Larson plays spoof "Barney Frank for President" ad encouraging people to vote for "Barney Fag"
SUMMARY: Radio host Lars Larson played a spoof "Barney Frank for President" advertisement, in which a person said: "Now remember, this Erection Day -- Election Day, vote for Barney Frank for President. I'm Barney Fag -- uh, Frank and I approve this massage -- message." Larson also baselessly suggested that Frank allowed his relationship in the 1990s with a Fannie Mae official to improperly influence his conduct as a member of the House Financial Services Committee. In fact, Frank repeatedly took actions over the years to strengthen oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
On the October 31 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Lars Larson played a spoof "Barney Frank for President" advertisement, in which a person said: "Hi, everybody. I'm Barney Frank and I'm running for president of the United States. Why? Well, because Nancy Pelosi pissed me off. Harry Reid pissed me off, and so did ol' Barack. Ol' Barack himself pissed me off too. I'm pissed at the Repubicans and the Democraps, and I'm going to run as an independent sort of fellow." The ad concludes: "Now remember, this Erection Day -- Election Day, vote for Barney Frank for President. I'm Barney Fag -- uh, Frank and I approve this massage -- message."
Later in the broadcast. Larson stated, "Barney Frank had a boyfriend who he was sleeping with who was with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, one of the two. He had a dog in the fight," baselessly suggesting that Frank allowed his relationship in the 1990s with Herb Moses, a Fannie Mae official at the time, to improperly influence his conduct as a member of the House Financial Services Committee, which was responsible for oversight of Fannie Mae. As Media Matters for America has noted, Frank repeatedly took actions to strengthen oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while Moses was employed by Fannie Mae.
Talkers Magazine lists Larson among its "Heavy Hundred," which it describes as the "100 most important radio talk show hosts in America."
From the October 31 broadcast of Westwood One's The Lars Larson Show:
ANNOUNCER: The following announcement is being brought to you by Barney Frank for President.
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Hi, everybody. I'm Barney Frank and I'm running for president of the United States. Why? Well, because Nancy Pelosi pissed me off. Harry Reid pissed me off, and so did ol' Barack. Ol' Barack himself pissed me off too. I'm pissed at the Repubicans and the Democraps, and I'm going to run as an independent sort of fellow. Now remember, this Erection Day -- Election Day, vote for Barney Frank for President. I'm Barney Fag -- uh, Frank and I approve this massage -- message.
[...]
CALLER: The one thing that really bothers me is this Barney Franks [sic], who supposedly was supposed to be one of the key people on this bailout procedure, how he couldn't possibly understand since he was responsible for giving all of this money to these corporations that people that have fraud -- that have done fraud or unethical practices with the money that they had, that they wouldn't bother to think about giving themselves raises once they got all this billions of dollars in their hands?
LARSON: Well, you have to remember and go back to something the mainstream media didn't spend a lot of time on. Barney Frank had a boyfriend who he was sleeping with who was with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, one of the two. He had a dog in the fight.
What can be done about these people? I mean really, what can be done about them?
Nothing. Thanks to Bill Clinton and the Telecom Act, a handful corportate control freaks have bought up all the radio stations so they can flank markets with this crap.
How is Bill Clinton solely responsible here? Don't you think there may be other reasons involved - say for instance the fairness doctrine's demise?
Bill Clinton signed the Telecom Act into law. This repealed the limit on how many radio stations can by owned by a single entity, which enabled people like Lowry Mays to buy up radio stations by the hundreds, which allows them to control the message.
The Fairness Doctrine is not the answer and is not as popular with liberal/progressive radio personalities as you might think. Both Randi Rhodes and Ed Schultz have stated on numerous occasions that the Fairness Doctrine is not the answer.
The Fairness Doctrine does not mandate equal time for an opposing view. All it mandates is that the other side be heard. After 1 hour of Limbaugh going off, all he has to do is give 5 minutes to someone making a counterpoint and his show will be in compliance with the Fairness Doctrine.
