch of the imagination "clearly separated" from the rest of the page in appearance, style, or form of any kind. It does not seem like a personal blog.
It can be presumed that the people working behind the scenes are shows like Sean Hannity's possess opinions in line with those of Sean Hannity. Sean Hannity is a public figure telling public lies and causing public hysteria. *HE* is your enemy. A personal hit job on one individual behind the scenes is not productive, moral, or useful in any way. It merely makes the site seem like a cheap, whiny LiveJournal for a bunch of ferociously partisan hacks who are no better than the Becks and Hannitys the spend all their time putting down. The site does not seem like a prudent, respectable, scientific organization combating media hysteria. It seems like an organ of media hysteria, abusing its megaphone to rip down private citizens who delete comments on their Facebook pages. That is disgusting.
Here is a clue for you. The internet is media. Facebook. Myspace, Twitter, ALL MEDIA. You publish it, people read it. It's media!
I think there is an obvious difference between a personal Facebook page and a FOX News show.
It has been mentioned in almost every TV story about his death that I have seen. Nobody is sweeping it under the rug. The man makes a terrible stupid mistake, pays for it the rests of his life and devotes himself to public service and helping others. A tragic story.