This Town Ain't Big Enough

Brian Wilson and Toledo's 1370 WSPD very quietly announced this week that they have parted company.  Nobody at the station is saying much, and Brian has remained almost surprisingly silent on the subject.  Brian was not only doing a three hour show in the afternoon, but was also the Program Director and News Director (a post that his wife Cassie formerly held), which leaves some rather large gaps on the station's personnel roster.

Now I would like to consider Brian a friend, though I'm sure that there are many across the country who would like to make a similar claim; and most of whom are of far greater stature and importance that this humble scribbler.  To present a bit of unimportant history ...

My own introduction came not long after moving to the Glass City, finding the show, and calling in a time or two.  I met Brian (along with his producer at the time, Phil McGeehan) soon after when he spoke at one of the first gatherings of an attempt to start a Lucas County Libertarian Party.  He spoke passionately and intelligently about his own 'small l' Libertarian values and beliefs, helping me to reconcile my own principles with a political system that I long felt had long since abandoned me.

We spoke briefly that evening, and occasionally continued to exchange information during the show, even while I was traveling around the US pursuing my own career.  As time passed, Brian, Phil and I even managed to get together once in a while for an adult beverage and additional conversation on the issues of the day when I made it home.  (I was even fortunate enough to meet his wife Cassie a couple of times.)  His recommended reading list, both off the show and on, proved a tremendous source of education to me not only on basic principles, but on being able to argue them from a logical and consistent perspective.  I was even allowed me to serve as the guest host of the one hour "Eye on Toledo" show with his permission a couple of times when Maggie Thurber (whose show it was at the time) took some well-deserved time away.  

I have to stop briefly here and acknowledge that I would probably not survived these experiences without the incredible amount of assistance provided at the time by Dr Phil McGeehan and 'Shaggy' Matt Culbreath, nor of the encouragement of Maggie Thurber to take on the opportunity.               

Even after leaving Toledo some years back, I continued to listen to WSPD for Brian's show most days, as well as that of Fred Lefebvre (which I still do) when I can get the webcasts to work.  I found myself keeping up with my former home through them, writing them, and occasionally calling in to make my two cents known; which is what talk radio is all about.  I likewise shared emails with Brian from time to time, continuing what I hoped was a friendship, even though it had become a long distance one.  I had no foreboding on how this situation came to pass; even after it did. 

I have yet to hear any tales of what really happened from him, though I suspect that it has to do with something to the painful budget realities that I experienced with regards to the newspaper industry a few years back, and which now is becoming more common for radio.  More's the pity, for while most of us doing our jobs are literally a dime a dozen, Brian neither was nor is.  Perhaps someday we will get a chance to again lift a glass with him, share that sentiment in person, and learn the story behind the story.  It ought to be a good one.  So while there's nothing that I know about the situation definitively, here's what I 'think' I do know.

1370 WSPD will be significantly diminished in stature and content by Brian's departure, as will the programming of talk radio in Northwest Ohio.  Not only was his a clear voice articulating the message of freedom and personal responsibility in Ohio, as he had in other places; but he was able to bring nationally-known, authoritative guests to a small market radio station in order to enhance that message and reinforce those principles.  I don't know if WSPD will attempt to bring in another host, or fill this show in with some nationally syndicated effort.  Regardless of what they do however, any effort they make is likely to suffer by comparison.

I have little fear for Brian, as with his ability, his credentials, and his industry contacts, I'm feel sure that he will continue to succeed. (Oops sorry.  Brian taught me to think, not feel.  I'm afraid I'm already back-sliding)  It's a shame for Toledo however, whose daily paper suffers from the dearth of leadership of an absentee landlord, a terminal lack of credibility, and editorial bigotry that foretells its ultimate doom.  A city whose only salvation now for something other than the Progressive Party line handed out by the Blade may be the efforts of its competition, a twice-weekly newspaper.  And a city whose other media outlets, though they sometimes consider presenting a less liberal, union authorized point of view; appear unwilling or unable to stand against the history of thuggery perpetrated by these often vindictive and controlling city influences of a decades long, single-party rule.

