KSFO Sales Manager calls me a coward. School yard tactics ENGAGE!
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
-Gandhi
I used to do a feature in which I argued with wingnuts I didn't know. I think this calls for a return. Below is a post on this blog that I got from a person claiming to be the sales manager from KSFO, Michael Black. After that post was a post from another person (his wonder twin?) who sounds suspiciously like Michael Black whom (for the purpose of this post) I'll call Anonymous Concern Troll (ACT). So let’s unpack these posts. As always, wingnut in black. Spocko in Blue
SB,
Your decision to avoid debate is not surprising. It shows your cowardice. If you have nothing to hide, call in, identify yourself as Spocko and offer your opinion. Maybe you can actually change some listeners' minds politically.
Of course I never asked for a debate, it was his suggestion, (or maybe his boss' suggestion). This of course is a standard tactic of rightwing radio hosts. They want to set the stage where they have the mike, they have the sound and they have the last word. They have their screeners and sycophant callers, easily mockable callers and a forum to broadcast to hundreds of thousands but they know that it is still not enough, so they have to keep the game fixed. I've heard Sussman's "debates" with people on his show. Goofy music cues for them, mocking them the second they are off the air. It's a set piece to produce the illusion of debate. As Jon Stewart has said, "It's theatre." and "No, I'm not going to be your monkey." Or as Mark Danner has said, "It's people sitting around a fire grunting."
And of course if the KSFO management wants to call me a coward, fine. I'm not the one continuing to support a man who calls for killing 10 million Muslims that he estimates are out to kill us. I'm not the one who talks about how he would torture Iraqis by cutting off their finger and then their penis. It wasn't me who demanded that a caller say "Allah is a whore". I don't know what you would call someone who supports that kind of speech. Enablers?
Most multi-national corportations (sic) support the conservative agenda with millions of dollars aimed at special interest groups.
Oh, I'm quite aware of this. And they are also willing to lose (invest?) millions in it. Read The Republican Noise Machine and you will see their long term strategy. And I'm sure that is what you are telling advertisers: that they are supporting a "conservative agenda" when you sell them time. If you told them they were advertising on hate speech radio, they might not sign up. And when they find out the ACTUAL content of the show then they say, "We'll go elsewhere."
I'm not sure how the "conservative agenda" is supported by associating with the outrageous comments of Brian Sussman. I don't quite see how driving away the business of Muslims is a smart business move. Or demanding that they adhere to his version of Christianity, which is different from say the nice Coptic Christians or the smart evangelical Christians like Jim Wallis. Of course maybe they think they are aligning with Christians in general, but since Sussman has never actually claimed to be a Christian I don't see it. He calls himself a "theocon" and I suppose there are a few self identified Theocon's out there who listen. Great. But Sussman doesn't say he is any specific Christian faith because if he did people could point out that he isn't even following the tenets of that version of Christianity.
Do you really think that getting one or two off KSFO temporarily has any lasting effect? They just move their money to another radio group like Clear Channel that supports the conservative agenda.
Actually I do think it will have a effect. You wouldn't be writing me if it didn't. Lasting? Who knows. But I do know that I have to stand against Sussman in ways that shows people I find his comments unacceptable for advertiser supported broadcast radio. I'm not a big time blogger like John Avarosis, Atrios, Athenea, NTodd or Kos. I don't have the resources of Media Matters or the legal experience of the folks at EFF. I'm long winded and rarely topical. I've got 21 readers on a GOOD day. 22 if I count you. Most people who find me are looking for links to funny videos or Star Trek stuff. But occasionally I provide inspiration to others to also act, like PTCruiser whom I'm proud to have as a reader.
Big corporations make massive investments in nations around the world with less than questionable human rights. By targeting corporate divestment you can affect actual change.
Sadly, you're only speaking to the converted on your blog.
