Peter Boyles's KHOW program now Denver's number one morning show

• There is an expression in science that goes “If I hadn’t believed it I wouldn’t have seen it”… Preface: I normally take things I read on the internet with a grain of salt and a heavy dose of skepticism. On the 10th anniversary of 9/11, our local PBS station chose to honor the victims, their families and our country by airing the 9/11 “truther” internet “documentary” “Loose Change”. I would like to share some of my thoughts this thought provoking video inspired: Really? re·al·ly adv \ˈrē-(ə-)lē\ Definition of REALLY 1 a: in reality: actually <things as they really are> <there was nothing peculiar about her doing this, really — Peter Taylor> b : truly, unquestionably —used as an intensifier <a really beautiful day> c : very 2 <look really close> <he runs really fast> 2 —used to emphasize an assertion <you really should read Yeats> <really, you're being ridiculous>   Shakespeare once wrote; “brevity is the soul of wit”. When you think about it, the word “really” can really say a lot. Besides the formal definitions above, if said with the right sarcastic inflection, it can become a withering indictment of the authenticity of a statement and/or the intelligence, honesty or integrity of the statement-maker. With this in mind… ·         Today in our society there is roughly 50 percent of the population who would prefer to believe the conspiracy theory about 9/11, one which has the President of the United States ordering his secret agents to sneak in at night, undetected into the World Trade Center buildings weeks ahead of time and plant bombs on every floor. The purpose is to demolish the structures on a work day when they are full of people and also to have his secret agents crash planes into them, killing themselves along with thousands of others, all to be able to pin the whole thing on certain Middle Eastern countries… Really?   ·         In a hypothetical 9/11 scenario with all things being equal, but with the other political party in power, do you really think that the above conspiracy theory would have ever, ever, ever came into existence? Really? Or for that matter, ever gain the “legs” that this one has? Really?   ·         The fact that nearly all the “9/11 truthers” share the same political affiliation has nothing to do with their motivation to promote an investigation of this “conspiracy” and find the “real truth”… Really?   ·         Shortly after 9/11, President Clinton’s National Security Advisor, Samuel “Sandy” Berger was caught by security attempting to exit the National Archives with public documents pertaining to the Clinton Administration’s pursuit of Osama Bin Laden, stuffed in his underpants and socks. This, he claimed was not in any way an attempt to destroy embarrassing evidence or thwart a post 9/11 investigation… Really?   ·         In 1993, the first year of the Clinton Administration, Middle Eastern terrorists delivered and detonated a powerful truck bomb in the basement of one of the World Trade Center towers in and attempt to topple on onto the other and bring them both down to cause the greatest possible amount of destruction and loss of life. Some of the conspirators were caught, they were revealed to be connected to a Middle Eastern terrorist and not a sole, (or for that matter a sole-less conservative Republican), tried to accuse anyone in the administration at the time of any involvement or conspiracy what-so-ever… Really?... Really. ·         In 2000, the USS Cole was attacked with a powerful bomb during a friendly refueling stop in Yemen. A dozen or so sailors were killed and the vessel nearly sank. Although all past precedent set in all recorded history where a nation or citizens of a nation attack a war vessel of another, is considered an act of war, the cool heads in the Clinton Administration choose to treat it as a “criminal matter” and do nothing in response. This mysterious and isolated event has nothing to do with what happens just 11 months later… Really?   ·         In 2001, the first year of the Bush Administration, terrorists attempt to finish the job the first group of terrorists started, but this time using two hijacked jumbo jets. They succeeded. This time around, however, a veritable plethora of “alternative explanations” crop up. Rather than make the obvious connection between the previous attacks and this one and conclude a common motive and common origin, (Middle Eastern terrorist organizations), they come to the conclusion that obviously, George Bush and Dick Cheney did it! Really…REALLY!?   ·         In 2011, the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attack on America, most network and cable stations offered live coverage of commemoration of documentaries compiled from the thousands of still photos and videos from individuals and news organizations that were at or near the WTC or Pentagon as well as interviews of firefighters, police, military and regular workers caught in those events. The people at Colorado PBS Channel 12 however, thought that the best way for them to show respect for the survivors, their families and the dead would be, instead, to air the inside job conspiracy theory “documentary”, “Loose Change” as “an alternative perspective”… REALLY, PBS… F@#%ING REALLY???!!!   The End… Really!

