Most Wealthy Liberals Won't Back Progressive Media: Sheldon Drobny Found That Out the Hard Way

[democracy1st]

THE BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

By Mark Karlin

I first saw Sheldon Drobny asking a question during the initial "Free Press" media reform conference. It was held in Madison, Wisconsin, in 2003.

Shelly wanted a panel of funders to explain why wealthy media reform advocates weren’t investing in buying up media outlets, which would change the Republican corporate bias of the press faster than complaining about it.

It would be a couple of years before I formally met Shelly and his wife Anita, but he certainly had made an impression on me by cutting to the chase.

Shelly and Anita went on to found Air America (from which they were eased out) and then Nova M (which has just gone under).

I write this now because Shelly has suffered a nervous breakdown as a result of failing to raise enough money to keep Nova M alive, the fall in the value of his own investments, and a series of lawsuits involving legal accusations back and forth regarding Nova M. On top of that, Randi Rhodes and the Drobnys parted ways, leaving Rhodes currently off the airwaves -- and with the demise of Nova M, Randi is going to need to find an alternative means of airing her program.

Sheldon was still finding in 2008 that, for the most part, wealthy progressives weren’t willing to sufficiently invest in building a liberal media infrastructure.


But out of this debacle (and the still uncertain future of Air America with its ever-changing roster), I am reminded of the question that Shelly Drobny asked on a frigid winter day in Madison in 2003.

Why indeed do wealthy liberals – in general – refrain from financially backing progressive media? (BuzzFlash, for example, is supported by our readership, not by any large infusion of funds or advertising. That’s why we struggle -- with much heartburn -- to get by each month.)

The vision of Sheldon Drobny was to build a progressive radio presence that would compete with the still forceful propaganda voice of right wing dominance on the airwaves. (According to "Talkers Magazine," the top five 2009 radio show hosts are all right wingers. Only our good friend Thom Hartmannn makes the top ten as tenth.)

But Drobny found – to his distress (and ultimately a nervous breakdown) – that with the passage of years, the big liberal investors were putting their bucks into campaigns, some liberal "think tanks" and projects, but not – with rare exception – into ownership of the media itself.

Whatever the legal and personality issues the Drobnys are embroiled in, Sheldon should be saluted for fighting a lonely battle along with his wife Anita.

The biased "Republican talking points" way that the stimulus debate was framed by right wing radio and the corporate media is a testament to how prescient Shelly’s vision was back when I first heard him address the issue of media ownership.

We wish him a quick recovery.

THE BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

http://buzzflash.com/articles/node/7775



Talkers Magazine Top 100 Radio talkshow hosts

http://talkers.com/online/?p=267

[regnaD kciN]

1. Perhaps it wasn't so much that "wealthy liberals won't back progressive radio"...

...as it is that wealthy liberals won't back progressive radio run by Sheldon Drobny.

Sorry to be insensitive, but, while his heart may be in the right place, his business sense isn't. He almost managed to kill off Air America before it became viable, and apparently has now lost the company he set up to challenge AAR.

I'm not saying that the Drobnys aren't nice, idealistic people, but I don't know if I'd choose to invest in one of their projects, either.

[democracy1st]

7. thanks for the response regna checkout this link when you get a chance

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5020765

[hfojvt]

2. Why should liberal media have to depend on the wealthy to survive?

Doesn't rightwing radio make a ton of money off of advertisers? Don't print media like The Nation, Progressive, and Mother Jones survive from subscribers and advertisers? How much money do they need for their annual budget?

[democracy1st]

3. corp like Disney to name one funds rightwing media

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i21disneypetition.htm

[democracy1st]

4. when you get a chance read this David Brock interview

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/06/int04029.html

[MADem]

5. Rightwing media "entertains" while they make their points. "Liberal" media tends to lecture.

Granted, the rightwing hijinks may be disgraceful, but for those who agree with their essential premises, they find that shit amusing as hell.

Leftwing media tends to either be too frigging serious, too hectoring, too "PC," lecturing and nannying, or, when they take a stab at humor, it's often with a heavy, clumsy hand or a broad brush. They don't have the "SNL" touch.

[HughBeaumont]

6. Maybe it's because we really cannot respond in kind or with a laugh . . .

. . . when someone says, with a smile and without care or remorse, things such as "job offshoring is good for the economy overall", "George W Bewsh kept us safe for seven years", "Why should I be responsible for anyone but my rich, white, pampered self?", or "The media is liberal. Face facts".

How is one supposed to react to inherently dangerous and stupid shit spewed from their fat mouths? You laugh and people assume you're laughing with them and not at them.

[MADem]

8. Well, if you're going to be serious all the time, all you're going to get for an audience is serious

people.