Michael Black
-------------------------------------
"Targeting corporate divestment"? Hmmm. I'll have to put that on my list of things to do. Just like your mistaken idea that I'm against some mythical "conservative agenda" (whatever you think that is) I have other steps to take first. One is giving advertisers an opportunity to choose what they will and won't support.
Companies have stated values and missions. And even if they can all be seen as expendable to the great "bottom line", some companies actually can see that certain values make good business sense. Insulting your customers and potential customers is usually not a good business mode.
Companies are composed of people. People who would rather be inclusive and diverse than exclusive and narrow. Some of these people listen to Sussman and think, "We ADVERTISE on that SHOW? That's not us. That's a bad fit. Call the media buyer. Pull our ads."
Next we have part two. A post from "Anonymous Concern Troll" who as another reader pointed out is either Michael Brown writing from home (note the similar content) or one of his buddies. I don't want to assume anything.
What I want you all to notice is how these two letters fit together and use multiple tactics to get me to stop. This is the salesman's mind. How do I overcome objections? In this case throwing up anything and everything even if they wildly contradict each other to see what sticks.
Letter one:
Calling me a coward.
Suggesting an ineffective course of action
Misstate what the issue is about "conservative agenda" so that a straw man can be set up
Suggesting my actions are ineffective (although by his very act of writing, proves that they are)
Say the action that has effected them really will have no lasting effect, so why bother
Marginalize the player and the participants
Now you will notice additional tactics in letter two, here's what to look for:
Ingratiation: "Hey I agree with you, but..."
"What's-the-point"ism. You aren't changing the world, so why bother?
Flattery
Appeal to ego. Go for a bigger prize (Because I'm so ineffective with this?)
Group identification "I'm one of you! We stopped apartheid! Don't bother with Sussman, he's not as bad as apartheid!"
Nobody is listening -- to KSFO anyway, so why pick on them?
Appeal to my compassion and humanity (funny because I'm only half human)
Suggest again a debate that I never requested or suggested and then when I refused--
Call me scared (Hmmm, now do you wonder why I think this is Micheal Black?)
Try to get me to rally and do the debate. Suggest that he'll debate this bastard himself. (gee, now we hope this isn't Michael, he's calling Brian Sussman a bastard! )
Question my motives and pigeon hole me as either disgruntled or a competitor (useful for telling the advertisers why they are getting these letters. "He's probably just some nut working for Clear Channel who got fired from KSFO, ignore him--and everything he says. Especially ignore the actual things Sussman says."
and finally, the true point of this anonymous post
Vague threats of lawsuits
While I applaud your efforts, Michael's right. The advertisers you've been able to get off of KSFO are only moving these small amounts of money elsewhere that support some other multinational corporations conservative agenda.
Couldn't your hard work and dedication be better served by targeting international divestment by corporations who violate human rights? Think about what we did to help end Apartheid. It stopped because massive numbers of people would not invest in companies who had investments in South Africa.
Consider that the collective mind of KSFO's relatively small conservative audience has already been made up, you're wqasting your time. Fry bigger fish is you want to make a difference.
The only people you end up hurting are the hourly wage earners at KSFO who are trying to eek out an existence becuase it's their jobs that get cut when revenues go down. Fry bigger fish Spocko.
Wow. Way to tug on the ol' heart strings ACT! This is interesting. So when revenues go down, Sussman's wages stay the same and the sales people's stay the same. What a messed up business model, but not surprising. Host says terrible things, advertisers leave. Hourly employees fired. Who's the problem here? The HOST! Who's punished? Low level workers! Maybe this is the conservative agenda that you are talking about. Sounds like something they would be in favor of, no consequences for them, just "the little people".
ACT, the problem here is that Sussman is a defective product. This product should have been recalled long ago, but it wasn't, now that people are noticing it, the answer isn't to look at the person pointing out the problem, but to look to the source.
