Well, They're Actually Going Through With It

[Guest MikeSC]

Liberal Group Close to Buying Radio Stations

 

By JIM RUTENBERG (NY Times)

 

(Dec. 1) A Democratic investment group planning to start a liberal radio network to counterbalance conservative radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh says it is close to buying radio stations in five major cities.

 

The acquisitions would represent a major move toward making the network real. After its conception was announced in February, many radio analysts and even some Democratic activists predicted that the network would face too many challenges to get off the ground, including finding stations to run its programming and bucking a historical record replete with failed liberal radio attempts.

 

But executives with the newly formed company, Progress Media, said late last week that if all went as planned they would have the network running by early spring, in time to be part of the public dialogue during the presidential campaign season.

 

The executives said the stations they were acquiring reached all radios in 5 of the 10 largest media markets: New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philadelphia and Boston. They said they would buy stations in other markets in the near future.

 

"We're steady as she goes to have a broadcast debut in early 2004, which gives us time to be part of the election year," said Mark Walsh, the company's chief executive and an Internet entrepreneur formerly with VerticalNet and America Online.

 

The group is planning to present a daily schedule filled with liberal personalities as hosts of a range of programs, including news analysis segments, talk shows and entertainment programs in the spirit of "The Daily Show," the spoof news program on cable television's Comedy Central that skewers Washington.

 

Jon Sinton, Progress Media's president, said the company had hired Lizz Winstead, one of the creators of "The Daily Show," to oversee entertainment programming. Shelley Lewis, a longtime network news producer who was most recently in charge of "American Morning" on CNN, will oversee news programming, Mr. Sinton said.

 

He said Progress Media was pursuing a deal to give the comedian Al Franken a daily talk show. The company, whose programming division is to be called Central Air, is also talking with representatives of the comedian Janeane Garofalo.

 

The network has hired Martin Kaplan to be the host of an early evening talk show about the news media. Mr. Kaplan is associate dean of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California and was once a speechwriter for Walter F. Mondale as well as a Disney studio executive.

 

Mr. Kaplan said in an interview that part of his charge would be to address some of the more extreme voices on the right. "It will be a chance to make fun of the pomposity and the bullying which the right has engaged in, and which a good chunk of the mainstream media has bought into," he said. "The self-righteousness of the right is now their greatest weakness, and I think we need to put those people on a whoopee cushion."

 

But in terms of ratings, history is against the likes of Mr. Kaplan, Mr. Franken and Ms. Garofalo. Radio analysts say there is a reason there are so many more popular conservative radio hosts than there are liberal ones, and a reason so many highly publicized attempts to start left-leaning radio programming have failed. (Mario M. Cuomo's talk show was canceled. Jim Hightower, who once had a nationally syndicated three-hour show, is still in the radio business, but as the host of a two-minute commentary segment heard mostly on noncommercial radio.)

 

Some political analysts have attributed past failures to liberal audiences' lack of interest in hearing their own views repeated. Some radio executives, including Kraig T. Kitchin, the president of Rush Limbaugh's radio distributor, Premiere Radio Networks, have said the cultural composite of the left is too diffuse to be easily targeted.

 

For his part, Mr. Limbaugh has dismissed reports about planned liberal alternatives to his program as silly, contending that he is merely a counterweight to overwhelmingly liberal mainstream news and entertainment media.

 

"Please! On TV you own C-Span, PBS, C-Span 2, CNN, ABC, CNNfn, CBS, MSNBC, CNN Headline News, NBC, CNBC, Bloomberg, Lifetime, Oxygen, etc.," he wrote on his Web site this year, addressing liberals. "Simply for giving the conservative point of view equal time, you call Fox 'conservative.' You have radio guys on NPR 24/7!"

 

In response, Mr. Sinton said: "While individuals on those networks may occasionally express views that are left of center, on balance we find those organizations to be pretty centrist. Our task is more than to be left leaning — with the exception of Al, who wants to call his show 'The Liberal Show.' Our task is to be funny and entertaining, a no-sacred-cows sort of thing."

