18 thoughts on “WCCO Radio Should Stop Giving Free Airtime To Governors

  1. Newt says:

    The DFL has MPR, which seldom has GOP guests on its shows. Listeners suffered through dozens of Kerry Miller interviews of Pogemiller and Keliher in the last 48 months. You got yours.

  2. Newt says:

    You all are confusing news coverage of Pawlenty with fawning, uncritical open-mike fellatio interviews by Gary Eichten and Keri Miller of DFL hacks.

    I consider MPR to be an exclusive broadcast franking privilege of the DFL.

  3. Jim Leinfelder says:

    Newt: Make an effort. Those are Midday appearances with your bete noir, Gary Eichten. I didn’t even check the number of appearances on Midmorning. Bring something to the party, son.

  4. Joe Loveland says:

    Re: MPR “seldom has GOP guests on its shows.”

    Newt, I have to believe you know that’s a demonstrably silly assertion. MPR has roughly equal measures of Democratic and Republican guests.

    But even if that ridiculous claim were true, there still is an important qualitative difference. On MPR, politicians are being questioned. On WCCO-AM, the Governor is allowed to control the airwaves like Tokyo Rose. Big difference.

    1. Dennis lang says:

      Hey Newt, don’t let those liberal contrarians foregoing badger you for your poorly considered knee-jerk conservative regurgitations. (When is excessive narrow-mindedness not a virtue? Stick to your guns!) Personally, I find you consistently entertaining. And as we say in sport, unlike Bernard Barrian, there is something to be said for just showing up to play.

  5. Newt says:

    Whoaa. Does it make any difference that ‘CCO’s listenership is represented principally by nursing home patients? I think this is much ado about nothing.

    BTW, I happen to like Gary Eichten, but he does the C-Span style of interview where the guest spews some outrageous, unsupportable garbage and the interviewer deadpans and moves to the next softball question.

    Keri Miller (aka Breathless Mahoney) drinks her own bathwater. She is so in love with her melodramatic voice and analysis that she smothers her guests. Highly annoying.

    1. Joe Loveland says:

      I guess you’re right, those older listeners at WCCO don’t help politicians at all. After all, what politician cares about the 65-74 year olds, who vote at a 70% clip, when you can go after those 18-24 year olds, who vote at at a 32% cliip. What politician would value a 50,000 watt signal with one of the largest listening areas in the nation? Having political control of WCCO obviously has no political value.

  6. david says:

    Although I agree that WCCO shouldn’t be giving free time to any politician without equal rebuttal time from the opposition, I’m willing to listen to 4 years of Mark Dayton before we start the “fair play” game!

    1. Joe Loveland says:

      Believe me, I sympathize with that sentiment. But if the “they got away with it, so we should too” cycle is never interupted, can the system ever improve?

    1. Joe Loveland says:

      No longer as dominant, it’s true, but still in the top tier ratings-wise. And politicians covet it because, they have older listeners, who faithfully turn out to the polls. And as I said before, WCCO, uniquely among stations, has nearly statewide reach. 50,000 watts baby.

  7. Minnesotan says:

    As long as it’s not an election year I don’t have a problem with it. While a candidate is never done campaign for themselves or their party, when it’s not an election year the person is our sitting governor and there isn’t an identified “opposition”, why not hear straight from the horses mouth?

    1. Joe Loveland says:

      My point-of-view is that elections are about 70-80% baked by the time the campaign begins. The campaign is still plenty relevant, but the pre-campaign period, when the majority of voters decide they’re either for or against the candidate, is actually much more important time for persuasion (though more out of the limelight, and therefore less noticed by observers). Therefore, to me, having free airtime for three-fourths of your term of office gives a very powerful political advantage to the incumbent over the challenger.

      I hear you about the advantages of “straight from the horse.” I could live with hearing it straight from the horses’ mouth, just not the horse’s mouth. What’s good for one branch of government should be equally good for the other branch of government. What’s good for one party should be equally good for the other party(s). If you don’t want to give the advantage to both sides, then don’t give it at all.

  8. This would have been a lot more troubling when WCCO radio, WCCO TV and only about three other major media outlets ruled the landscape. Today, when WCCO radio represents a microscopic fraction of one percent of the media landscape, I say “meh.” Particularly outside of election season, as Minnesotan points out, or rather, as long as the radio show isn’t used for explicit campaigning.

    1. Joe Loveland says:

      I get your point. WCCO isn’t as valued a megaphone. But that doesn’t mean their not a valued megaphone.

      Even in 2010’s wonderous media landscape, candidates spent millions to get in front of WCCO-AM’s audience for 60-seconds at a time. Modern candidates aren’t saying “meh” about the value of WCCO’s ears.

      And in contrast to those one-minute drive-by buys, the Lunch With The Governor call-in show gives the incumbent an hour, every week, for several years. The value of that show dwarfs the value of the ad airtime that candidates, even in the Interweb era, pay millions for.

      1. I’m not suggesting WCCO doesn’t offer a valuable, sought after megaphone. I am suggesting that opposing voices now have so many ways to “get the word out” that not having directly comparable access to the WCCO megaphone, specifically, is next to meaningless.

Comments are closed.