And why not debate Sussman? Maybe you can change sone listeners' minds. By refusing, you come off sounding scared. Hell I'll call in tomorrow to debate this bastard
Sure, go ahead, if you want to play that game. If you want to debate him about "international divestment by corporations who violate human rights" go right ahead. But of course that is your suggested issue and method of dealing with Sussman, not mine. Of course it would be kind of funny if Sussman recognized your voice, "Why does this person who sounds like the sales manager calling me a bastard"?
Your focus is so narrow that you really sound like a disgruntled ex KSFO employee or a radio station competitor who is afraid of being identified.
Ah ha! Well ACT, wouldn't that be convenient. I'm not just a listener who finds Sussman's comments offensive, I'm disgruntled (how come there are no gruntled employees?) or a competitor! As if those could be the only two choices.
The Disney attorney's will end up coming after you anyway for defamation of character, slander, using audio clips without full context etc etc etc. I can only imagine how many they've lined up already so they'll out you eventually. Then the jig will be up. Move on while you still have some credibility.
And here we have it folks, the true purpose of this Post. ACT brings out The Big Guns. A Disney law suit. ACT is just concerned about my credibility. Right.
Now considering that Disneyland ITSELF pulled their ads from the show that seems a little strange.
Maybe there is some wishful thinking and projection going on here ACT. I've simply let the advertisers hear what Sussman is saying on the show they are advertising on. My identity isn't really the issue. (Of course I have to admit that the "let's get him in here for the debate so we can see just which disgruntled/competitor he is so we can sue him" trick is a pretty good one)
No the actual Disney attorneys are probably consulting human resource professional agencies trying to figure out how to fire Sussman and not get his union to file a counter suit for unlawful termination (that would be the union he hates so much and has said so on many occasions. The one he wishes he didn't have to join.) Now if CAIR decided to file suit (being official and stuff) they might be off the hook and say, "Hey we had a complaint from offended Muslims! We had to fire him." That is much easier than acting at the time and saying, "That's it. That's too far. You are fired." like WMAL did with the host in DC.
A wise person once told me, "Don't mess with The Mouse." And in this case I'm not the one messing with The Mouse. Sussman is.
Sussman is the one making the comments that make ABC Radio/Disney look bad. Sussman is the one talking about cutting off someone's penis between 6-8 pm on commercially supported broadcast radio in the Bay Area. And because he wasn't stopped long ago they are continuously tarred with his hateful comments. Up until now they could hold their nose and ignore it, but now that there are some economic consequences they have noticed. Until December 2006 Sussman is their problem. Then he's Citadel's problem.
You see if the General Manager had fired Sussman for any ONE of his MANY comments that went too far, we wouldn't be having this conversation and you wouldn't be holding the specter of a Disney lawsuit over my head. The public person Sussman is the one making the comments to incite violence. He's the one making the indecent comments between 6-8 on commercially supported broadcast radio, not me.
In the end, if you pay taxes in the US, you too Spocko support the war in Iraq and the conservative agenda.
11:47 PM
Well gee, Anonymous Concern Toll, nice nonsequator. Are you suggesting that I shouldn't pay my taxes? That would be unAmerican. That would be like cutting taxes while we are fighting a war with Iraq. Because surely people who support the war in Iraq would be happy paying MORE taxes, right?
Well I'm off to play 3D chess with a computer program. I find it relaxes me after dealing with humans all day.
-Gandhi
I used to do a feature in which I argued with wingnuts I didn't know. I think this calls for a return. Below is a post on this blog that I got from a person claiming to be the sales manager from KSFO, Michael Black. After that post was a post from another person (his wonder twin?) who sounds suspiciously like Michael Black whom (for the purpose of this post) I'll call Anonymous Concern Troll (ACT). So let’s unpack these posts. As always, wingnut in black. Spocko in Blue
SB,
Your decision to avoid debate is not surprising. It shows your cowardice. If you have nothing to hide, call in, identify yourself as Spocko and offer your opinion. Maybe you can actually change some listeners' minds politically.
