The owners of the show, Randy Michaels & Stu Krane are both Libertarian Republicans.Now, these owners are not just your everyday Republicans. Randy Michaels, born Benjamin Homel, ( was head of Clear Channel Communications, a verrry right wing company. In 2003, he contributed $2000 to George W. Bush. He joined Clear Channel when his company, Jacor, which syndicated Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura Schlesinger, was acquired by Clear Channel. Stu Krane was the former VP of ABC Radio and Premiere Radio Networks--and the syndication exec for RUsh Limbaugh. It's interesting that Schultz's producer seems to have thought it would, in some way, be a positive or persuasive statement adding credibility, mentioning on dailykos.com that Schultz's show is owned by two "libertarian Republicans." In an earlier draft of this short article, which I sent out in my daily newsletter subscribers, titled, Ed Schultz; Are you playing him or is he playing you with his right winger program owners I commented, "You have to wonder what influence extreme right wingers have on the program." Now, I am pretty conscious of the difference between a newsletter sent to subscribers and an article published on the web, that will be spidered by news website spiders. I had intended to back off a bit, My comments in the newsletter went further than I actually decided to write in this article, which was going to end with the above paragraph. I was holding off running it because it felt incomplete. Frankly, I've never heard Ed's show. His show is not available in the Philly area and my attempts to listen on line have not yet been successful. I just saw all the brouhaha that was arising and decided to cover an angle that was not widely explored. I won't repeat them, becasue they are uncorroborated, but there are rumors about his owners, and what they've said about liberals, that are disconcerting. But, to be fair, that's about the show's owners, not Ed. That said, one of OpEdNews's readers, Donna Halper, has been a radio consultant for 25 years. She wrote this email to me, setting me straight. Put it together with the information I provide above and I think this becomes a much more balanced piece worth your consideration. To get a really broad picture of different opinions on Ed Schultz, you might also want to check out the comments on the Dailykos article. Also, the beauty of publishing news and opinions on a web 2.0 site is that the commenters contribution to the article becomes an integral part. I welcome and encourage Ed Schultz and his supporters, staffers, etc. to add their comments. Barring flaming, that can only enhance the value of this article. (note
Hi Rob. You and I have talked before, and I've even donated. But something you wrote earlier today really puzzled me. It was some rather snide comments about Ed Schultz, and from the tone of those comments, I assume you have more to say on the subject. (note; click here to see the actual newsletter and comments about Ed) But I have to disagree with your assertions, especially when you say "You have to wonder what influence extreme right wingers have on the program." No, Rob, I don't have to wonder. The answer is, none. Ed criticizes the right wing on a fairly regular basis, and has been consistently vocal in his critique of this Administration. He has been as pro-union and pro-labor as any talk show host I have ever heard. He has stood up for Democratic and progressive candidates, many of whom are undoubtedly more liberal on some issues than he is. Just about every major Democratic politician has been a guest on his show (Kennedy, Kerry, Obama, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, etc etc) and he has discussed issues such as his opposition to the war in Iraq, the need for stem cell research, Republican cuts in programs for the poor, how the administration has forgotten the victims of Hurricane Katrina, etc etc. As for the politics of the owners of his show, I fail to see what that has to do with who Ed is or what Ed believes. Randy Michaels has been a very polarizing figure in broadcasting, but to his credit, he saw a niche for a progressive talker and got involved with Ed's show. As far as I can tell, whatever Randy's or Stu Krane's views on politics, they are in no way reflected in what Ed says or who Ed's guests are. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that Ed is on the air in spite of the right wing, not because of them. If you read my new article, in the February issue of EXTRA, I discuss how the right wing has systematically tried to stifle progressive talk. Yet Ed's show is getting respectable ratings and even turning a profit, although it's been difficult for him, and all other progressive hosts, to break through the right wing stranglehold on talk radio. Yet for reasons that are unclear to me, some people on the left seem to really dislike Ed Schultz. That makes no sense to me. I think he is exactly what the progressive talk format needs-- somebody who can bring in listeners from the right and from the center, who can appeal to the folks who might otherwise never try progressive talk. Conservative talk hosts, who dominate the talk radio format, have made so many negative comments about progressive talk (and about liberal points of view) that it would be easy for moderates and righties to ignore what progressive talkers are saying. Yet when people stumble upon Ed's show, they often find there what they were told about progressives isn't true. Better still, they find issues they can agree with, which can be the first step to bringing them closer to our perspective. Ed is a host who is not an ideologue-- I'd say that he's a moderate-- left on some issues and right on others. I guess that upsets some of my friends on the left who feel that Ed is not really a liberal (whatever that means). But listen to his views on the issues and he comes down on the progressive side about 90% of the time. And even when his views lean slightly to the right, he will often lets dissenting views be heard, or even have guests who disagree with him. Because he does an interesting radio show, that is why he is in the top 10 nationally, something no other progressive talk host has achieved, and his show, syndicated by Jones Radio, is on about 100 stations. I don't always agree with everything Ed says, but he is one of the few talk hosts who doesn't screen his calls, who takes callers from both the right and the left, and who has guests from a variety of viewpoints. I'd say that's a good thing. I've been a radio consultant for over 25 years, and while Ed is not one of my clients, my own experience tells me that his way of doing progressive talk is very necessary if the format is to succeed. We really do need to be a big tent as progressive talk grows and develops. That's why I like to listen to a variety of progressive hosts, not all of whom focus on the same issues. I really enjoy Ring of Fire and State of Belief on Air America, for example. And I am a big fan of another Jones talker, Stephanie Miller, whose style is like a radio version of The Daily Show. But I think Ed Schultz is very good at what he does, and I commend him for bringing progressive ideas to many red state listeners. That having been said, I know that some bloggers call Ed egocentric, self-centred, etc. I also know some bloggers (and even some of Ed's fans) are upset about his criticism of Air America the other day. At the risk of seeming to defend those comments (I have several friends who work for AAR), there does seem to have been some on-going sniping of AAR hosts against Ed, and sometimes Ed fires back. Who started it? What does it matter? What is more important to me is this: it's not helpful for the progressive format to be defined by hosts sniping at each other. I wish all the progressive hosts, be they Jones or AAR or independent, would put their energies into stopping the president from attacking another country, bringing back our civil liberties, and making the public more aware of what congress is doing with their tax dollars. Also, let me remind Ed's critics that in order to be a successful talk host, you have to have lots of confidence and lots of ego or your competitors will destroy you. And every talk host, be they left or right, has enemies. It goes with the job. Frankly, I think Ed, like many progressive talkers, is frustrated because he and his colleagues have worked so hard to get the progressive message out, yet all across the country, thanks to media consolidation and decisions by such conglomerates as Clear Channel, progressive talk has been relegated to stations with weak signals and minimal promotion. Ed has been very vocal about the harm media consolidation has done to broadcasting, and he is 100% correct about that. Finally, let's be honest-- the financial problems of Air America have overshadowed the many good things that the progressive talk format has done. If democracy is to survive in this country, we need both sides of the story to be told. Ed is absolutely doing his part, and those who say he is just a rightie in disguise or that he doesn't want to see progressive talk succeed could not be more wrong. Donna L. Halper, Journalism Dept. Emerson College Boston MA www.donnahalper.com