I will continue to listen to Fred in the morning whenever I can, but even with his valiant efforts continuing, WSPD will never be the same.  I fear that the truth of the matter is that Toledo may never really have been big enough for Brian Wilson in the first place.  With Brian's departure however, its odds of ever becoming so just went down significantly.   


     

Contradiction In Terms

If it sometimes seems like everything having to do with politics is confusing, that might have something to do with the fact that it is.  Oh sure, often the problem is that politicians and pundits are simply trying to obfuscate (Go ahead and look it up, I'm not going to help you.), but there are times when even the snake-oil peddlers are not at fault.  You see, many of the terms used in association with politics do not mean what they appear to.

Federalism, which seems to imply a strong Federal government, in fact means much the opposite.  Those of the Founding Fathers who believed in federalism believed that were different levels of government which co-existed or shared in power on an equal footing, along with the power that the people themselves retained.  In the Federalist Papers (No.28) one of the strongest supporters of a strong central government, Alexander Hamilton, conceded: "Power being almost always the rival of power, the general (Federal) government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government."

Of course this didn't stop those considered Federalists (like Hamilton) from attempting to take things too far and gather too much power under central government.  Opposition to this perversion of the concept led to the creation of the Anti-Federalists (Jefferson & Madison) who fought Federalism by espousing its original intent.  (Confused yet?)

Statism, which one would assume based on its appearance to mean place power in the hands of the States rather than a central government, in fact means what you probably thought that Federalism did.  Instead of being defined as dispersing power to the various states, in fact this terms implies that all power will be held by a strong central government.  Statism is the governmental process by which such a central government intervenes (interferes) with all aspects of society, such as the regulation of the economy, the control of markets, and the disposition of property ownership and distribution.  (I know, I know.  Don't even get me started on this or I'll have to start taking my blood pressure medicine again.  But I'll bet you're even more confused now!)

But wait, it gets better!  Now for those of you who haven't been keeping up with Just Blowing Smoke, should pay close attention and keep the duct tape handy.
 
Liberalism is not what you thought it was either,  In fact, it is the belief in liberty and individual rights, a philosophy that grew in the 17th Century (1600's), rejecting previous theories of absolute monarchy and the divine right of kings in favor of the Rights of the Common Man.  Philosophers John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were some of its first proponents and a source of inspiration for the Founding Fathers of this country. As developed, it came to simply mean a life in which the individual was free from interference from the State.  

The term was co-opted in the 19th Century however, and shifted from what we now considered the political right to what's currently the left, leaving little of its original definition behind but the term 'classical liberalism'. An early form of political correctness had injected itself into the discussion, and we were given the concepts of positive and negative liberty.  As so often happens when intellectuals get their hands on the terminology, what this also meant is that no matter which kind of liberty you were determined to have, you would now had less of it than you had before, and government would be playing a role in how much and what kind of liberty you would be permitted.  

By the time that President Teddy Roosevelt picked up the ball and ran with it (1901-09), the original meaning was all but lost.  By the time that Woodrow Wilson (1913-21) and Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-45) had their way with it, it would not have been recognized by those who originated the concepts.  (Feeling a little woozy yet?)

Conservatism in a similar fashion, was first defined as maintaining the status quo (which at that time was a monarchy or limited parliamentarian government).  Instead of seeking personal freedom and limited government, it was a politics that sought little more than keeping things the way that they were.  Often credited to such luminaries as Francois-Rene de Chateaubriand (a man, not a meat) and Irishman Edmund Burke, this became Toryism when it emerged in Great Britain.  If this term sounds familiar to you, it might be because the American Revolution in those 13 colonies fought against not only British troops brought over from what was then the motherland, but local Tories who remained loyal to the status quo of King George. (Don't worry, just breathe ...)

If all of this seems a little 'Inside Baseball', it probably is; but pointing out the misconception of so many about so much is a necessary part of the process of reversing it.  Listing the obscure and as well as the obvious is the only way we're going to recognize how badly we're getting screwed by governments and elected officials hell bent on treating us like mushrooms (buried in shit and kept in the dark). 

