Talk:KSFO (AM)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of San Francisco and the Bay Area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

It's actually a little sad that KSFO has become as it now is. I remember it back in the day; my dad used to be a traffic flyer for them, and did his weather reports as little poems. It was much more fun. They take themselves far too seriously now. Motogrrl 22:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 It's not the same station 2 Bad language 3 Controversy cleanup 4 Citation Accuracy

[edit] It's not the same station

KSFO ended with its sale to ABC, as did the style of radio that the station represented so well. KSFO was a mainstream station that defined the format name MOR ("middle of the road.") It was a conservative station in the sense that it approached change slowly and cautiously, but always thoughtfully. Technology and the multi-channel universe made the days of a single, powerful, inclusive media voice obsolete.

Today, the station that calls itself KSFO holds its audience with such tasteless stunts as "debating" whether the editor of The New York Times should be electrocuted or sent to the gas chamber. Yet it insults that same audience with the smirking assertion by station managers that the on-air personalities are simply entertainers.

It's not the same station, but this, too, shall pass.

Vinsanto 03:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Officer Vic is misspelled, and I can't figure out how to fix it. - Walkalot

[edit] Bad language

In my opinion, the word "exceptional" in the sentence "...and the use of the exceptional Spotlight Project", is not justified. What makes this project so exceptional?

80.198.188.2 08:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well -- it bridges the Journalism vs Blogging divide.

[edit] Controversy cleanup

I tried to clean up the section on the recent controversy--it seemed biased to me. While I'm biased, I tried hard to remain fair on this. I took out this quote:

According to Spocko,

"Advertisers should be able to decide if they want to keep supporting this show based on complete information. We already know that management at ABC and Disney support these hosts, which means that the ABC/Disney Radio brand now apparently includes support for violent hate speech toward Muslims, democrats and liberals."[1]

Those are some broad statements; I'm not sure it really belongs in an encyclopedia. It wasn't part of the controversy, either. A quote on censorship, DMCA, etc. might be more appropriate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.12.143.197 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 13 January 2007.

Considering the nature of the controversy, and of the statements of KSFO hosts including Morgan, I do believe that Spocko's quotation belongs in this encyclopedia. (How do you come to the conclusion that Spocko's quotation "wasn't part of the controversy?" I think it's central to the controversy.) Spocko's POV should be included in this article. The best way to report his POV is to quote him.--HughGRex 13:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The controversy was that ABC pulled a DMCA on him, possibly violating fair use doctrine. The article says he started his letter writing campaign back in 2005; the recent attention was due to the DMCA takedown. Well, his POV is implied in his letter writing. I'm only somewhat against it the quote, but it's just not a great quote (my bias). Advertisers have always had complete information. They should be and are able to decide based on this. He never sets out to prove there's hate speech, treating it like a fact. I don't like that we're presenting his arguments and conclusion without any discussion of his facts and sources.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.12.143.197 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 14 January 2007.

Please sign your posts. Don't make the rest of us clean up after you.

I thought that what Spocko was referring to was very clear—Spocko has recorded KSFO on numerous occasions and used that as his proof. That is well documented in this page and (more clearly and directly) in the Melanie Morgan article; the most notorious example may be her "We've got a bull's-eye painted on [Nancy Pelosi's] big, wide laughing eyes" quote. The numerous references and external links give a complete picture of the speech that Spocko's talking about: Morgan and others on the station advocate killing people who disagree with them or who follow a different religion, and torturing people accused of a crime.

I guess, for this article to be more complete, we should set out more examples of exactly what hate speech Spocko's talking about.

I notice that you inserted the word "so-called" before "hate speech." That word is specifically addressed in Wikipedia:Words to avoid. I'm going to remove the unnecessarily biased word.--HughGRex 12:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding so-called, I think you're following the policy a bit too closely; your revision, which I admit is cleaner (I was mainly aiming to organize things), carries the same meaning. 69.12.143.197 19:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the link:

So-called, supposed, alleged, purported

These all share the theme of explicitly making it clear that a given statement is not necessarily factual. This connotation introduces unnecessary bias into the writing; Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, and in general, there will be someone out there who will view a given statement as highly probable—at the very least the person who said it! Where doubt does exist, it should be mentioned explicitly, along with who's doing the doubting, rather than relying on murky implications.

So-called (like "scare quotes", to which similar principles apply) can suggest that a term is invalid. Both the AHD[1] and Webster's[2] give the term two definitions, one indicating that a normal name follows and one indicating that an incorrect name follows. It can be difficult to tell the usages apart; in general, the term may be used for introducing terminology likely to be unfamiliar to the reader (although italics may be preferable), but never for characterizing any specific application of an already-known term.

This is a perfect instance where "so-called" introduced unnecessary bias. My terminology, "what he viewed as…," is much more neutral. Thank you for not reverting it.--HughGRex 11:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I found this article on the Melanie Morgan page: [2]

An excerpt:

San Francisco talk show host Melanie Morgan believes that Times editor Bill Keller should be jailed for treason for approving the publication.

The maximum penalty for treason is death.

"If he were to be tried and convicted of treason, yes, I would have no problem with him being sent to the gas chamber," Morgan, whose show airs on KSFO-AM, told The Chronicle on Wednesday. "It is about revealing classified secrets in the time of war. And the media has got to take responsibility for revealing classified information that is putting American lives at risk."

The date matches the un-cited "Hang 'em" quote. I'm not sure how to work in this longer quote, but it seems to explain the context of it. Also, was it all the editors, or just Keller? --69.12.143.197 07:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Accuracy

Spocko complied immediately, but protested, claiming he was within the legal definitions of the fair use doctrine.[8]

I couldn't find this confirmed in the cited article.

However, in a letter sent to the company hosting Spocko's blog, ABC warned that "flagrant use of KSFO's material" was a "clear violation of ... copyright" and demanded the material be removed immediately. In response, 1&1 Internet Inc., the Pennsylvania Internet service provider, pulled the plug on Spocko's entire Web site. "I felt like I was being crushed and the whole weight and force of a major corporation was coming down," Spocko said.

If someone finds a source that confirms this or points out what was cited from the article, cool, but if not, I'm going to remove that sentence, pending a citation. The cited article seems to actually suggest his ISP took it down for him.--171.71.37.28 23:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone found a source that confirms that Spocko complied immediately? If not, I'll remove it in the next few days; it's been two weeks since the request was made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.12.143.197 (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC).