Posted on 06/10/2008 12:21:39 AM PDT by raccoonradio
Ingraham Takes Award, Doesn't Explain Radio Silence *** WITH IMPORTANT UPDATED DETAILS ***
Less than a week after her sudden absence from the radio airwaves, syndicated talker Laura Ingraham found herself in a truly awkward position while picking up a radio industry award Saturday evening.
And today, the mystery over her program's fate has only deepened.
During the 2008 New Media Seminar, a talk radio convention held in Manhattan, Ingraham received the "Judy Jarvis Memorial Award for Outstanding Contributions by a Woman to Talk Radio".
Touching on her past accomplishments in talk radio, Ingraham gave a brief speech to attendees, which included your Radio Equalizer. But she had not a word to say about her broadcast disappearing act.
Standing just a few feet away was Talk Radio Network honcho Mark Masters, whose firm syndicates Ingraham. Regardless of any potential conflict that may have emerged between the two parties, neither said anything during the ceremony. Nonetheless, one could feel a certain amount of tension.
During the convention, many attendees approached your Radio Equalizer looking for information about her fate. But the biggest clue to date has come from Ingraham herself, with this note now posted on her website (UPDATE-- it's been removed from the site):
IMPORTANT NOTE TO LAURA LISTENERS
Due to contractual obligations, for the present time I am unable to reveal why I am not currently hosting The Laura Ingraham Show. Rest assured, this absence is not of my choosing, nor is it health or family related. I am ready, willing and eager to continue the conversation we started seven years ago about politics and the culture. (Heck, if cancer couldn't keep me off the airwaves for long, nothing will.)
Keep checking the site for a schedule of my appearances on the Fox News Channel. All queries regarding my on-air status should be directed to Talk Radio Network's management at 541 474 2297 or send an email. Thanks for sticking with me, and...Power to the People!
Earlier this evening, your Radio Equalizer contacted a reliable industry source who backed up Ingraham's version of events. Discounting earlier rumors that Laura had abandoned her own show, possibly to take a Fox News Channel slot, the insider said "she didn't walk off anything".
As to the reason for the possible lockout by her network, others speculate it's related to rumors she's been shopping her program to other syndicators in advance of her contract's upcoming expiry date.
Stay tuned for further details.
UPDATE: according to an industry source, Ingraham may have brought some of her troubles upon herself by possibly violating the terms of her contract: "Laura was 'locked out' because she's been negotiating secretly with individual Citadel-ABC program directors to get on their stations in the event they lose Sean Hannity. She's looking to make $4 million a year, far more than her show currently generates in terms of revenue.
"She was operating behind the back of Mark Masters and the Citadel-ABC people have been talking to her. She does not want to quit radio, quite the contrary. She really wants TV, too," said the insider.
Ingraham is apparently looking to move her show into a live midmorning slot on key ABC talk stations should Hannity leave the company, as many expect. This scenario would see hosts from WABC, WMAL/ Washington and WBAP/ Dallas slide into afternoon drive slots.
When I first caught Sean Hannity on WABC ten years ago I thought he was awesome - - a cynical, smartass, conservative New York City punk with a voice like a Jerky Boy. It was liberal-smack-down city and I couldn’t get enough.
But the past few years he’s morphed into a passionate, verbose, “Look, I know liberals have good intentions, but if they will just listen to me I can convince them....” bore. He’s a regular Mr. Nice Guy these days. Screw the passion. Give me smashmouth sarcasm and merciless retorts.
I would love to see Laura do the afternoon drivetime, syndicated all over the country.
The smile on her face comes right out my radio.
thanks for that info; Monica Crowley keeps saying “Laura
will be back”. But where, and when? With what syndicator?
I completely agree with you. His show is a great way to bring them to the table, and to show that conservatives don't starve puppies and push Grandma down the stairs in her wheelchair.
Whatever indeed.