• Appeasement I trust that a graduate student someday will write a doctoral essay on the influence of the Munich analogy on the subsequent history of the twentieth century. Perhaps in the end he will conclude that the multitude of errors committed in the name of “Munich” may exceed the original error of 1938. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. (b. 1917), U.S. historian. The Bitter Heritage: Vietnam and American Democracy, “The Inscrutability of History” (1967).   If I were that graduate student who picks up the gauntlet thrown down by Mr. Schlesinger back in 1967, I’m afraid the thesis I write would not exactly be the one he had in mind. His statement begs the question whether he would agree that things would have worked out a better and possibly the Second World War could have been avoided had Neville Chamberlain been aware of the Munich analogy. History can cut Neville Chamberlain some slack, for after all, Neville Chamberlain did not have Neville Chamberlain as an example, i.e. the painful lesson of what can happen when an idealistic leader of a democracy sits down to negotiate with a despotic dictator. When Molotov sat down with Ribbentrop in 1940 to sign the Soviet-Axis non-aggression pact, the only question in their minds was whether the ink would have a chance to dry before one party attacked the other. The Munich analogy begat the Truman Doctrine which was then improperly applied to the Vietnam situation. It was in fact, chiefly the Truman Doctrine on containment of Communism and its “domino theory” that was a subset of the Munich analogy. This was a one-size-fits-all policy meant to apply universally when dealing with all Communist states. As the Roosevelt Corollary was to the Monroe Doctrine, so, essentially, should the Truman Doctrine be considered the corollary to and subset of the “Munich Doctrine”? I believe that Mr. Schlesinger is guilty of “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”. I also believe that his own universal theory on war, to be superimposed on all conflicts involving the United States, the “Vietnam Doctrine”, has become calcified in the brains of the Left half of our population. The basic tenets of the Vietnam Doctrine are: 1.      The U.S. is always cast in the role of imperialistic bully. 2.      The U.S. is a singular anomaly in human history; founded on European expansion into indigenous victim’s sacred land, based on racism, sexism, homophobia, conceived in genocide and born of the original sin of slavery. 3.      Any unilateral aggressive action by the U.S., whether defensive, preventative or retaliatory is illegitimate because the U.S. itself is illegitimate! 4.      Applies to any past present or future conflict involving the U.S 5.      Applies to the U.S. exclusively, cannot be applied to any other country, however similar the circumstances. 6.      States that the U.S. enters conflicts only through fraudulent pretext; Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11 was an inside job, non-existent WMDs in Iraq, etc. 7.      If a false pretext is not immediately apparent, any theory conjecture or conspiracy trumps the official one. 8.      A war that originates during a Liberal Progressive administration is exempt from the above, until it is replaced by a Conservative one who then gets left with all the baggage and blame. 9.      A war originating during a Conservative administration but succeeded by a Liberal Progressive one belongs entirely to the previous one, no matter how long afterward it continues. 10.  You get the idea. Ten years from now, when some graduate student of sharia compliant history for the new Caliphate is picking through the rubble of what was the Republic; I wonder if he will come to the conclusion that the multitude of errors committed in the name of “Vietnam” exceeded the original error of Vietnam. “Israel would rather get bad press than a good eulogy”.   – Benjamin Netanyahu at the United Nations General Assembly, September 22, 2011. P.S. I have been trying to explain the difference in public reaction between Pearl Harbor in 1941, and 9/11/01. The first, yielded universal call for retaliation and justice. The second split our society in two, the Conservatives reacted exactly as they should; as their parents and grandparents did! The first question in the “Progressives” minds was “what was it that we did to them that made them have to take such desperate action against us?” I hope the above helps to explain.

• Its a history lesson everyday which draws bright persons with great common sense as well as well educated men and women who are not shy to be critical, insightful and  "mad as hell..."