Liberal/progressive radio will never have the opportunity in a market that's truly free so long as corporate control freaks own and control entire markets.
Fair enough, but you still did not answer the main question - are you suggesting that one act is solely responsible?
If you're asking if that one act is responsible for the current conglomeration of radio station ownership, and thus, the inability for progressive/liberal voices to make any real headway into the markets that the right-wing controls, then my answer would be yes.
Clinton signed the Telecom Act into law. Yes, that's true.
However, it doesn't relieve individuals or corporations of their responsibility to act in a decent manner.
Then it falls to the hypocritical and twisted standards laid out by the FCC for what is decent and what is indecent.
Howard Stern's toilet humor is indecent while a right-winger advocating the insertion of explosives into the intestinal tracts of Muslim infants is perfectly OK.
The exact same mindset infects the MPAA as well. Gratuitous violence often earns a 'PG-13' rating while anything overtly sexual relegates a movie to 'NC-17'.
Don't get me wrong, Pete, I agree with you. I just believe that people should comport themselves in a responsible manner.
By the time the Telecommunications Act was enacted in 1996--who controlled Congress then?-- the number of major media companies had gone from about 50 in 1983 to 10 in 1996. The Telecom Act didn't help--there are 6 now--but the main cause was Reagan's decrees about ownership.
Newt Gingrich and the "Contract with America" crowd controlled Congress back then. Bill Clinton could have vetoed the Telecom Act.
The conglomeration of radio station ownership was enabled by the Telecom Act.
I'm hazy about the senate numbers - did a veto proof majority exist? If not, how many democrats voted for the act (which would suggest they had a veto proof majority regardless of party affiliation?)
In the Senate, the vote was 91-5.
In the House, the vote was 414-16.
Tell me how Bill Clinton could have vetoed the bill.
A veto proof majority did not exist. In fact, an overwhelming majority from both parties voted in favor of it (House, Senate), presumably thinking that it would magically bring about more competition among cable TV and long distance providers, and lower prices for consumers. In reality, it was a sweeping deregulation that came before competition and market forces ever really existed in these mediums in the first place. Inevitably, rate hikes and monopolization only got worse, with cable going up three times faster than inflation. The lifting of ownership limits on radio stations was just another insult hidden in the pages.
DOH! I was thinking veto-proof party line majority. But as far as this bill, yeah, the vote pretty much shows that an override would have been very likely.
You're right, it's wrong to lay it all at Bill's feet, but he still could have done us proud.
What can be done about these people? I mean really, what can be done about them?
Frontal lobotomies???
Enough with this right wing nonsense. Don't forget to vote tomorrow!
http://edgruberman.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/080805-mad-magazine-cover.jpg&imgrefurl=http://edgruberman.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/no-we-cant/&h=400&w=310&sz=40&hl=en&start=1&um=1&usg=__1yD54pUQVtlYypzfEMLb6wptiGQ=&tbnid=DRVPx53nsIdusM:&tbnh=124&tbnw=96&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmad%2Bmagazine%2Bobama%2Bcover%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DGGGL,GGGL:2006-42,GGGL:en%26sa%3DN
I think something needs to be done about the limited ownership involving radio stations. The radio should not be inundated with crap like this.
Could help, simple solutions in this case make me a bit leary though. Examing the situation and figuring out how to give the public good and reasoned information via the public's airwaves seems so helpless in the face of deep wallets and loud voices.
Why are these wingnuts so obsessed with other peoples' sex lives? If it's not guys who never got a decent BJ still whining about Bill Clinton, it's sad closet cases like this perv who can't get his mind off of Barney's frank.
unresolved sexual problems remain that way when you buy into cardboard definitions of what are proper sexual mores. It brings pain, and then spreads it arround. Somehow this is preferable to acknowledging that sex can be thoughly crazy and being honest and ethical about it.
I think too many republicans arn't hairy chested testosteron dribbling f**k stricks, but are driven to trying to live the life style in a public manner by their peers. And the dear media which throws snears at any who don't conform.
