Talk:David Brudnoy

---

Untitled

I knew little of Brudnoy save from name-dropping in the media back when I lived in Massachusetts. Hearing of his recent developments, I found the article on him lacking and decided to flesh it out as best I could. I don't know anything about him beyond the details I've been able to find researching for this article. I hope I've done him justice. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 00:05, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Recently?

He is most widely known for espousing conservative — or, as recognized more recently, libertarian — views,

I seem to recall his writing for Reason magazine, widely considered libertarian, back in the '70s. Does "recently" mean the '70s? Michael Hardy 22:49, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Shrug. Was it considered "libertarian" back then? I've personally only become aware of the term Libertarian since the mid 90s. Reason is certainly referred to as "libertarian" now, but how long has it worn that term?

More to the point, did Brudnoy (and/or his critics) refer to him(self) as "libertarian" then, or only since recently (such as when he joined the Libertarian Party in 2000)? - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 00:28, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

PS - He's also written for the National Review -- generally considered conservative rather than libertarian. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 04:22, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

In the '70s, Reason was the Libertarian magazine, often mistakenly thought to be published by the Libertarian Party. Michael Hardy 19:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I guess what it comes down to is how he was perceived. Despite the use of the term "libertarian" as far back as the 70s, it doesn't mean that Brudnoy was perceived or labeled that way.

That's why I carefully used the wording "as recognized more recently". It wasn't to suggest Brudnoy's fundamental view had changed, but that people didn't start recognizing it as "a libertarian view" until the past ten years with the rise in visibility of (L/l)ibertarianism in the public arena.

Besides, this is Boston we're talking about. A "conservative" in New England has to technically be a libertarian, else they'd be summarily exiled to Nebraska.

-[[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 18:12, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Brudnoy was calling himself a libertarian on air regularly as far back as his days on WHDH. Further, his basic political philosophy could never accurately be called "conservative" in any meaningful way and I doubt he ever labeled himself that way except perhaps on a specific issue. Mwickens 16:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Syndication

I have two sources that state that Brudnoy's show was syndicated: http://www.weeklydig.com/dig/content/7948.aspx http://www.whfreeman.com/generalreaders/Barash_Lipton.asp

One of those links is no longer valid, and the other says nothing about syndication, but simply puts his show under "National"—which makes sense: while his show was never at any time syndicated, it was a program of truly national stature in a way that few single-station talk shows ever could be, by serving and cultivating the listenership far beyond the local Boston market, particularly after sunset. He didn't need to be syndicated, since he was on a station whose night signal is protected from interference for 750 miles. You could argue that reaching from Ohio to North Carolina isn't truly "national", but it's clearly more than "regional". (WBZ is to be applauded for this; unlike many former-class-I-A stations which broadcast nationally-syndicated pap in the evenings and overnights, WBZ has always, but for a brief intermission in Brudnoy's career, broadcast live, topical programming of a national interest during this time.) 18.26.0.18 05:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I do know that other stations outside MA at least rebroadcasted his final interview. -Keith D. Tyler [flame] 17:56, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Medical literature

David Brudnoy medical history was presented in the June 19, 2008 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine as Case 19-2008: A 63 Year-Old HIV-Positive Man with Cutaneous Merkel-Cell Carcinoma. He was not identified by name, but the details of the article leave no doubt about his identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hphlphphlp (talk • contribs) 18:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

References

Citations

Would someone with more adept footnoting skill fix this up? The citations just need formatted more beautifully. Brudnoy was a neat guy and deserves better. --Brad Patrick (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that up. It will be done in fits and starts, but it will be done. -- Whpq (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Relies heavily on autobiography

Brudnoy's autobiography is the basis for many facts in the article. I believe this fails WP:PRIMARY. Should be revised. Nweil (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)