Whew. Beginning Thursday, Milwaukee Magazine was deluged with e-mail from readers across the country, alternately praising and trashing our feature story, “Secrets of Talk Radio” by Dan Shelley, the former news director of WTMJ radio. Many of the naysayers demanded to know how we could run such a story, and were reinforced in their views by TMJ talk show host Charlie Sykes, who spent two hours bashing the article on his Friday morning show.
Ironically, it was Sykes who edited and contributed to some of the first “Pressroom” columns for this magazine, back when he served as its editor. He helped create a tradition of 25 years’ standing: Milwaukee Magazine is known for its coverage of the media, which is based on the simple principle that transparency in the industry is a good thing. Consumers of the media – and the American democracy – are better served by the light of such scrutiny.
It was Jim Romenesko who created the model for the magazine’s column. You might say he now does Pressroom for the nation, and his popular column for the Poynter Institute was among the Internet sites that helped spread the word about our current story.
Why run the story? Well, in four days, the magazine’s Web site had 49,000 unique visitors, about 10 times more traffic than normal. It was an editor’s dream. But frankly, I had bigger plans. Before the story was published, I contacted Sykes and made him an offer: I would leak the piece ahead of time to him and offer the chance to write his own story, defending talk radio and responding to Shelley’s claims. This would place Milwaukee Magazine at the heart of an important debate, give both stories equal treatment and generate two straight months of controversy.
Sykes seemed interested and asked to see the story. But after that, I never heard from him. Finally, I was contacted by Sykes’ boss, Journal Broadcast Executive Vice President Steve Wexler, who informed me Sykes would not be doing an article for us. Instead, he asked the magazine to run a short letter from management that, among other things, said “neither the station nor our hosts were offered a chance to comment on or correct errors of fact.”
In response, I e-mailed Wexler and told him the magazine always runs corrections of factual errors, so he should inform me of any such examples. He never responded. After we posted the story, he again e-mailed me and asked if we were going to run that letter. I again responded that he needed to alert us of any errors. I was again met by silence, so I sent Wexler a revised letter that changed the wording to this: “Neither the station nor our hosts were offered a chance to comment on the claims made by the author.” Wexler agreed to this and I posted his letter.
This may seem like a small difference, but I can tell you that any editor for the “Mainstream Media,” as talk radio has dubbed us, lives in fear of errors and takes pains to correct any. The reason is simple: The value of publications is their “good will” in the community. If the publication begins to get the reputation that it doesn’t play fair, doesn’t strive at all times to be accurate and correct errors, this will generate bad will that lowers its prestige and readership.
Conservative talk radio is a different animal entirely. Both Sykes and WISN afternoon host Mark Belling, the two top rated such hosts in town, have expressly declared they are entertainers and not journalists, and have no obligation to present both sides of an issue. Their appeal arises precisely from a lack of good will toward certain segments of the community. And yet when Shelley offered a behind-the-scenes description of how this approach works, Sykes cried foul. But his response merely reinforced Shelley’s critique.
Sykes Misfires
As Shelley’s story describes it, talk radio hosts like to portray themselves and their audiences as victims of a liberal media. Sure enough, Sykes began his program by portraying the story as part of a liberal conspiracy to bring back the fairness doctrine requiring radio programs to present both sides of an issue. As the former editor of Milwaukee Magazine, Sykes is well aware it has never published stories on federal issues. We are strictly local. We have no position on the fairness doctrine. Had Shelley proposed a story that did not focus on local radio hosts, I would never have run it.
Shelley notes how talk radio uses the “you know what would happen if this was a liberal” argument. Sure enough, Sykes said, “you know what would happen if” the magazine had been offered a story going after liberal Journal Sentinel columnist Eugene Kane? The answer is we would publish it and did: Our March 2006 Pressroom did the inside story on how Kane attacked Germantown for alleged racism without checking the facts. Sykes, of course, knows this, because he alerted his listeners to our story.
Shelley notes how Charlie would personally belittle people when he couldn’t win his arguments on the merits. Sure enough, Sykes suggested Shelley must be “a disgruntled former employee.” But Shelley was known as a loyal corporate soldier in his 11 years at WTMJ and left only to take a job in digital media with WCBS in New York. Sykes pounced on this to associate Shelley with former CBS anchor Dan Rather and “Rathergate,” but Shelley was at TMJ when that happened, and doubtlessly helped Charlie with his attacks on Rather at the time.
What’s striking about Sykes’ blogged response to Shelley’s essay is how unresponsive it is. Sykes doesn’t directly address or deny that conservative talk radio hosts (1) perpetuate the notion that listeners are victims and the host is the vehicle by which they are empowered; (2) use an us-versus-them approach that regularly targets Democrats, “Republicans in Name Only” and the mainstream media; (3) refuse to do an even-handed discussion of issues; (4) belittle callers when the argument can’t be won on the merits; (5) strategically find occasions to disagree with the Republican leaders or conservative doctrine to give the impression of being an independent thinker; (6) won’t risk their credibility by backing a Republican candidate who has no chance of winning; (7) rely on the “you know what would happen if this was a liberal” line of attack; (8) use the “pre-emptive strike” to immediately accuse the media of overplaying a budding news story that might make conservatives look bad; (9) selectively use facts to support their position and ignore any that don’t; (10) pound away on an issue, hour after hour, day after day, to motivate listeners to contact their public officials in support of a particular policy; (11) use a double standard on such issues as the line-item veto, perjury and activist judges (all three are great if they help Republicans or conservatives, but bad if used in support of Democrats).
Nor does Sykes deny a claim specific to his style: that he routinely attacks Journal Sentinel editors Marty Kaiser and George Stanley, knowing they are unlikely to respond to his e-mails, so he could then blast their decisions and additionally bash them for not having the guts to respond to him.
Rather than addressing these specific observations, Sykes mostly heaps scorn on Shelley. Even the few times when Sykes contests some point, he does so selectively. In response to Shelley’s claim that callers were screened so carefully that even prominent politicians wouldn’t be allowed on the air, Sykes brings in his producer Joe Scialfa, who denies this while adding, “I can only think of a handful of times” that either Mayor Tom Barrett or former Mayor John Norquist called and weren’t put on the air.
Sykes also denies using Republican talking points in his shows. Interestingly, he doesn’t deny getting sent the daily talking points, but says he just deletes them. I see. So a talk show host who adamantly declares he presents a conservative point of view and frequently brags that his advocacy has helped get Republicans elected has no desire to see how the GOP is trying to frame the issues? How remarkably uncurious of Sykes.
At his best, Sykes can be a terrific writer. But in this case, he faced what may have been an insuperable problem: His show is on the public airwaves and too many listeners have heard him operate in exactly the fashion so precisely described by Shelley. Perhaps this is why Sykes or his bosses decided he couldn’t win the debate with his former co-worker, and so declined to do an article for Milwaukee Magazine. Instead, they decided to circle the wagons and declare that a liberal conspiracy is afoot. If so, it’s one cooked up by a longtime colleague that they trusted to help run Charlie’s show for 11 years. It’s precisely that unique vantage point that makes his essay of such interest to readers.
The Buzz
-Word has it that Milwaukee school board members Jennifer Morales and Danny Goldberg won’t be running for re-election.
-The Journal Sentinel’s fine (if overly long) series on Wisconsin’s drinking culture triggered a follow-up story by the New York Times. Quite a coup for the JS.
And the Sports Nut considers: Are the Packers that good or the Bears that bad?