 

Progress Media would not say which stations it was planning to buy. Officials said they had begun to build a central studio space in midtown Manhattan.

 

They would not say how much the stations would cost altogether. But a major-market station can cost on the order of $30 million.

 

Much of the money for the company initially came from Sheldon and Anita Drobny, wealthy Chicago Democrats who originated the project but sold much of their stake to Evan Cohen, a New York investor.

 

 

Well, they're going through with it. I do find a few things kinda funny:

 

1) To get on the air, they have to BUY STATIONS. You know, people may hate him all they wish --- Rush didn't buy ANY stations to get on the air. He simply hosted a popular show and it got picked up. It SAVED talk radio from oblivion.

 

2) PLEASE hire Garofalo. It will a) pretty much keep her in absolute obscurity AND b) help kill this idiotic idea. Can't beat that for a double whammy.

 

3) Kaplan's show? Do they realize that having it on a LIBERAL network MIGHT lead some to assume that his opinions might NOT be impartial? Seems like a big waste of time to have such a show on the air.

 

4) I think I'll paraphrase what several conservatives have said --- Liberals try to argue that the conservatives run the media and they do not. Do they want to switch places?

-=Mike

[Vern Gagne 0]

The problem in all honesty is liberals are too negative about everything.

 

Al Franken's too angry, people will be turned away by the grouch.

[NoCalMike 0]

Political Talk Radio, in all honesty, should be listened for pure entertainment and taken with a grain of salt, no matter what side of the fence the person is on. There is very LITTLE accountability to get facts/figures correct on the radio, and the host has extreme use of power to dictate the show in his or her own favor. I listen to quite a lot of shows from folks on the left & the right, and find 90% of both sides to be absolute jerks whenever a person with an opposing view trys to call in.

[Guest JMA]

The problem in all honesty is liberals are too negative about everything.

 

Al Franken's too angry, people will be turned away by the grouch.

And O'Reilly isn't a grouch?

[Vern Gagne 0]

Egomaniac Blowhard vs Egomaniac Blowhard

 

O'Reilly will remain more popular because his show targets a wider audience.

[Guest JMA]

Egomaniac Blowhard vs Egomaniac Blowhard

 

O'Reilly will remain more popular because his show targets a wider audience.

Meh. He panders to blue collar people. That's a big reason for his popularity. That and people seem to like loudmouth jackasses.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Political Talk Radio, in all honesty, should be listened for pure entertainment and taken with a grain of salt, no matter what side of the fence the person is on.

A-MEN!

 

You know, back when Mario Cumo just started his radio talk show, Rush said something to the extent of "before he can go up against me he needs to beat out all the hosts lower than me."

 

He was right -- Cumo's show was aborted in its first trimester.

 

Lets see if this liberal talk syndicate can out draw/compete with local talk shows and B-level personalities (Savage, Hannity, etc.) first before having them go up against Rush.

 

Personally, I think it's laughable that they have to buy radio stations, but whatever.

 

Is this network the one that hired Ed Schultz -- some liberal guy from Minn. (or was it N. Dakota?) I've seen him on Scarborough a few times and I have him in the category of an Alan Colmes -- don't always agree with him, but I like him nevertheless.

 

Oh, and I've already got a name picked out for this bunch.

 

OMG PROGRESSIVE MEDIA LOL2003!...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Oh, and I've already got a name picked out for this bunch.

 

OMG PROGRESSIVE MEDIA LOL2003!...

Speaking of abortion...

[Guest Cerebus]

So conservatives have radio, a few political magazines, the editorial of the Wall St. Journal, Rober Novak on Crossfire, and oh my God they have "Faux" News laugh out loud! That sure beats the liberal stranglehold on high school education, college education, basic television, the rest of cable television, Time magazine, NY Times, LA Times, Newsweek, Reuters News wire... need I go on?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Crossfire's still around? When is it on? I miss those "Political Alerts" they had at the top of the hour during their old 7 p.m. time slot...