You forgot Ken Mehlman and probably many others.
for me, this is another in a long string of, "who the heck is this guy, and why should i give two nanny goat sh*ts what he thinks, about anything?" AM talk show types. supposedly, he's a "top one hundred heavy hitter" in the industry. i bet real money 9 out of 10 people, if asked who he was, would go glaze eyed in response.
this is probably the most attention he's ever gotten.
this is probably the most attention he's ever gotten.
And far more attention than the useless bastard deserves.
I think the point of MMFA's highlighting these Troglodytes is to reveal a national pattern. These knuckledraggers have loyal audiences in their markets, and the slack-jawed zombies who listen to these jackasses can vote.
I've said this before, but I'm convinced that talk radio was the reason Al Gore didn't carry Tennessee in 2000. There was, and still is, NO progressive talk radio in Middle Tennessee... maybe in the whole state. The Troglodyte Talkers hammered Gore relentlessly in the months leading up to the election. It was a de facto unpaid, unregulated 24-7 political ad for the GOP.
Nerzog, What is the demographics for middle Tennessee? Unless there is an audience for liberal talk radio, then why would any station owner put something on his airtime that could get trounced by competitors? On the other hand, if there was a market for it, any station owner that wouldn't tap into that is stupid.
Let me explain it to you -
These radio stations are owned by large corporate entities that make more money due to the policies of the Republicans (deregulation, allowing them to saturate markets, etc.). It is in their business interest to keep the Republicans in power. It has NOTHING to do with having an audience or a market.
Blah Blah Blah, blame the "large corporate entities" because you can't compete in talk radio. I have heard it for years from liberals and it's ridiculous. Sell it somewhere else.
Why is it ridiculous? Are you saying that it's ridiculous that a for-profit entity would act in its best interest by favoring one side over another? I'd be curious to hear your logical support for that belief.
You just answered your own question below, liberals don't listen to talk radio as much as conservatives. Just like more women probably watch Oprah than men do. Or men watch the NFL more than women do. It's not hard.
I said that that I suspected that was the case. However, I don't think you've made the case that one should dismiss the notion that in some cases corporations may make decisions on ideological reasons with the long-term motive of bolstering their bottom-line through political favor.
It's not either/or. It's likely a mixture of both.
Then, do you believe it is due to the "superior quality" of Conservative programming? I find that equally ridiculous, especially given some of the tripe that we see sampled here.
No, of course not, it has nothing to do with quality, look at this Larison idiot for proof of that. It has to do with ratings, which generates ad revenue, which is money. Period.
It's not ridiculous, it's historical record, and you insist in living in complete denial of what's happened over the past 12 years. There is no free-market competition in radio. Liberal/progressive talk may very well be doomed to fail, but it deserves the chance to fail in a truly free market.
Provide examples of highly rated liberal talk radio shows that has been yanked? Or examples of lowly rated conservative talk radio that are given prime airtime?
How can they be yanked when they were never given the opportunity to prove themselves in the first place?
Oh for crying out loud. As I said below, look at LA then. Are you telling me that station programmers' hands are tied from hiring liberal talkers because their bosses tell them No? That is ridiculous.
LA? What do you mean?
In the television world, Phil Donahue was cancelled on MSNBC even though he had the highest ratings on the network simply because he opposed the Iraq war.
There was a progressive station in Madison, WI (a very liberal town) that had huge ratings. Yet, it was changed to a sports radio format and lost ratings big time.
OK. By your logic, there should not be any right-wing talk radio here in the Seattle area. Yet, there is.
You see, in any community there is a minority viewpoint. Even in the reddest areas, Democrats will likely pull in at least 30 or 40%. This is sizeable market that can be tapped.
Here is Seattle, I never tuned into the right-wing talk radio station. However, when a progressive-talk station started here, I became a talk-radio listener. I listen whenever I'm in the car, much to my kids' chagrin. In reality though, I think the appetite for the talk-radio format is likely less amongst progressive folks. We just have other things to do with our time.