No, but you still refuse to argue the issue rationally - instead you accuse me of all manner of libel and evil, so I’ll return the favor.
Apparently, you are one of those people who speak out of both sides of your mouth. Who will jettison principles when they become inconvenient. That is called lacking the courage of your convictions.
I have tried unsuccessfully several times to rationally discuss one question here and have been continually sidetracked with canards, accusations, libel, appeals to emotion, straw men, and invective worth of DU.
The question about homosexual parters is 100% accurate, not sophistry. What is sophistry is your position that what is best for the child is to be anywhere but where she was.
It is also a logic trap because that means that she would INDEED be better off being raised by two homosexual men or Rosie than in a 3rd world orphanage.
Your position is untenable in the same way that pro-homo marriage advocates arguments are when they ignore questions on polygamy, child marriage, and bestiality. They just say “that’s not the same thing” when it clearly is the extension of their logic.
So, AGAIN, I’ll ask the question(s). How is Laura not being a hypocrite based on what SHE has said about the absolute superiority of traditional families? How is this NOT denigrating the role of fatherhood?
If SOMEONE would stick to the questions instead of spewing the bile, accusation, and canards, we might actually be able to have a discussion instead of an emotional tirade worthy of a lib site. I don’t like it, as I’m sure most don’t.
I can't either. She's very condescending and her "EH, UH, EH, UH" after every few sentences MAKES ME ILL! Reminds me of Myor Ed Koch. "How, uhhh, am-I uhh, Doin'...uhhh????
Sickening. Tammy borders on unlistenable.
1) Levin 2) Rush 3) Laura - PERIOD.
Hope she makes a bundle.
OK...we'll let you slide *this* time! ;)
I’m not sure how much is known about international adoption, but couples are not standing in line to adopt three year old girls from third world orphanages. They just aren’t. They want infants. They want children who haven’t been traumatized by institutionalization.
In my opinion Ingraham was speaking about the ideal situation, which is the traditional nuclear family. Even those who have adopted recognize that the ideal for children is a happy and loving traditional birth family—so the child is already not getting the ideal just by reason of being adopted—never mind that they aren’t being clamored over by couples who could offer them a home.
I think we should come together and promote adoption (as our government has started with the adoption tax credit) and encourage couples to open up their homes to the many many children who need homes.
Thank you for your rational, thoughtful, on topic comments which at least attempted to address my point.
I understand what you are saying and agree with much of it, but my point is that “its for the children” gets us in trouble all the time and this case is no different.
Yesterday was fathers day, and yet we live in a world were a scant 36 years after it was made a holiday it is being made obsolete by libs and socialists and now one of our own.
I think Laura was being selfish - yes selfish. Selfish as in “thinking about what she wanted”. Why? because saving this child was not the only thing n her mind. With her money and influence and reach if she wanted to save to child from an orphanage - I mean if helping the child was the sole goal (a noble one indeed) there were other things she could have done. But that was not the SOLE goal. Another motivation was HER desire for a child and that is why I am disappointed and have lost respect for her. She decided that the role of a father - a role SHE has called important as a part of the SUPERIOR traditional nuclear family is - unnecessary after all in her case. She’s special ya see.
She is basically saying “do as I say not as I do”.
Father’s are become an endangered species. She knows this. She has commented on it. But she decided to aid in the destruction of the role of fathers by doing this.
I’m happy that the girl is free of a 3rd world orphanage and will be raised in America. I am sad that she will not have a father - by choice. I am angry that once again fatherhood, as an institution, gets the shaft. I’m feel betrayed that this time the shaft is being handled by “one of our own”.
Anytime anyone has or adopts a child part of it is selfish, whether they are married or single. Most of us want some kind of satisfaction out of even the most altruistic actions we engage in, even if it is a personal satisfaction known only to us.