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

  That sure beats the liberal stranglehold on high school education, college education, basic television, the rest of cable television, Time magazine, NY Times, LA Times, Newsweek, Reuters News wire... need I go on?

 

And I'll call bullshit on this one.

 

If you've read the current statistics from CNN, you'd realize that 59% of people in the age demographic of 18-30 recognize themselves as conservatives. High school education? Please. Recognize that most high school teachers will state that "I won't give my opinion because I don't want it to influence yours." Did anyone else have teachers like that, because I sure did.

 

College education is yet another matter. From the Boston Globe Magazine, this past week, 41% of college students consider themselves to be conservative, born-again Christians. Consider that this view is also extremely intolerable to any other viewpoint. So, if you are Jewish, Protestant, Buddhist, etc. you are all going to hell. Include me on this list.

 

Apparently nobody also watches Nightline here, as Koppel just did a piece on how some students in America, who are conservative, feel the need to eliminate any liberal teachers from America, because they are churning out unpatriotic citizens. In other words, if you aren't conservative, then you shouldn't teach. "Only teach views that are supportive and pro-America."

 

Time magazine is centrist, I hate to break it to you. It more often than not tries to get both sides to a story out, and let's the reader decide. How about the recent article on why people love or hate Bush? It merely presented both sides without trying to persuade you to believe one or the other.

 

The New York Times? Liberal? Beats me. The LA Times is another story. Print journalism that is conservative as well: Washington Post, Weekly Standard (which gets advertised on such "liberal" networks like CNN and MSNBC), Boston Globe, Boston Herald.

 

Broadcast journalism, I think, is in a better state than what it was a year ago. I think that CNN is trying to follow slightly on the edge of Fox News (yes, the real name) without losing integrity. MSNBC is slowly but surely going under. And I think that you'll see it try to become Fox News-Lite before it dies a slow, painful, miserable death. How about ABC? It tried to censor a lot of what Koppel has done, even attempting to replace his program. CBS? It's the patriarch of old-school journalism, which attempts to be objective.

 

In conclusion: I think that you have failed to prove that there is a liberal stranglehold on high school education, college education, print journalism, broadcast journalism, and the like. I think you've failed to prove anything. Which, evidently, seems to be a disturbing trend lately.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

College education is yet another matter. From the Boston Globe Magazine, this past week, 41% of college students consider themselves to be conservative, born-again Christians. Consider that this view is also extremely intolerable to any other viewpoint. So, if you are Jewish, Protestant, Buddhist, etc. you are all going to hell. Include me on this list.

 

So just because someone calls themself a born-again Christian you think they are intolerable to any other viewpoint?

 

Apparently nobody also watches Nightline here, as Koppel just did a piece on how some students in America, who are conservative, feel the need to eliminate any liberal teachers from America, because they are churning out unpatriotic citizens. In other words, if you aren't conservative, then you shouldn't teach. "Only teach views that are supportive and pro-America."

 

And I can counter with a multitude of stories about “tolerant” students that tried to ban conservative student organizations/publications. And how many students are “some” -- the 41 percent that Boston Globe Magazine poll says there are?

 

I’ll refrain from commenting on your opinions regarding various print and broadcast media “biases” because everyone’s interpretation of “bias” is different, although I hope you were talking about the Washington Times and not the Post.

 

I also do not understand the point of the Weekly Standard getting advertised on “liberal” networks – I’ve seen “The Nation” pimped on a certain cable news channel myself (not recently however), and even “CNN” advertises on this channel, too...

Edited December 3, 2003 by kkktookmybabyaway

[Justice 0]

  That sure beats the liberal stranglehold on high school education, college education, basic television, the rest of cable television, Time magazine, NY Times, LA Times, Newsweek, Reuters News wire... need I go on?

 

And I'll call bullshit on this one.

 

If you've read the current statistics from CNN, you'd realize that 59% of people in the age demographic of 18-30 recognize themselves as conservatives. High school education? Please. Recognize that most high school teachers will state that "I won't give my opinion because I don't want it to influence yours." Did anyone else have teachers like that, because I sure did.

