Talk:Progressive talk radio

message: I added the POV-check template to the page. While the facts of the article aren't necessarily incorrect, much of the verbiage used throughout seems to indicate a favorability towards the rise of progressive/liberal radio:
*"Over time, people like Sean Hannity...tried to grab their piece of the pie."
*"Conservatives argue that the long-format news programming on National Public Radio serves as a platform for liberal commentary on radio, though the network considers itself to be neutral, and is actually under considerable influence from strongly Republican leadership at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting." (The CPB article states that it is led by three Republicans, two Democrats and one Independent.)
*"Of course, this left many liberal hosts out in the cold."
If it matters, it appears the article was written mostly in its entirety by User:Fightingirish, whose user page may indicate a liberal slant.
I also find the article to be unsourced. I'll add that template as well and may add some citation tags. cluth 20:36, 24 September 20067 (UTC)
:The article is quite definitely biased, and poorly written to boot.  It is in need of a major overhaul. Rhindle The Red 14:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In the section Revival of Liberal Talk, I changed the link to spin (a disambiguation page) to point to spin (public relations). However, I feel that the tone of the sentence is inappropriate for the type of spin discussed in the linked article. It would be great if whoever wrote the article could remove the link, link to somewhere appropriate or rephrase the sentence. Thanks! --BWDuncan 14:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spin disambiguation link 

message: This article feels like an advertisement for progressive talk radio —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.85.226 (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about more sourcing 

message: Since it appears that none of the people on the talk page have stepped in to help rewrite this article, I took it upon myself to do just that. I also added cites. As a result, I removed the POV check template. If, for some reason anyone here feels it should be reinstated, you may do so. However, I would also suggest that anyone wishing to do that would at least contribute to the article itself, rather than just stand back and criticize it. --Fightingirish 16:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article has been rewritten

message: I undertook a fairly substantial rewrite to make it less like an essay and more like an encyclopedia entry, and to diminish the "root for home team" flavor. The changes included:
* Removing the first history paragraph and part of the "rise of conservative talk" section, as being too tangential and distracting to the main article
* Eliminating some of the statements which seemed to draw conclusions rather than presenting facts, and rewording a few statements to improve accuracy
* Adding some facts to give a more complete representation 
* Re-sectioning with some minor rearrangement
* Adding a Notes section (for a explanation that was important but interrupted flow) and a References section.  -- Mainstream Nerd 19:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great! --Fightingirish 16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite number two

message: Is Liberal talk radio or Progressive talk radio the more appropriate title for this format?  I hear "Liberal" used far more often when referring to this format and there are about 3 times as many Google hits on the term Liberal talk radio than Progressive talk radio.--Rtphokie 14:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While 'liberal talk radio' may be the more commonly-used name, 'progressive talk radio' is the name generally used by such organisations to describe themselves, and Wikipedia's naming conventions give precedence to the name used by a group for itself. Personally, I don't have much of an opinion on this one - but since liberal talk radio already redirects to this page, I'm not sure it's a particular problem. Terraxos 03:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  title 

message: I made some massive changes to the section formerly titled "dominance of conservative radio in the 1990's" (now titled "Reasons for Progressive Radio Revival). The entire paragraph was clearly a liberal slant. But I only changed some wording around, the idea of many of the sentences has been kept. In particular one of my changes was in these lines 
"The syndication arrangement, known as barter, provides the show for free to stations in return for the station carrying a number of included advertising spots during the show. Limbaugh was an early adopter of this system, which is now commonly used. "
I removed the entire paragraph because it was not related to Progressive Radio. I left th mention of new financial agreements, and the removal compliments the flow of the article while remaining a strict NPOV stance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.77.23 (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Change 

message: "In 2009...will debut..."
The Chapter 7 bankruptcy of Air America is also not discussed, leading me to think that the article hasn't received a major factual update in a while. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 20:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update time 

message: An article about U.S. progressive talk radio with no mention whatever of Jim Hightower is nearly as egregious as one on conservative talk radio with no mention of G. Gordon Liddy would be!  One of the major figures in it for a period of several years is a glaring omission.  2600:1004:B15A:7AD2:1D7A:BA70:77D2:90F0 (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jim Hightower