« The Disgraces of Privatized Memory | Main | Ful(ford) of It. »
January 1, 2007
Brad Krantz on Peter Brimelow's Falsehoods
Note that (a) Krantz confirms that Brimelow's account of his interview on WZTK is false, and (b) Krantz invites Brimelow back onto the air to apologize.
From: "Brad Krantz" bkrantz@curtismedia.com
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 12:28:12 -0500
To: pbrimelow@vdare.com
Subject: Fw: Re: Censorship of Peter Brimelow and VdarePeter...I've gotten many messages stoked by your enlightened fund-raising blast on VDARE. This guy's the only one I personally replied to, since it would take many hours to do so with all of them. But I used it as a template and maybe I'll just forward this to others. Possibly you may wish to come back on with us to apologize (for among other things giving out confidential phone numbers...that's a cheap tactic of intimidation as I'm sure you know) and correct the record.
Brad Krantz
WZTK
-----Original message-----From: "Brad Krantz" bkrantz@curtismedia.com
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 21:43:00 -0500
To: [recipient's name and email address omitted]
Subject: Re: Censorship of Peter Brimelow and VdareDear [recipient's name omitted]:
Thanks for your note. I've received many notes similar to yours, except many of them contain expletives that are beneath the level of a civil discussion. You're the only person I've decided to reply to, so far. Let me tell you this.... FLAT OUT:
Mr. Brimelow is a liar. He lied about me, my show, his appearance on it, and he lied about Eric Muller, Professor of Law at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. (check out Eric's blog at isthatlegal.org)
Mr. Brimelow was not CENSORED, in any sense of the word. As a well-educated man, I'm sure you realize that censorship has to do with the First Amendment, which refers to the government preventing speech. As a talk show host on a radio station privately owned, I am under absolutely no obligation to allow anyone I don't want on my show, nor any ideas if I decide I don't want them. I don't know of a successful talk show host these days who, for instance, doesn't have their calls screened. If you and Mr. Brimelow want to falsely call controlling one's show "censorship," go ahead. But you are wrong. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Savage do not "censor," but they discuss topics of THEIR choice and generally have callers who agree with them. That's American radio these days.
That being said, those facts don't even apply in this case, because Mr. Brimelow appeared for a full segment of our show, like most guests... for about 15 minutes. Mr. Brimelow says he was promised 40 minutes. That's just a flat-out lie. We're a morning drive show and time is of the essence.
The person who called me on behalf of Brimelow made no reference to his pedigree, which I'm sure you'll agree is far out of the mainstream of American thought on this subject. That's fine with me but I was at fault for not doing more homework on VDARE before having him on. That being said, Brimelow was NOT cut off or disallowed from expressing his views; in fact we let him ramble on without questioning him as much as we normally do. By our normal standards HE GOT A FREE RIDE. For him to complain about not being able to speak his peace on WZTK on June 20 is one big, fat, lie that he has invented as a fund-raiser for you and your ilk THREE DAYS BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR! Can't you see this for what it is???!!!
He threw you people the red meat and you bit! Big time. That he would be so despicable as to publish phone numbers and email addresses to stoke the fires is even more lame.
The fact that late in December he now decides to reach back to June to a manufactured incident on one single radio station (by the way, WZTK covers both the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill and Greensboro markets, in spite of Mr. Brimelow's lack of sophistication in calling us a "Burlington, NC" station) smacks of a desperation of monumental proportions.
Nevertheless, should Mr. Brimelow decide he'd like to return to our show to apologize for his mis/disinformation campaign against Eric Muller, my partner Britt Whitmire, and me, we would be happy to have him on again.
[Name omitted], I have no idea where you live, but I'm fairly sure it's not local here in NC. You've never heard our station or our show, and you were blindly willing to take the word of a guy you probably don't know who pushed your buttons.
I'm sorry all this has happened, but the internet is still the Wild West and people can make up all kinds of stuff and fool people with it.
Our morning show has had on, to discuss immigration issues, Tom Tancredo, Pat Buchanan, JD Hayworth... the list goes on and on.
We're a quality, very fair show. Mr. Brimelow reveals himself to be a demagogue with his fabricated fund-raising ramble.
All the best. Save your money. Happy 2007
brad krantz
WZTK
Posted by Eric at January 1, 2007 10:02 AM
Comments
Well, as of a moment ago, the Vdare site has still not been changed. Guess it goes to show what a class act Brimelow is.
Posted by: Tommykey at January 1, 2007 7:57 PM
Censorship, according to my copy of the Oxford Dictionary, need not be a government act. The definition refers only to the acts of a censor, not the source of his office.
