In the last couple years I've sent a number of emails to WISN's Mark Belling to correct his on-air lies and challenge him to invite the targets of his bile (or their defenders) on his show to debate. I've never received a single reply. However, his program director at WISN and occasional fill-in host, Jerry Bott, did respond, both via email and on-air. Here's our exchange:
Thursday, May 17, 2012. WISN program director Jerry Bott fills in for Mark Belling. During the show, he makes several references to checking listener email during breaks. So unlike Belling, we know he reads them. Here's what I sent him:
Jerry, On today's Belling show you said "it's hard to defend socialist liberalism because it's so expensive and it doesn't work." How exactly would you know if your station has never had a liberal on to debate the issue? Seems pretty cowardly to make such a claim without even attempting to back it up. I've heard plenty of people eloquently defend what you call "socialist liberalism." Will you or your local show hosts debate any of them on the air? If not, then you have no credibility.
24 hours later and no response. Yeah, I'm shocked too. So I write him again, this time with several specific rebuttals of his on-air fallacies:
Hi Jerry, I noticed on yesterday's Belling show you made some statements that turn out to be untrue. First off, you discussed the latest Marquette poll and used it's results to assert that a "vast majority of Wisconsinites now agree with Walker" on collective bargaining. Here's the poll results: http://law.marquette.edu/poll/ 50 to 43% on collective bargaining. Since when does 50% constitute a "vast" majority? Were you deliberately misleading or just making an honest mistake? Later, you seemed thrilled to report on the latest news lighting up the far-right twittersphere: Obama's budget lost in the senate 99 to 0. "Obama's budget was moronic", you said, and you wondered, "Is Obama even too radical for his own party?" Wow, sounds pretty damning. So I did a google search. The first 3 pages were all filled up with right-wing blogs and websites gloating about this and how it proves that even the Dems hate Obama's budget plans. But turns out, Surprise! Surprise!, it's a big, fat lie. http://www.businessinsider.com/what-it-means-that-the-presidents-budget-went-down-to-99-0-in-the-senate-2012-5 - I finally found this on the 4th page of google results and I'd bet that in a few days Factcheck and Politifact will have pieces exposing it as well. But by the time that happens, the right's lie factory will have moved on to a new set of deceptions. It's like Mark Twain said, "A lie makes it half way around the world before the truth puts on it's pants." But you're an honest, honorable guy so I'm sure you'll go on Belling's next show to apologize for the error, right? Finally, you suggest the questions a fair unbiased media should ask Tom Barrett. Questions like 1. "Would you agree this jobs report is good news?" (Walker's report claiming 23,000 new jobs), 2. "Would you admit Wisconsin had job growth on your opponent's watch?", and 3. "Does it neutralize the central theme of your campaign?" I'm not Tom Barrett, but here's how I'd answer these questions: To 1 and 2, even if Walker's version is 100% true, it's still not good news. 23,000 new jobs is less job creation than the previous year under Doyle: http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/dwd/newsreleases/2012/120516_dwd_quarterly_data.pdf Which then answers #3: No, far from neutralizing Barrett's campaign theme, it strengthens it! You're an honest, credible straight-shooter so I'm sure you'll go on Belling's next show to apologize for the error, right? Not holding my breath, Andrew Rogers Waukesha, WI Oh, one more thing: You also said on the show that Walker's reforms have "saved teachers' jobs." Wow! That's a pretty remarkable statement considering it conflicts with all the available evidence I've seen. Even Walker's own spokespeople don't make that claim. http://political-heat.blogspot.com/2012/04/walker-spokesman-spins-education-data.html Since you're a decent, upstanding guy who values factual accuracy, I'm sure you'll either provide the evidence for your claim or go on Belling's next show to correct the mistake, right? Because the last thing an honorable guy like you would want to do is mislead your station's listeners, right? Yours, Andrew Rogers Waukesha, WI
Four days later, Monday, May 21, Bott responded to my email on the air! But he chose the Jay Weber morning show to do it, rather than come back on Belling. If you can stomach it, here's his entire 16-minute response to "liberal listener Andrew R": http://www.newstalk1130.com/player/?station=WISN-AM&program_name=podcast&program_id=thejaywebershow.xml&mid=22106538 He even sent me this nice little email notice at the last minute:
Answering all four of your "charges" on-the-air this morning at about 6:45am. Tune-in if you wish. Thnx- Bott