They STATE that, but it doesn't necessarily mean they will. Most high school teachers that I've run into (Plus the ones my mother works with in the Detriot School System) are liberals and often show a bit of it through how they teach. Maybe not the math teachers, but the History and Poly Sci people generally show it off through their teaching. Maybe it's not a massively huge influence, but it is a sizable one and to deny that it's there is foolish. Of course, you seemed to be so biased to the liberal side that you probably didn't notice it as much as someone, say, on my side of the fence would.

 

College education is yet another matter. From the Boston Globe Magazine, this past week, 41% of college students consider themselves to be conservative, born-again Christians. Consider that this view is also extremely intolerable to any other viewpoint. So, if you are Jewish, Protestant, Buddhist, etc. you are all going to hell. Include me on this list.

 

I honestly haven't seen it on my campus. Then again, a vast majority of college students to have a political viewpoint: they are completely indifferent to politics. And of course, intolerance is a must here...

 

Apparently nobody also watches Nightline here, as Koppel just did a piece on how some students in America, who are conservative, feel the need to eliminate any liberal teachers from America, because they are churning out unpatriotic citizens. In other words, if you aren't conservative, then you shouldn't teach. "Only teach views that are supportive and pro-America."

 

Actually, the majority of us College Republicans don't mind liberal teachers per se, it's only the ones who tend to have it vastly influence their teachings that should be gone. My roommate had a teacher like this last year, a complete fem-nazi. She made both his and a half dozen other conservatives in the room utterly miserable with her rants on everything from AA to Abortion, which is not what he is paying for at college. Are liberal teachers bad? No, becasue my favorite law teacher is quite the liberal. He just tends to keep it on the side. But the ones getting Party dispatches and relaying it to us should be complained about and should go.

 

Time magazine is centrist, I hate to break it to you. It more often than not tries to get both sides to a story out, and let's the reader decide. How about the recent article on why people love or hate Bush? It merely presented both sides without trying to persuade you to believe one or the other.

 

Debatable, depending on the article. It's not massively liberal, but it shares a bit of a tint. I personally like how they called Bush's approval ratings at the moment ominious considering they are higher than any of the last three presidents at this time in their presidency (Clinton had around 45% at this time). But whatever.

 

The New York Times? Liberal? Beats me. The LA Times is another story. Print journalism that is conservative as well: Washington Post, Weekly Standard (which gets advertised on such "liberal" networks like CNN and MSNBC), Boston Globe, Boston Herald.

 

All your credibility you had went out the window when you said that the New York Times isn't liberal. Often the big papers tend to be liberal (NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, SF Chronicle, Detroit Free Press). Though they do have smaller conservative counterparts: Detroit News, NY Post, Washington Times ( I believe).

 

CNN and MSNBC tend to be liberal in their news reporting. Not as blantant as Fox tends to be conservative, but they have a liberal slant, like it or not.

 

In conclusion: I think that you have failed to prove that there is a liberal stranglehold on high school education, college education, print journalism, broadcast journalism, and the like. I think you've failed to prove anything. Which, evidently, seems to be a disturbing trend lately.

 

Wildbomb, more and more your are turning out to be a less informed, further left version of Tyler. Congrats.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

They STATE that, but it doesn't necessarily mean they will. Most high school teachers that I've run into (Plus the ones my mother works with in the Detriot School System) are liberals and often show a bit of it through how they teach.

 

Funny enough my 9th- and 11th-grade Math teacher was a big time lib -- she all but said so in her classes. And man did she hate Oliver North. Of course, throughout high school my head was on my desk and I was in a light slumber, so I can't say how many libs, or conservatives, taught in my high school.

 

Are liberal teachers bad? No, becasue my favorite law teacher is quite the liberal.

 

One of my favorite profs in college was a huge liberal, and we got into a few exchanges. The best was when she kept saying "Contract on America," (this was in '95) and I kept correcting her, since the class was public speaking. The fourth or fifth time I corrected her on this she made some crack to me about being so predictable and I said something like, "Well this is a public speaking class and I always thought mispronunciations were a big no-no."