"In reality though, I think the appetite for the talk-radio format is likely less amongst progressive folks. We just have other things to do with our time"
I absolutely agree, you have summed it up perfectly. Please, tell that to the conspiracy theorists on this very website who ignore the ratings dominance of right wing talk radio, and prefer instead to blame it on corporate Republicans.
That argument would hold water if the market split reflected the actual population, but it doesn't. There are numerous markets where Conservative radio has a 100% dominance. How does that reflect reality?
You can't extrapolate talk radio from the ideological mood of the country, look at Limbaugh, he has been successful for years, pretty much maintaining his audience and we have gone all over the place in terms of ideology in that time. Con talk radio dominates because their audience is loyal.
I don't really care about conservative talk radio. If they had the influence that people give them, then we wouldn't be on the cusp of electing Barack Obama.
I listen to progressive talk radio but they haven't changed mind. My mind was already made up. It's just nice to hear talk radio hosts using actual logic to formulate opinions rather than hate.
There are reports of very successful progressive stations having their format changed and their ratings go down. I'm not prepared to jump to a conclusion about the motives of such bizarre changes, but I would not discount ideological reasons.
I haven't seen any official market demographics, but I heard a news report that Davidson County (Nashville) is polling about +15 for Obama. The surrounding Counties are all favoring McCain by similar margins.
Nashville is a metropolitan area of about 500,000. I simply refuse to believe that there is zero market for progressive radio in a city that size. Even if only about 35% are self-described Democrats, that is still a pretty good sized target for advertisers.
There were a couple of token liberals on one of the stations in the early 90s, but the stations got so much hate mail from the conservatives that they finally dropped them.... or that was the official story.
I think it is simply because the owners of the radio stations are conservative, and make plenty of money on their Hate Radio, so why change? They don't consider "community service" a part of their charter any more.
Nerzog, The reason they make money on "hate radio" is because people listen, I don't know why, but apparently they do. It's ratings driven, just look at who the top three talkers are, Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage. Their ratings are what keeps them on the air, not some stuffed shirt corporate goon. When people stop listening, so will their mouths, stop.
But, aren't those ratings bolstered by their monopoly status in those markets? There may be some who listen just because it's the only talk radio available.
Several liberal talkers like Schultz and Hartmann have proven that they can beat the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity in the few select markets where they have been given a chance. The ownership stranglehold will not allow them more opportunity based on what success they've had.
It's a station ownership issue. The radio market is not free.
Just look at LA for example. It is very liberal ideologically, yet you can't find one liberal talker on the air on a major radio station throughout the day. Yet there are all kinds of con talkers whose ratings are much better. KABC, KFI, the two biggest are nothing but conservative all day long. Other smaller, far less listened to stations have liberals, but their audience isn't near what the others are.
Please explain how that fits into liberals being denied access to the radio market. Seems to me with all the liberals here they would eat it up, and they don't.
Your theory doesn't hold water.
Do the smaller stations have equal footprints? For example, here in Nashville, the local A.M. Hate Radio station comes in clearly day and night. On the other hand, the A.M. station that carries NPR fades at sundown.
(By the way, I'm sure that some conservatives consider NPR as "liberal talk radio", but I don't. What I would consider the equivalent of Rush Limaugh would be Air America type stuff.)
Is there anyone on this planet who thinks that liberals will tune into talk radio with the huge numbers that conservatives do? It isn't a knock on liberals at all, it's just that most don't. Who knows why? The reason many here are frustrated is because all of you are politically engaged and active, and many of you would probably listen. But many out there, who are liberal and progressive obviously would rather do something else.
The base of the conservative party who love talk radio also whine endlessly that the mainstream media is too liberal, so they have decided that talk radio is their outlet, their savior. They are loyal because the Limbaughs and others have pushed the big bad media line for years, it has stuck, and their audience remains. Liberals have no such urgency to embrace talk radio.