Folks who are driving to their shitty job, or home in stultifying, stop-n-go traffic want to FEEL SOMETHING. They either want to be amused, or outraged. They don't want, particularly, to be bummed out, though. This is why Imus is back on the air. He knows, like it or not, how to mix it up. He does news, music, schtick, and guests--a wide variety of guests, too. No shooting the messenger, now.

SNL manages to 'hit it' fairly unerringly, too--and they lean left. Of course, they don't draw a bright red line around one party and say "No insults to that team--they're off limits!" They dish it out as it's deserved.

I'm not suggesting that you laugh at the Limbaughs and the Hannitys of the world. I don't recommend you even listen to them. Pop in a tape (how quaint--a CD or plug in your iPod) of Old Time Radio from the thirties and forties if you can't find anything to listen to.

What I'm saying is that the left doesn't have anyone who has that sort of "style" and can compete with them effectively. Why? Because the left gets too serious, too didactic, too preachy, too "poutrageous." It's all anger and umbrage, and very little humor--hell, you can get that at home, as the saying goes. And when they do humor, it's pretty shitty, lame and either unfunny or trying too hard....it's always 'Hands off the Dem'--even if the Dem has done something very, very wrong (e.g. "Countrywide" Chris Dodd).

When people listen to talk radio, they want it to be a silly, guilty pleasure. They want to identify with the hosts. They don't want to feel like they're getting lectured by the teacher, or taking their medicine.

No one is suggesting that anyone "go along" with hate radio. What's needed, though, is someone with a MUCH lighter touch speaking from the left, with less drama, less hitting every note and nerve, and less choir-preaching. Someone who can look at the events of the day, discuss them in an interesting and engaging manner, do a little schtick, and tout the Democratic agenda without using it like a club and beating people over the head with it.

[Winterblues]

9. The left does not want that style

IMO those on the left find it abominable to make a living by disrespecting people. People on the right seem more eager for a thrill of confrontation and in your face bravado. That usually is the mentality of a twelve year old, but it would appear that is what right wing America craves. Liberals find it hard to mix humor and politics because politics are not a subject that should be made light of. It is very serious. If we want comedy we watch Saturday Night Live. Speaking for myself I don't like or listen to Pundits that make fun of people. That make u cute little names "Femi-Nazi", "Tree Hugger" etc. I think most Liberals live by the Golden Rule and no one can say that about Limbaugh or Savage or Hannity. If it takes that sort of in your face, controversial, humiliating stimuli to attract listeners I am afraid Liberals aren't going to be good at it.

[MADem]

10. You don't have to "disrespect" people. They don't do that on SNL.

They don't get confrontational, either. They do, however, call people out when they act like pompous jerks, and that's a good thing. Tina Fey's Palin was a brilliant interpretation. Jon Lovitz's Dukakis ("I can't believe I'm losing to this guy") was a work of genius. No one did a better GHW Bush than Dana Carvey.

I also don't agree with your thesis that liberals find it hard to mix humor and politics--again, Saturday Night Live has done that to magnificent effect for DECADES. Much of that stuff can translate to radio, with the right voices and good scripts.

There's absolutely no reason, save pisspoor writing and excessive hubris, that the liberal side of the coin can't be funny, too. Just because liberals don't make fun of people by idiotic name calling (which isn't terribly funny or creative) doesn't mean they can't make fun of them for their ACTIONS. After all, Senator David Vitter "is" 'Diaper Boy.' George Bush "is" 'The Monkey.' It's not like we're a bunch of hand-wringing purists who never say anything mean. That's just bullshit.

So long as left talkers stay on their pompous high horses, they'll never rule the airwaves. People just don't want to be lectured, hectored, scolded or told that the sky is falling (when our guy is in the White House, particularly) on their way to and from work.

I happen to believe that the problem is writing, packaging, management, and sales, not that Democrats are different from Republicans in their desire to be amused during drive-time.

[Winterblues]

11. Sounds like I am being ... "lectured, hectored, scolded or told "

:shrug: Do you feel Rachael Maddow treats her listeners in that manner?

[MADem]

12. No, I'm simply disagreeing with you. That's what happens on discussion boards, you see.

I don't find Rachel Maddow terribly funny, actually. Her humor is a bit too obvious for me.

I like the SNL paradigm--that sort of writing is smart, sharp, and edgy.

[Gold Metal Flake]

13. This is the funniest sub-thread I have read in a long time.

The stereotype of the self-centered, overly-critical liberal is captured so perfectly. The comments about SNL being smart, sharp, and edgy and, by comparison, not "obvious" left me :ROFL:.
:applause:

[MADem]

14. SNL can be pretty obvious, too

It's just not as didactic. They can actually turn around and bite their own ass every now and again (the Clintons, even some of the Obama stuff, e.g.) and that makes them easier to take--it's not an unrelenting beat-down, and they can have a light touch as well (the Palin stuff, for example--it was funny but not vicious).

I like that dancing panda icon--priceless!