Of course I never asked for a debate, it was his suggestion, (or maybe his boss' suggestion). This of course is a standard tactic of rightwing radio hosts. They want to set the stage where they have the mike, they have the sound and they have the last word. They have their screeners and sycophant callers, easily mockable callers and a forum to broadcast to hundreds of thousands but they know that it is still not enough, so they have to keep the game fixed. I've heard Sussman's "debates" with people on his show. Goofy music cues for them, mocking them the second they are off the air. It's a set piece to produce the illusion of debate. As Jon Stewart has said, "It's theatre." and "No, I'm not going to be your monkey." Or as Mark Danner has said, "It's people sitting around a fire grunting."
And of course if the KSFO management wants to call me a coward, fine. I'm not the one continuing to support a man who calls for killing 10 million Muslims that he estimates are out to kill us. I'm not the one who talks about how he would torture Iraqis by cutting off their finger and then their penis. It wasn't me who demanded that a caller say "Allah is a whore". I don't know what you would call someone who supports that kind of speech. Enablers?
Most multi-national corportations (sic) support the conservative agenda with millions of dollars aimed at special interest groups.
Oh, I'm quite aware of this. And they are also willing to lose (invest?) millions in it. Read The Republican Noise Machine and you will see their long term strategy. And I'm sure that is what you are telling advertisers: that they are supporting a "conservative agenda" when you sell them time. If you told them they were advertising on hate speech radio, they might not sign up. And when they find out the ACTUAL content of the show then they say, "We'll go elsewhere."
I'm not sure how the "conservative agenda" is supported by associating with the outrageous comments of Brian Sussman. I don't quite see how driving away the business of Muslims is a smart business move. Or demanding that they adhere to his version of Christianity, which is different from say the nice Coptic Christians or the smart evangelical Christians like Jim Wallis. Of course maybe they think they are aligning with Christians in general, but since Sussman has never actually claimed to be a Christian I don't see it. He calls himself a "theocon" and I suppose there are a few self identified Theocon's out there who listen. Great. But Sussman doesn't say he is any specific Christian faith because if he did people could point out that he isn't even following the tenets of that version of Christianity.
Do you really think that getting one or two off KSFO temporarily has any lasting effect? They just move their money to another radio group like Clear Channel that supports the conservative agenda.
Actually I do think it will have a effect. You wouldn't be writing me if it didn't. Lasting? Who knows. But I do know that I have to stand against Sussman in ways that shows people I find his comments unacceptable for advertiser supported broadcast radio. I'm not a big time blogger like John Avarosis, Atrios, Athenea, NTodd or Kos. I don't have the resources of Media Matters or the legal experience of the folks at EFF. I'm long winded and rarely topical. I've got 21 readers on a GOOD day. 22 if I count you. Most people who find me are looking for links to funny videos or Star Trek stuff. But occasionally I provide inspiration to others to also act, like PTCruiser whom I'm proud to have as a reader.
Big corporations make massive investments in nations around the world with less than questionable human rights. By targeting corporate divestment you can affect actual change.
Sadly, you're only speaking to the converted on your blog.
Michael Black
-------------------------------------
"Targeting corporate divestment"? Hmmm. I'll have to put that on my list of things to do. Just like your mistaken idea that I'm against some mythical "conservative agenda" (whatever you think that is) I have other steps to take first. One is giving advertisers an opportunity to choose what they will and won't support.
Companies have stated values and missions. And even if they can all be seen as expendable to the great "bottom line", some companies actually can see that certain values make good business sense. Insulting your customers and potential customers is usually not a good business mode.
Companies are composed of people. People who would rather be inclusive and diverse than exclusive and narrow. Some of these people listen to Sussman and think, "We ADVERTISE on that SHOW? That's not us. That's a bad fit. Call the media buyer. Pull our ads."