A pretty smart guy that I trade words with from time to time in Toledo, WSPD radio's Brian Wilson, often says that politicians wake up every morning, counting on the poor recollection, aggressive ignorance, and mind-numbed complacency of their constituents.  I would have to concede every point; but plead that while there's no excuse for it, there are definitely reasons.  It's no easier to decipher the confusion, nonsense, and absolute bullshit handed out as fact on a daily basis when the words used for any intelligent discussion on the subject of politics are little more than a contradiction of terms.

Media Intervention

Now that the dust has settled, perhaps we can all look back more objectively at the furor over Brian Wilson's comments on WSPD about education in this country. 

We all watched Tom Troy and The Blade's painfully obvious efforts to paint the man and the radio station into a corner in order to get either his resignation or firing. We watched as well as the subsequent vindication unfolded based on the work done by the Toledo Free Press to reveal the facts of the case and the failed machinations of the daily paper. We even watched as Mr Troy wrote a response to the TFP coverage, published on January 19th, which did little to vindicate him or settle his part of the controversy.

Now anyone who has listened to Brian Wilson over time or read the Blade know that there is no love lost between the two (nor between Mr Wilson and Mr Troy). As someone who was involved intimately with the daily newspaper business for over thirty years, who is acquainted on a personal level with Brian Wilson and WSPD, and who listened to the entire show in question; I found the entire situation both fascinating and sad.

How could a newspaper that condemned out-of-context soundbites and a rush to judgment in the case of Shirley Sherrod find itself at the heart (if not behind) this case? How much further will management (and ownership) permit the continued blurring of the lines between objective reporting and editorializing? How many more setbacks can daily newspapers in Toledo and elsewhere across the country suffer to their credibility and survive as a reputable source for news?

For there is a relationship between talk radio and newspapers. Personalities like Brian Wilson are dependent to some extent upon daily newspapers for a part of the basic basic research required for them to do their job. Show preparation to fill three hours a day is an arduous task, and commenting on the events of the day usually requires that someone first report on them. Whether the source is a column by a well-known writer, an internet news website link, or something from a newspaper website itself; the ultimate source material for much of the news today remains the research and reporting of daily newspapers.

Now it's obvious to anyone paying even occasional attention to the goings on in the newspaper industry today, that such organizations continue to suffer from declining circulation and revenue, reduced reporting staffs, and desperate and often inconsistent business plans to cope with their current downward business trends. This decline should be no cause for celebration for their detractors however, as a co-dependency between newspapers and other forms of media exist whether they like it or not.

When was the last time that you watched a TV news broadcast that did not reference at least one newspaper story? When was the last time that you listened to a radio show (nationally syndicated or local) that did not do the same? When was the last time that you watched cable news pundits get through an hour without talking about something a newspaper said? Without newspapers as source material, these now more timely an relevant media sources would be hard pressed to fill their programs.

OK, that establishes a dependent relationship, but not co-dependency.

One need only look at the recent elimination and consolidation of newspaper titles and production sites, the switch in some cases to online-only products, and the downsizing of product and reporting staffs at these former print properties to understand that they are facing doom as a means of communicating the news. 

The constant reference by other media forms of material in daily newspapers may be the best advertising that they could receive, and may allow them to retain the relevance in the marketplace of ideas that they still deserve. Without being used and referenced for the source material that they provide however, I fear that their decline would be even more dramatic and precipitous.

Daily newspapers may not like it, but will eventually have to understand that much like the free standing insert advertisements that they once looked down upon, these other media are now an integral part of the effort required to promote their continued existence. Other forms of media like radio and TV likewise need to understand that without the labor on source material done by daily newspapers to repeat and comment on, their jobs would be much more difficult than they already are.

While anything but a believer in the philosophy of "can't we all just get along", I cannot help but think that perhaps some form of Media Intervention is in order to tell both that while they aren't required to like each other (and in fact it's a lot more interesting when they don't), they do in fact have to recognize that they need each other; if for no other reason than to know who to demonize.