Susan said...

Great post, Chris! I, too, was at the meeting with John Scott, and would like to reiterate that he was very gracious. He seems like a very nice man. However, I'd like to add a couple of points.
Firstly, I asked John about about the much anticipated "digital" option known as Green 960-2: Apparently will consist of an online stream that will be available in addition to the regular (analog)radio broadcast. This online programing will be live, so that we'll be able to call in and talk to the hosts.
According to John, Thom Hartmann will not be featured on Green 960-2 because he isn't interested: He "wants to be on the radio." I asked John why, then, he couldn't put Ed Shultz on the digital stream from 9-12 and Thom on the radio during that time slot. Both programs would be live and listeners would have a choice of listening to either Thom or Ed.
Since digital programing is apparently the wave of the the future, it would make sense to put the supposed "star" of the station (at least in terms of ratings) on Green 960-2, and put Thom on the radio as he prefers. However, I didn't receive an answer to this very logical question.
Secondly, the reason for bumping Thom off the radio in the morning and replacing him with Shultz is apparently because Schultz is more popular. According to Arbitron's PPM ratings at least, Schultz rates higher than Hartmann. However, Arbitron qualifies its PPM ratings method by stating that this method "should not be relied on for precise accuracy or precise representativeness of a demographic or radio market."
I would guess that if die hard progressives within the Bay Area were polled, Hartmann would beat Shultz in popularity (and ratings) by a mile. And it's us progressives who make up the loyal listeners of Green 960.
I'll just end by saying that it's unthinkable for San Francisco, generally considered the most liberal city in the United States, to be without Thom Hartmann on the radio.