Next we have part two. A post from "Anonymous Concern Troll" who as another reader pointed out is either Michael Brown writing from home (note the similar content) or one of his buddies. I don't want to assume anything.
What I want you all to notice is how these two letters fit together and use multiple tactics to get me to stop. This is the salesman's mind. How do I overcome objections? In this case throwing up anything and everything even if they wildly contradict each other to see what sticks.
Letter one:
Calling me a coward.
Suggesting an ineffective course of action
Misstate what the issue is about "conservative agenda" so that a straw man can be set up
Suggesting my actions are ineffective (although by his very act of writing, proves that they are)
Say the action that has effected them really will have no lasting effect, so why bother
Marginalize the player and the participants
Now you will notice additional tactics in letter two, here's what to look for:
Ingratiation: "Hey I agree with you, but..."
"What's-the-point"ism. You aren't changing the world, so why bother?
Flattery
Appeal to ego. Go for a bigger prize (Because I'm so ineffective with this?)
Group identification "I'm one of you! We stopped apartheid! Don't bother with Sussman, he's not as bad as apartheid!"
Nobody is listening -- to KSFO anyway, so why pick on them?
Appeal to my compassion and humanity (funny because I'm only half human)
Suggest again a debate that I never requested or suggested and then when I refused--
Call me scared (Hmmm, now do you wonder why I think this is Micheal Black?)
Try to get me to rally and do the debate. Suggest that he'll debate this bastard himself. (gee, now we hope this isn't Michael, he's calling Brian Sussman a bastard! )
Question my motives and pigeon hole me as either disgruntled or a competitor (useful for telling the advertisers why they are getting these letters. "He's probably just some nut working for Clear Channel who got fired from KSFO, ignore him--and everything he says. Especially ignore the actual things Sussman says."
and finally, the true point of this anonymous post
Vague threats of lawsuits
Now I'll unpack this ACT post. I'm sure I've probably bored 20 out of my 21 readers, but I like to be long winded since I'm a brain in a box and I don't get out much. Maybe if I had legs I could take up running as a more interesting hobby.
Anonymous said...While I applaud your efforts, Michael's right. The advertisers you've been able to get off of KSFO are only moving these small amounts of money elsewhere that support some other multinational corporations conservative agenda.
Couldn't your hard work and dedication be better served by targeting international divestment by corporations who violate human rights? Think about what we did to help end Apartheid. It stopped because massive numbers of people would not invest in companies who had investments in South Africa.
Consider that the collective mind of KSFO's relatively small conservative audience has already been made up, you're wqasting your time. Fry bigger fish is you want to make a difference.
The only people you end up hurting are the hourly wage earners at KSFO who are trying to eek out an existence becuase it's their jobs that get cut when revenues go down. Fry bigger fish Spocko.
Wow. Way to tug on the ol' heart strings ACT! This is interesting. So when revenues go down, Sussman's wages stay the same and the sales people's stay the same. What a messed up business model, but not surprising. Host says terrible things, advertisers leave. Hourly employees fired. Who's the problem here? The HOST! Who's punished? Low level workers! Maybe this is the conservative agenda that you are talking about. Sounds like something they would be in favor of, no consequences for them, just "the little people".
ACT, the problem here is that Sussman is a defective product. This product should have been recalled long ago, but it wasn't, now that people are noticing it, the answer isn't to look at the person pointing out the problem, but to look to the source.
And why not debate Sussman? Maybe you can change sone listeners' minds. By refusing, you come off sounding scared. Hell I'll call in tomorrow to debate this bastard
Sure, go ahead, if you want to play that game. If you want to debate him about "international divestment by corporations who violate human rights" go right ahead. But of course that is your suggested issue and method of dealing with Sussman, not mine. Of course it would be kind of funny if Sussman recognized your voice, "Why does this person who sounds like the sales manager calling me a bastard"?