Too many couples have taken the approach Bill and Hillary Clinton did—talking up adoption, toying with the idea, but in the end not doing it. And they like so many other couples could well afford to adopt a needy child. But they didn’t, and it is because of their selfishness. They don’t want to share their time, money, resources, or their life with a needy child. Until more couples step up and do the right thing, there will be children in those orphanages.
I am sure Laura will lose listeners, and perhaps it would be better for you to just step away from the radio dial, find someone else to listen to.
Anytime anyone has or adopts a child part of it is selfish, whether they are married or single. Most of us want some kind of satisfaction out of even the most altruistic actions we engage in, even if it is a personal satisfaction known only to us.
Too many couples have taken the approach Bill and Hillary Clinton did—talking up adoption, toying with the idea, but in the end not doing it. And they like so many other couples could well afford to adopt a needy child. But they didn’t, and it is because of their selfishness. They don’t want to share their time, money, resources, or their life with a needy child. Until more couples step up and do the right thing, there will be children in those orphanages.
I am sure Laura will lose listeners, and perhaps it would be better for you to just step away from the radio dial, find someone else to listen to.
How do you reconcile her actions and her words? More importantly, how do you think her actions affect the continued marginalization of fatherhood?
All of the rest is scenery, just canards and red herrings. My issue is with the affect that this statement by a female conservative has had on the institution of fatherhood
HOW can she ever again discuss the critical importance of fathers when she has created a fatherless family by the most deliberate method possible?
That is my question.
I don’t think every case can reach the ideal, but I don’t think that should stop us from reaching an ideal. I do understand the gap you see between what Ingraham said about traditional families (however she might define it) and her raising an orphaned toddler as a single adoptive parent.
But I don’t think the ideal of traditional values suffers because she took in a child who was languishing in an orphanage. I think there has to be a compromise between a rigidly held ideal and the reality for someone like that child. But I’m basing that on my interpretation of Christ’s principle—which calls on me to be more Christlike even as I realize I will not ever attaing true perfection.
I have to admit I haven’t read Ingraham’s book, just snippets online including the passage discussed here.
I can 100% appreciate your point, I just find it ironic because it is a very liberal argument.
What I mean by that is that the CRUX of liberalism is relativism. That rules are fluid to the point of being unnecessary or even bad.
One need not be a slave to philosophical dogma the realize that standards are still important. A desire to be “Christlike” has given this country truckloads of ideas, policies, and laws that are bad, bad news. Remember, is was committed CHRISTIANS that gave the most attractive veneer to socialism, especially in the 1800’s.
I guess I am going back to my original point which is that this is massive cognitive dissonance on Laura’s part.
Furthermore, I do believe this sends a VERY negative message about the need for fathers. Step outside of the circle and look at this situation from that view. If LAURA can do this...if LAURA thinks that a dad is not important, then why should I? I’ll just shack up...or better yet, I’ll just go to a sperm bank!
You REALLY think it is that far of a moral/intellectual leap ?
Laura has made her fortune as an icon of conservatives principles. She is who she is and is where she is because of what she is selling - and that is the superiority of the philosophy of conservatism. She has made traditional families (and by definition, fathers) a pillar of that philosophy, and then deliberately creates a non-traditional, fatherless home.
I am a married father. I am deeply involved in fatherhood / traditional family issues and I’m telling you this sets a bad example and makes it harder to push the case for traditional families.
I do see the dissonance—and I’m waiting to see if she chooses to explain her choice. Maybe she’ll just decide to chuck the whole radio/tv pundit thing and raise her child, the way George Lucas gave up movies (for a time) when he adopted his children as a single parent.
I do wonder how many young conservative girls will decide to pursue a career and then a couple of decades later adopt a toddler from a third world orphanage.
Good enough. Thanks for seeing my point. Thanks also for the civil, rational discourse. So much better than the rantings, libels, character attacks, and false accusations I received from the others.
Laura has her own show on Fox News Channel called “Just In” at 5:00PM EST. One of her first guests was Raymond Arroyo, News Director for EWTN.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.