Also, in paragraph five of his screed against Peter Brimelow, Brad Krantz says he gave him the chance to "speak his peace." I do not credit the claims of semi-literates, and Mr. Krantz's status as such makes the claim that he is your lapdog all the more likely.
Posted by: Brian at January 2, 2007 6:54 AM
Below is the confirming email from the show. It appears that he was confirmed for an hour unless this is a fabricated confirm.
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 11:26 PM
To: PETER BRIMELOW
Subject: INTERVIEW INFO FOR PETER BRIMELOW MONDAY 6/19/06 8:10 AM EST BRAD AND BRITT IN THE MORNING SHOW
VDARE.COM INTERVIEW INFORMATION SHEET
STATION - WZTK 101.1 FM 1109 TOWER DR. BURLINGTON NORTH CAROLINA 27215 www.fmtalk1011.com
TIME - 8:10 AM EASTERN STANDARD TIME MONDAY 6/19/2006
DURATION - 8:30 OR EXTENDED TO 9:00 AM IF GUEST WANTS TO TAKE CALLERS
SHOW - BRAD AND BRITT IN THE MORNING
HOSTS - BRAD KRANTZ AND BRITT WHITMIRE
GUEST - PETER BRIMELOW
TOPIC - 6/15/06 WALL STREET JOURNAL/NBC POLL ON IMMIGRATION AND GENERAL IMMIGRATION ISSUES
As to another comment,
"As a well-educated man, I'm sure you realize that censorship has to do with the First Amendment, which refers to the government preventing speech."
From Dictionary.com
cen·sor·ship /ˈsɛnsərˌʃɪp/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sen-ser-ship] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the act or practice of censoring.
Now there are other parts of the definition that imply state power, but the definition in and of itself does not imply only government oppression. The definition mentioned nothing about the First Amendment.
I think Mr. Krantz owes an apology to Mr. Brimelow. As they say in Mr. Brimelow's native land, rather bad form that.
I do not think we need go into a discussion of what constitutes a "well-educated man." I do not claim to be at all educated, but does a hyphen go between well and educated?
Posted by: tvoh at January 2, 2007 8:37 AM
Well, it looks like it's time for fun with dictionaries. I might as well join.
Brian, that you referred to it as someone with a office speaks to censorship's nature as an official act. That is, someone's 'office' is to prevent disclosure objectionable items. See below for why this is a crucial point.
Tvoh, do you really think you can copy/paste a definition of censorship that includes the word 'censoring' and not go a step further? 'Censoring' is the verb form of the word 'censor,' which can also be a noun. Dictionary.com defines the verb censor as "6. to examine and act upon as a censor. [para.] 7. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.
So we go to the noun 'censor.' The first definition is "an official who examines [various media] for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable . . ." (emphasis mine) The secondary definitions either imply official capacity ("supervises"), are so broad as to be useless ("an adverse critic"), or are irrelevant (apply to Roman times or Freudian theory).
So as our final step, we go to the word "official." Since the definition for 'censor' used the word 'official' as a noun, we go to the noun's definition: "a person appointed or elected to an office or charged with certain duties." Unless you care to argue that Krantz is an official appointed to suppress objectionable viewpoints, which I would be happy to hear, the dictionary war ends here and Krantz was correct.
Finally, I admit that Krantz's letter wasn't exactly artful. But if carelessly misspelling a single word makes someone a semi-literate, well, I guess the world's overrun with them. By the way, Brian, by your logic, that incorrectly used comma in your last sentence discredits your entire claim.
Posted by: Ivan at January 2, 2007 5:48 PM
Nice try, Ivan. Mr. Krantz used the word censorship, himself. His tone is vicious and he lied about his invitation to Mr. Brimelow as per the above confirmation.
Posted by: tvoh at January 2, 2007 9:59 PM
Just yesterday I demanded that CNN allow me six hoours on the air to explain my theory that potatoes taste bad; they did not comply. Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Write letters! Send me checks!
Posted by: M at January 3, 2007 12:55 AM
I actually heard this specific show and did not pay much attention to the discussion because it was rather boring. Only after Brimelow hung up and Brad and Britt started discussing it, did I know they were not happy with the discussion. I do remember Brad apologizing for the error he made of not researching this guest fully enough.
I find the Brad and Britt show balanced, entertaining and rather remarkable in that they book interviews with some very well known people. You should try listing in now and then and judge for yourself.
PS - I hope I don't get roasted for any poor grammar or incorrect spelling that I let slip by!
Posted by: BD at January 5, 2007 3:29 PM