 

After the class I had several students -- all of them older -- come up to me in thanks for putting her on the spot like I did...

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Actually, I'm more of a moderate, myself. I'm fiscally conservative, socially liberal.

 

However, I am questioning the unilateral support that conservatism has on this board. I'm actually surprised at this, to be quite honest.

 

kkk: I don't call all born-again Christians this. The article does. I'd post a link, but it's no longer free to view on-line. Try A LexisNexis search for it.

 

I don't mind Republicans, I just don't agree with some of the ideologies that are posted here. I'm trying to show the other side of the argument, although there isn't much support for it here.

 

So then I question: why do you see things the way you do?

 

I hold firm to the idea that the media is SOCIALLY liberal, but quite POLITICALLY conservative. I just don't think there is much of a liberal voice to the mass media. I applaud the effort given here, although I'm not sure why they had to buy stations...perhaps because owners of current stations refused? I don't know. I'm just dismayed.

 

I think I come off as a leftist on the board because everyone here seems to be conservative. Is that true? Or is it the fact that I am also at Emerson College, one of the most liberal schools in the country?

 

The NY Times, I feel, probably is quite good at attempting to be objective. I think there are shades of both liberal and conservative ideologies found within it.

 

Now, as far as not being informed: I try to research the topics I post on, or at least have an idea about. I won't try to post on something that I have absolutely no clue on.

 

I think that I'm going to put a poll up, asking for people's political ideologies, just to see a comparison.

 

And for those that care: Bush has done a decent job in his presidency. I wouldn't call him a great one, but I would not say that he is horrendous either. I don't agree with his media consolidation ideas, nor his tax cut, but to state that I am an uninformed leftist is just incorrect.

 

Bah. Rant over.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

So the article said, "Consider that this view is also extremely intolerable to any other viewpoint. So, if you are Jewish, Protestant, Buddhist, etc. you are all going to hell. Include me on this list."?...

[Guest JMA]

I'll admit the media does have a left-wing slant on social issues (abortion, gay rights, gun control ect). But one could argue that it is because more and more people are becoming socially liberal.

 

Hell, even Republicans like Arnold tilt to the left on social issues.

[Guest Cerebus]

I'll admit the media does have a left-wing slant on social issues (abortion, gay rights, gun control ect). But one could argue that it is because more and more people are becoming socially liberal.

I dunno JMA, most polling shows a sharp decrease in tolerance for gay rights.

[Guest JMA]

I'll admit the media does have a left-wing slant on social issues (abortion, gay rights, gun control ect). But one could argue that it is because more and more people are becoming socially liberal.

I dunno JMA, most polling shows a sharp decrease in tolerance for gay rights.

Who conducted these polls?

[MrRant 0]

Who conducted these polls?

Probably men tired of shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

 

That show is going to cause a backlash against gay culture.

[Guest JMA]

Who conducted these polls?

Probably men tired of shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

 

That show is going to cause a backlash against gay culture.

I agree.

 

I don't really understand the appeal of that show.

[Guest Cerebus]

Who conducted these polls?

Probably men tired of shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

 

That show is going to cause a backlash against gay culture.

I wonder why people think that...after all we know that gay guys are all good looking upper middle class white guys with lisps, into fasion, very feminine, and know what women really want (much more than straight men do) and lesbians are really hot pornstars or butch truck drivers and/or blue collar workers with buzz-cuts

[Swift Terror 0]

Mark Walsh, one of the investors, has said he wants this network to be known as 'centrist' and avoid the 'liberal' label. "To label ourselves as liberal radio out of the box is a little regrettable, and something I'm trying to avoid," he says. Yet, he is close to hiring Franken and Garofalo? Yeah, they're centrist, very in touch with the mainstream.

 

This whole thing is so lame. Whining about talk radio being dominated by conservatives, so they're going to just buy their way into it? "You guys are all over, it's not fair, it's not fair!" "I know, let's get a bunch of rich white liberals and we'll just start our own network!" Why don't they just find talented people and do it the way the conservatives did...well, I guess that's out.