Your focus is so narrow that you really sound like a disgruntled ex KSFO employee or a radio station competitor who is afraid of being identified.
Ah ha! Well ACT, wouldn't that be convenient. I'm not just a listener who finds Sussman's comments offensive, I'm disgruntled (how come there are no gruntled employees?) or a competitor! As if those could be the only two choices.
The Disney attorney's will end up coming after you anyway for defamation of character, slander, using audio clips without full context etc etc etc. I can only imagine how many they've lined up already so they'll out you eventually. Then the jig will be up. Move on while you still have some credibility.
And here we have it folks, the true purpose of this Post. ACT brings out The Big Guns. A Disney law suit. ACT is just concerned about my credibility. Right.
Now considering that Disneyland ITSELF pulled their ads from the show that seems a little strange.
Maybe there is some wishful thinking and projection going on here ACT. I've simply let the advertisers hear what Sussman is saying on the show they are advertising on. My identity isn't really the issue. (Of course I have to admit that the "let's get him in here for the debate so we can see just which disgruntled/competitor he is so we can sue him" trick is a pretty good one)
No the actual Disney attorneys are probably consulting human resource professional agencies trying to figure out how to fire Sussman and not get his union to file a counter suit for unlawful termination (that would be the union he hates so much and has said so on many occasions. The one he wishes he didn't have to join.) Now if CAIR decided to file suit (being official and stuff) they might be off the hook and say, "Hey we had a complaint from offended Muslims! We had to fire him." That is much easier than acting at the time and saying, "That's it. That's too far. You are fired." like WMAL did with the host in DC.
A wise person once told me, "Don't mess with The Mouse." And in this case I'm not the one messing with The Mouse. Sussman is.
Sussman is the one making the comments that make ABC Radio/Disney look bad. Sussman is the one talking about cutting off someone's penis between 6-8 pm on commercially supported broadcast radio in the Bay Area. And because he wasn't stopped long ago they are continuously tarred with his hateful comments. Up until now they could hold their nose and ignore it, but now that there are some economic consequences they have noticed. Until December 2006 Sussman is their problem. Then he's Citadel's problem.
You see if the General Manager had fired Sussman for any ONE of his MANY comments that went too far, we wouldn't be having this conversation and you wouldn't be holding the specter of a Disney lawsuit over my head. The public person Sussman is the one making the comments to incite violence. He's the one making the indecent comments between 6-8 on commercially supported broadcast radio, not me.
In the end, if you pay taxes in the US, you too Spocko support the war in Iraq and the conservative agenda.
11:47 PM
Well gee, Anonymous Concern Toll, nice nonsequator. Are you suggesting that I shouldn't pay my taxes? That would be unAmerican. That would be like cutting taxes while we are fighting a war with Iraq. Because surely people who support the war in Iraq would be happy paying MORE taxes, right?
Well I'm off to play 3D chess with a computer program. I find it relaxes me after dealing with humans all day.
6 Comments:
¡Stand jour ground, pointy-eared one!
These pobrecita trollitas got nothing on joo.
so.
Thanks! I appreciate the support!
Bravo, spocko!
You've obviously touched a nerve w/ the wingnut and his crew.
Let us know how things turn out over at the MRR blog.
I appreciate people like you who take these hate-mongers on.
[hat tip]
Liberal-at-large
Thanks Liberal at Large!
I appreciate it!
wingnuts, liberals, conservatives, theocons.
how lucky you all are to live in a country that allows eveyone to voice their opinion.
Have you seen what David (Austin Tx) did on his blog (The Supreme Irony of Life)? When the troll going by the name of Blogical Thought berated him for "supporting fascism" by endorsing Spocko's campaign against KSFO, David tracked him down to ... somewhere in the San Francisco vicinity. Since Blogical Thought has lied about his location, he may well be lying about not being part of KSFO. Check out the comment string at David's blog for his take-down of Blogical Thought.
Post a Comment
<< Home