Latest: Social issues question brings local radio show to a halt
By Lawrence Schumacher lschumacher@stcloudtimes.com
Published: November 02. 2007 12:30AM - Last updated: November 02. 2007 6:38PMA live radio interview of two St. Cloud City Council candidates brought a local talk show to a halt Friday morning and left the employment status of its host uncertain.
The KNSI-AM “Hot Talk” radio show was replaced Friday by the nationally syndicated Laura Ingraham show before its normal 9 a.m. completion time. The change came after a dispute during an interview host Andy Barnett conducted with Ward 3 Council candidates Karen Langsjoen and John Libert.
Langsjoen declined to answer a question from Barnett about abortion. The question came during a series of “social issues” queries that included candidates’ views on gay marriage and immigration, she said.
“This is not an issue that impacts the City Council,” Langsjoen said Friday afternoon. “I thought the whole interview was insulting. St. Cloud has a lot of pressing issues to deal with. I have never been asked that question during the campaign.”
Libert answered the question and the interview reached its completion, but a similar segment featuring at-large City Council candidates Sonja Hayden Berg and John C. Pederson scheduled to follow it was canceled and the show ended early, said Pederson, who was waiting in the lobby for his turn.
Repeated calls placed Friday to John Sowada, general manager of KNSI parent Leighton Broadcasting, were not returned.
Barnett declined to comment Friday afternoon on the incident or his employment status.
Libert said Barnett prefaced the questions by saying that City Council members could conceivably be required to act on items such as employee insurance coverage or law enforcement policy where the issues would come into play.
Libert said he did not personally believe such questions were relevant.
“You hate to get questions like that because they aren’t really related to city politics, but you do get that question asked when you’re out knocking on people’s doors,” he said.
Pederson said he also did not believe the questions were relevant.
Barnett took over the show from previous host and ex-KNSI programming director Dan Ochsner earlier this year. Barnett co-hosts the weekday morning show with sports director Don Lyons.
As of Friday evening, KNSI’s Web site still featured advertisements for Barnett, his show and his blog.
On his blog, Barnett describes himself as a “culture warrior” and says he is “proud of his conservative values of faith, family and country.”
Langsjoen said she would like to see talk radio interviews conducted “in a more respectful way, so listeners can make their own minds up.”
“This kind of talk radio is really harming our democracy,” she said.
Andy Barnett and I have had our disagreements over a wide variety of issues but I would never wish ill will upon anyone nor would I ever want to be the cause of someone being fired. I heard the interview in question on the way into work this morning and I was disappointed to hear Andy use this line of questioning but do not believe it rises to the level of a fireable offense.
Andy, if you are out there, I wish you the best of luck! You were a worthy nemesis and perhaps we can even keep in touch.
3 responses to "Shocking News..."
Asking candidates for public officer their views on abortion...what is the world coming to? Aren't liberals supposed to be the "free speech" crowd, the people that are against censorship and against secrecy in government? I read this story in the St. Cloud Times and was wondering exactly what happened that would have put his job in any real possibility of danger. The story was somewhat vague in this regard.
You may notice that I, as a liberal, do not support the firing of Andy Barnett and if you read most of comments on story chat you will see that most of the liberals on there do not support firing either even if they thought the questioning was unnecessary. As to the line of questioning, I have no problem with those questions being asked of state and national candidates but they simply aren't relevant to a city council election.
Therein lies the problem; you say what you think is relevant based on your own opinion, and I say that the voters should decide what is or is not relevant. By making this distinction for the voters rather than letting them decide this for themselves you effectively say that "less" information is better than "more" information and that *you* should be the one who determines matters of political relevancy. Is this the message liberals want to convey?