"Is there anyone on this planet who thinks that liberals will tune into talk radio with the huge numbers that conservatives do?"
Probably not the same numbers. However, in a market there is room for a #1 and a #2 station to be prosperous. Just look at sports radio. In big markets there are often more than one sports radio stations that are successful.
There is a lot of evidence that liberal talk radio can be profitable, yet it isn't provided in a lot of markets. I suspect that this will slowly change as great talk show hosts such as Ed Schultz and Thom Hartmann take hold. However, just because they might not reach Limbaugh proportions doesn't mean they won't be profitable.
Let me explain it to you again -
Ratings DO NOT matter. Having multiple station ownership does matter. And keeping the political party in power that preserves that ownership makes them infinitely more money than having a few thousand more listeners.
"Ratings DO NOT matter"
Really? Tell that to Talkers magazine, the magazine that MMFA highlights on every Savage thread to tell us how popular he is and how many people listen to him everyday.
You have no clue what you're talking about, sorry.
"And keeping the political party in power"
And just how will that work out when the Democrats control everything?
You have no clue what you're talking about, sorry.
Well, there will likely be a lot of radio excs popping Alkaseltzer is my guess.
And just how will that work out when the Democrats control everything?
It doesn't matter one bit. They already own the stations. They've already solidified their power. Maybe they'll see the error of their ways, but the bottom line (which you ignorantly refuse to acknowledge), is all they care about. And ad revenue from higher ratings is a mere pittance to the added profits of near monopoly ownerhips of the airwaves.
Did you know that in 2006, the top four radio station owners have almost half of the listeners and the top ten owners have almost two-thirds of listeners. This means that a handful of companies control what the overwhelming majority of Americans hear on the radio.
Nope, Bet you didn't know that. What do ratings matter when you already command the majority of the listenership?
In my opinion, you are the one with no clue about what you are talking about.
It doesn't matter how many stations someone owns, or what monopoly they have. If they don't get ad revenues, based on ratings, they don't make money. Period. Do you think just owning some monopoly on something generates money without listeners?
Let me educate you on how it works. Radio stations make money through selling advertising. If their programs are ratings winners, they can charge more for ads, thereby increasing revenue to their station. If their programs are low in ratings, they can't charge as much, meaning less money coming into the station. It's quite simple, I am surprised you don't get it.
Hey smart guy - I used to work in media - I know the game. But if you already have the listeners, it doesn't make much sense to work extra hard to gain more listeners when you can make much more money consolidating and/or expanding your market share by simply advocating for the political party that permits you to do just that.
Your analysis of the radio market (no surprise) is simplistic.
I don't care if you worked in the media or not, because if you did you would realize it's all about ratings and listeners, not gobbling up radio stations and then sitting around spouting political ideology without realizing you need listeners, otherwise you're toast.
You remain intellectually deprived. The radio conglomerates don't need to pursue more talk radio listeners because they've already purchased the local sports talk station, the local religious programming station, the local classic rock station, and the local country music station. These few companies own the airwaves. They don't need additional listeners for political talk as much as they need to further their conservative agenda that allows them to keep their political buddies in power so they can keep adding stations.
I know it's usually about ratings and ad rates. What you DON'T know is that in this case it is much more than that. Your views are simplistic and naive.
I guess Rush doesn't need more than 20 million or so listeners a week, you're right.
You see, all these liberal conspiracy whiners theorizing about rightwing control and monopolies that keep poor liberal talk radio hosts shut out never seem to able to square the huge listenership and ratings dominance of conservative talk radio, the numbers don't lie. You complain because once again it's somebody else's fault, typical. Don't you get tired of that?
foghorn said: "Your views are simplistic and naive."
Which is the answer to your question tommy (don't you get tired of that). Liberal radio doesn't succeed because liberals have that superiority complex and they talk from way up on that pedastal down to the little people. The only ones who appreciate that kind of talk show are those who enamore themselves to be like that. Since the majority of America aren't stuck-up phoneys, the majority of America doesn't want to listen to them.