• Your full of it. Peter only asks the QUESTION. No one has the answer except racist.  He takes on the tough questions, lays it out.  you decide if you have the mental capacity. Ed Arvada

• I listen daily and love your show and what you cover daily. I too lived in Pittsburgh, so I enjoy and understand your comments. Loved Pittsburgh but Denver has it beat!!! Miss the Steelers but will always be a fan because of the Rooney family. Looking forward to your future shows!!!

• Peter Boyles has become a racist just like the racists that killed his friend Alan Berg. What an irony.

• I listened to Boyles for years but he at times made my blood boil because he is so ill-informed, illiterate, and misogynistic. The birther topic was the last straw along with Jerome Corsi. I finally did myself a favor and went to Progressive radio, and I love it. How he maintains his morning ratings is a mystery to me, but his callers are among the low-information types. They don't know the difference.

• Most guys won't touch the "birther stories" because the birthers are full of crap, Pete.

• Average Persons refers to the number of people that listen for at least 5 minutes in a 15 minute period. It is a tiny little slice of the total weekly listening population. Over 90% of Denver listens to radio, so yeah, it's still an incredibly viable medium.

• It's reassuring to know that it's only a very small percentage of Coloradans who subscribe to Boyles' hateful screeds. It's also too bad that the media gives that percentage such a voice, like when the NY Times ran a story in 2008 basically saying that Caplis and Silverman's lame-ass show set the political agenda for Colorado.

• @vill, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that the vast majority of radio listeners are listening to music, not talk. There are 40-something radio stations, and only a handful are talkers. Boyles' numbers are similar, and probably even slightly larger than Rush Limbaugh's, and probably vastly greater than the other evening talkers. At least here, the audience for these shows just tend to be louder and move visible, and they make good stories for the media. But in general, it's a small segment of the population, and hosts like Boyles are primarily preaching to the choir--their rabble-rousing fires up their fans, but probably isn't changing a lot of minds.

• radio101, great and very clear explanation. Thanks for your help.

• Once again, thanks @radio101. Any way you slice it, the figures are an eye-opener. Who knew the talk radio audience here was so small?

• &#64;vill, there's no standard factor to extrapolate, but Arbitron measures daily and weekly cume (total audience) numbers, along with the AQH. stations could have a high AQH because a smaller total audience listens longer, or because a huge total audience only listens in small doses. there's no way to be sure, but my hunch is that Boyles fans stay tuned for a long time, so his total numbers probably aren't as high as some other stations. Based on things i've seen, top morning shows in Denver have somewhere in the ballpark of 150,000-200,000 listeners per week (and that's people who listen at least 5 minutes, not necessarily the full show)

• Thanks, @radio101. How much larger? Is there some sort of accepted factor for extrapolating the overall total audience from AQH numbers?

• &#64;Vill Robinson: these look like AQH numbers, or average quarter hour. That means that, at any single point during Boyles' show, that number of people are tuned in. Since people tune in and out, the overall total audience that tunes in at some point for his show over the course of a week is undoubtedly much larger.

• Wait, help us understand these figures, Michael. Do they actually show that Boyles' audience among those 12+ is only 17,200 people? Am I reading the figures correctly? That's only seven-tenths of 1 percent of the market population noted in the final box. If so, how is it GOOD news that Boyles is #1 (by only a handful of listeners, apparently) in a medium that the vast majority of the greater Denver population clearly is ignoring? And how is it good news that in the most coveted demographic -- ages 25-54 -- he has less than 8,000 listeners? Clearly if that demo supplies only 8,000 people, than it in fact IS shunning talk radio, no? Again, am I reading these numbers correctly?

• "Another factor, Boyles believes, is that he's kept his focus on Colorado events and personalities, as opposed to constantly commenting on happenings beyond state lines." ... followed by ... "In addition, he feels listeners respect the fact that 'I take a lot of risks, like doing the birther stories, which a lot of guys won't touch.' " Uh, aren't these two statements contradictory, especially since the birther issue, surely a "happening beyond state lines," dominates up to a third or more of Boyles' airtime?

TotalComments: 18