Of course, like most people, I was not awake at 6:45am to catch the show but managed to find the above podcast. My email response:
Mr. Bott, Thanks for the on-air reply. Got a chance to listen to the podcast. By "refute" my charges, did you mean acknowledge, then misdirect and move the goalposts? If I suffered from the extreme confirmation bias you rely on from your station's audience, I too would have gladly grasped on to the straws you threw them. But unfortunately, here in the real world, context and credibility matters. So using those principles, let's see how your answers hold up. 1. The Obama 99-0 budget vote. This is where context is everything and makes the duplicity of your station crystal clear. Did you bother to ask yourself why his fellow Dems might have voted against this "Obama budget" the Repubs put forth? Let me help you, using one of the right-wing sites you might prefer: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/16/99-0-senate-votes-down-obamas-budget-unanimously-again/ "Democrats disputed that it was actually the president’s plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn’t actually match Mr. Obama’s budget document" Hmm, so why did you ignore this fact and gleefully and gloatingly present the story to your listeners as a rejection of Obama by his own party, when his own party said it clearly wasn't??? Were you trying to deceive your listeners? 2. The Doyle vs. Walker job figures You told your audience that the link I gave you didn't include the information I said it did. Perhaps you just need to read all the way to the bottom. To make your busy life a little easier, I'll provide it for you again: http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/dwd/newsreleases/2012/120516_dwd_quarterly_data.pdf Take a look at Walker's own graph at the bottom that starts with Dec2010. Compare Doyle's Dec2010 net yearly job gains to Walker's Dec2011 net yearly job gains. Even going by what Walker calls "actual job numbers", any objective observer can see it looks very bad for Walker's "reforms". And thus, provides a great argument for Barrett. Let me spell it out for you plainly: According to Scott Walker himself, Jim Doyle's last year produced over 10,000 more jobs than Walker's first year! Will you tell this to your listeners? 3. Walker "saved teachers' jobs." You defended your claim by citing http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/number-of-wisconsin-public-schools-teachers-fell-24-in-201112-vb5flam-152165985.html Their source? The right-wing pro-corporate, er, I mean "non-partisan" Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance. Exposed here: http://rightwingwisconsinwatch.org/wistax_index But hey, having an ideological bias doesn't automatically mean you're wrong. But it would probably help to get another source just in case. How about the Wisconsin Department of Instruction's April 18, 2012 news release: http://dpi.wi.gov/eis/pdf/dpinr2012_58.pdf And if you choose to blame the teacher losses solely on those districts that didn't implement Walker's "tools", how do you explain that overall state losses in teacher jobs were 1,446 last year compared to 825 and 810 losses the 2 previous years before Walker and Act 10??? http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2012/may/19/tools-schools-how-walkers-union-limits-affected-sc/ "Critics of Walker’s moves were correct in saying that school staffing cuts were worse under Walker than under his predecessor." If you can spin that into Walker "saving teacher jobs", your powers of self-delusion are truly remarkable. 4. The Marquette poll / 50% "vast" majority. Ah, I see, you weren't referring to the public poll you had just been talking about but to some other secret confidential source you forgot to mention originally. Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up. Tell your "Deep Throat" I said Hi. Now, please excuse me while I go vomit from the spin-induced nausea. Yours, Andrew Rogers Waukesha, WI
The next day, I got this subject-avoiding response:
Andrew- Here’s some additional info in which you may be interested. Bott http://heartland.org/policy-documents/report-school-districts-flourish-under-walkers-act-10
To which I replied as any sane person would:
Seriously, Jerry? You're giving me the Heartland Institute as a source? That would be like me giving you "The Socialist Workers Daily" as an anti-Walker source and expecting you to believe it. Would you? Of course not. However, in fairness to you I actually did read the entire link. I found nothing that I hadn't already addressed in the email I sent you this morning. A response to that one would be appreciated when you get a chance. Best, Andrew Rogers Waukesha, WI
Not surprisingly, I never heard back from Jerry Bott again. If you'd like to give Mark Belling or Jerry Bott your 2 cents, their emails are: markbelling@clearchannel.com JerryBott@ClearChannel.com snail mail: 12100 W. Howard Avenue Greenfield, WI 53228 http://www.newstalk1130.com/main.html