 

I heard Franken once on a talk show and when the host told him to hold his thought, it was time for a commercial break, Franken said, Aha! the infamous commercial break you conservatives use to cut off anyone with an opposing argument.... Yeah, these guys really know what they're doing--this aint NPR morons.

[Guest MikeSC]

And I'll call bullshit on this one.

 

If you've read the current statistics from CNN, you'd realize that 59% of people in the age demographic of 18-30 recognize themselves as conservatives. High school education? Please. Recognize that most high school teachers will state that "I won't give my opinion because I don't want it to influence yours." Did anyone else have teachers like that, because I sure did.

 

That is an unspeakable load of crap there. High school teachers have NO problem putting their views into whatever they teach.

 

College education is yet another matter. From the Boston Globe Magazine, this past week, 41% of college students consider themselves to be conservative, born-again Christians. Consider that this view is also extremely intolerable to any other viewpoint. So, if you are Jewish, Protestant, Buddhist, etc. you are all going to hell. Include me on this list.

 

Hmm, YOU are calling THEM "intolerable"?

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 

Apparently nobody also watches Nightline here, as Koppel just did a piece on how some students in America, who are conservative, feel the need to eliminate any liberal teachers from America, because they are churning out unpatriotic citizens. In other words, if you aren't conservative, then you shouldn't teach. "Only teach views that are supportive and pro-America."

 

Funny, because conservative professors tend to not get tenure A LOT if they make their political affiliations known to the powers-that-be --- but lib profs rarely run into that problem.

 

Weird how that works.

 

Time magazine is centrist, I hate to break it to you. It more often than not tries to get both sides to a story out, and let's the reader decide. How about the recent article on why people love or hate Bush? It merely presented both sides without trying to persuade you to believe one or the other.

 

I can't imagine what coudl constitute liberal to you.

 

The New York Times? Liberal? Beats me. The LA Times is another story. Print journalism that is conservative as well: Washington Post, Weekly Standard (which gets advertised on such "liberal" networks like CNN and MSNBC), Boston Globe, Boston Herald.

 

The NY Times is EXTREMELY liberal. It's not even really a debate. And the Weekly Standard gets "advertised" on lib networks --- gee, you mean they'll ACCEPT MONEY TO ADVERTISE THINGS?

 

Get the hell outta town!

 

Broadcast journalism, I think, is in a better state than what it was a year ago. I think that CNN is trying to follow slightly on the edge of Fox News (yes, the real name) without losing integrity. MSNBC is slowly but surely going under. And I think that you'll see it try to become Fox News-Lite before it dies a slow, painful, miserable death. How about ABC? It tried to censor a lot of what Koppel has done, even attempting to replace his program. CBS? It's the patriarch of old-school journalism, which attempts to be objective.

 

"Old-school journalism" is LIBERAL as heck. Cronkite was LIBERAL --- extremely so.

 

In conclusion: I think that you have failed to prove that there is a liberal stranglehold on high school education, college education, print journalism, broadcast journalism, and the like. I think you've failed to prove anything. Which, evidently, seems to be a disturbing trend lately.

 

So, your opinion trumps our opinion?

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Mark Walsh, one of the investors, has said he wants this network to be known as 'centrist' and avoid the 'liberal' label. "To label ourselves as liberal radio out of the box is a little regrettable, and something I'm trying to avoid," he says. Yet, he is close to hiring Franken and Garofalo? Yeah, they're centrist, very in touch with the mainstream.

 

This whole thing is so lame. Whining about talk radio being dominated by conservatives, so they're going to just buy their way into it? "You guys are all over, it's not fair, it's not fair!" "I know, let's get a bunch of rich white liberals and we'll just start our own network!" Why don't they just find talented people and do it the way the conservatives did...well, I guess that's out.

 

I heard Franken once on a talk show and when the host told him to hold his thought, it was time for a commercial break, Franken said, Aha! the infamous commercial break you conservatives use to cut off anyone with an opposing argument.... Yeah, these guys really know what they're doing--this aint NPR morons.

Thing is, Franken IS funny. Legitimately, he is really funny. But he will easily cross the line from funny to cruel.

 

And the Nat'l Review did a story on one of the guys who is a favorite to get one of the major slots on the lib network --- a guy who has been gung-ho for a Bush impeachment and the like.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Thing is, Franken IS funny. Legitimately, he is really funny. But he will easily cross the line from funny to cruel.

 

And O'Reilly can cross the line from inherently cruel to utterly comical on occasion, too

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

HEADLINE: ALEX BEAM;

AT EMERSON, THEY'RE SINGING THE UNION BLUES

 

BYLINE: BY ALEX BEAM

 

BODY:

T HEREIS AN UNTIDY LITTLE FIGHT GOING ON AT JAY LENO'S ALMA MATER - EMERSON COLLEGE, THE ARTS AND JOURNALISM INSTITUTION THAT SPENT MOST OF THE 1990S RELOCATING FROM THE BACK BAY INTO THE THEATER DISTRICT. NOW THE ADMINISTRATION HAS APPARENTLY DECIDED TO SPEND THE BEGINNING OF THE 21ST CENTURY WARRING WITH ITS FACULTY.

 

Emerson president Jacqueline Liebergott fired the first salvo just as classes were reconvening this fall, announcing her intention to move against the faculty union, a chapter of the American Association of University Professors. (This is the same union that John Silber booted out of Boston University in the mid-1980s.) "The College . . . does not wish to continue the bargaining relationship as it exists," Liebergott wrote to the 104 full-time professors.

 

Citing a 23-year-old Supreme Court decision, the Emerson president offered the faculty a choice: (1) Keep the union, but stop participating in college governance. (2) Ditch the union. Should the faculty stick with the AAUP, she added, "we will negotiate an agreement appropriate for a group of non-managerial employees."

 

   Eiki Satake, a professor of mathematics and statistics who is president of Emerson's AAUP chapter, fired back a stinging response, expressing "shock" at Liebergott's letter, adding, "During the next AAUP meeting, we will discuss what we consider to be the offensive and indefensible position you have taken." In an interview, Satake said: "They are asking us not to be involved in any kind of decision-making. What will happen to tenure? What will happen to academic freedom?"

 

The big question is: Why now? Emerson has hardly been the scene of labor strife; in fact, the collective-bargaining agreement contains a no-strike clause, which puts a damper on faculty militancy. David Rosen, Emerson's vice president for public affairs, explains that Emerson has been working hard to improve its standing in national rankings of small liberal-arts colleges. Among the colleges it now sees itself competing with, Rosen says, "none of them have unionized faculties." (Nationwide, only about 10 percent of private colleges are unionized, compared to about 30 percent of public institutions, according to the AAUP.   "The college sees a union relationship by definition as adversarial and politicized," Rosen continues. "Confrontation and politics is what you get with a union." Perhaps. But in this case, confrontation is what you get from a jumpy and overreactive college president.

 

Could it be that the Republican head of my college is wanting to eliminate tenure? She has already attempted to fire four liberal professors, including the one quoted in the article.

 

Just a response to TheMikeSC.

 

Oh, and by the way: you can click here in order to find out about the evangelical following on college campuses. And yes, it does state, and I quote again:

 

While peaceful coexistence with other religions is preached, so is the message that eternal salvation is open only to those who line up behind them and Jesus Christ.

 

Yet in this hub of liberal, I'm-OK-you're-OK-we're-all-OK higher education, the pull grows stronger for this conservative, our-way-is-the-highway evangelism.

 

I don't mind if you want to believe something, but to impose your views on someone, and then say "If you don't believe in us you're going to rot in hell", is just flat-out wrong.

 

Liberal: a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

[Guest Cerebus]

Liberal: a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

I perfer Orwell's definition "Liberal: A power worshiper without power."

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Liberal: a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

I perfer Orwell's definition "Liberal: A power worshiper without power."

You would.

[Guest JMA]

Liberal: a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Now THAT'S sig worthy.