Saturday, August 20, 2005
Talk Show Turnoffs
(I am a staunch conservative converted to the right by Rush Limbaugh. I remember the exact issue of my conversion - Limbaugh pointed out that so called cuts in federal spending were actually cuts in the growth of spending. Clinton's duplicity in using the words "spending cuts" insulted my sense of what defines honesty as did Clinton in general. But over the years I have become critical of talk show hosts. )
In my opinion the best hosts are as follows; Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Denver's Mike Rosen and Laura Ingraham. Hosts that suffer by comparison include Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, O'Reilly (radio and TV), Michael Gallagher and Michael Savage. The worse host, by far, is Michael Savage. He gives conservative talk radio a bad name. When liberals excoriate conservative talk, they use Savage as an example and rightly so.
The most overrated talk show host has got to be Sean Hannity. His show consists of promoting his TV show (40%), and telling us what will be on in the next hour (25%). Once in a while he works in a caller, mostly women. Sean really likes women callers. His interviews with politicos are predictable. And the object of recently program content has been used to take advantage of tragedy TV ratings, i.e. the Natalee Holloway's epic.
Rush Limbaugh is very articulate and knows what turns his audience on. But at times Limbaugh takes us back to the sexual innuendoes of the 1970s. He seems to relish "dirty talk." I can remember when, for one week, he talked about women "farting" in their cars. He thought it was so clever that this double entendre could also refer to women putting on make up in their cars. The other day, he was obsessed with the word "condom," asking if anyone on his staff had a condom in his or her billfold. I kept thinking he was getting some little charge in his neither parts as he said "condom." I don't know where the condom bit was going because I turned him off - and besides the next story, was going to be about a guy who died after having sex with a horse.
People listen to Limbaugh for his political bent, but Rush thinks he's a sports talk show. I and others, judging from Rush's own comment about listener input, don't tune in to hear Rush's NFL predictions or golf scores. If you want to get on Rush's show ask him a NFL question. In talk radio there's a conundrum - news talk shows want to be sport shows, and sports shows wants to be news talk shows.
While Rush relates to his audience on most subjects, he disconnects when he talks about social security as an entitlement. He doesn't accept that the government has made a contract with taxpayers; whereby, in return for the payment of social security taxes, the government promised to provide monies for retirees.
Hugh Hewitt is radio's would be PBS talk show host - that is, when he's on the air. He takes more vacations than President Bush. I'm sure talk show listeners can't wait for Hewitt's to feature Shakespeare, religion, extreme sports or NASCAR - at times Hewitt sounds like a religious show host. Whereas Medved doesn't give much worth to single people, Hewitt doesn't take old people seriously, despite talk show listener demographics. For some reason Hewitt comes across as someone trying to make up for his 5 foot 7 inch stature although I have no idea how tall he is. His most redeeming facet, which puts him in my top five, is his recent work on judicial nominations. Plus he has finally realized that his listeners can discuss complicated issues - whereas in the past he would toss out one line questions any idiot caller could answer.
Mike Medved and Mike Rosen are the best debaters. Although recently Medved has gotten off on social rather than political issues. I mean - how many times do we need to discuss homosexuality, TV is bad, movies are good and being single is unnatural? Medved also annoys with his "conspiracy day" where he takes advantage of sickos who tell us over and over that the moon landing was staged in a Hollywood studio and that the secret Yale "Skull and Bones Society" runs the world. Still his debating skills secures the number two spot in my book.
Caustic and irreverent, Denver's Mike Rosen does not suffer fools gladly; but at times, he becomes a sport show host when he shills for the hapless Colorado Rockies - not coincidentally his station, KOA, carries Rockies games. The other day he jeopardized his top five standing when he did a segment on bad breath. I suppose, when you're on air some thirty plus days a year, some shows will stink - pun intended.
Last but least is the Laura Ingraham show, or as it should be known, Laura's musicfest. What Laura does not seem to understand is, while she may be tired of political talk, her audience isn't. Listeners want political talk not music and movie reviews. As the old saying goes "you gotta dance with the one that brung you," and Laura did not get where she is with her personal taste in music. But Laura does scores big with her attack of lefty sound bites. She and her staff must watch every political TV program aired and it pays off with an entertaining show.
The worse talk show host of a national syndicated program is Mike Gallagher. He doesn't bother with research. You will not hear anything new from Gallagher just the latest issues that gets calls. His demographics seem to be pissed off red necks.
While conservative talk appeal to millions of listeners, advertisers don't think much of its demographics as demonstrated by ads for hair growth, belly fat reduction, gold investing and dating services. Surly conservative talk show listeners aren't as dumb as advertisers think we are.
In my opinion the best hosts are as follows; Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Denver's Mike Rosen and Laura Ingraham. Hosts that suffer by comparison include Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, O'Reilly (radio and TV), Michael Gallagher and Michael Savage. The worse host, by far, is Michael Savage. He gives conservative talk radio a bad name. When liberals excoriate conservative talk, they use Savage as an example and rightly so.
The most overrated talk show host has got to be Sean Hannity. His show consists of promoting his TV show (40%), and telling us what will be on in the next hour (25%). Once in a while he works in a caller, mostly women. Sean really likes women callers. His interviews with politicos are predictable. And the object of recently program content has been used to take advantage of tragedy TV ratings, i.e. the Natalee Holloway's epic.
Rush Limbaugh is very articulate and knows what turns his audience on. But at times Limbaugh takes us back to the sexual innuendoes of the 1970s. He seems to relish "dirty talk." I can remember when, for one week, he talked about women "farting" in their cars. He thought it was so clever that this double entendre could also refer to women putting on make up in their cars. The other day, he was obsessed with the word "condom," asking if anyone on his staff had a condom in his or her billfold. I kept thinking he was getting some little charge in his neither parts as he said "condom." I don't know where the condom bit was going because I turned him off - and besides the next story, was going to be about a guy who died after having sex with a horse.
People listen to Limbaugh for his political bent, but Rush thinks he's a sports talk show. I and others, judging from Rush's own comment about listener input, don't tune in to hear Rush's NFL predictions or golf scores. If you want to get on Rush's show ask him a NFL question. In talk radio there's a conundrum - news talk shows want to be sport shows, and sports shows wants to be news talk shows.
While Rush relates to his audience on most subjects, he disconnects when he talks about social security as an entitlement. He doesn't accept that the government has made a contract with taxpayers; whereby, in return for the payment of social security taxes, the government promised to provide monies for retirees.
Hugh Hewitt is radio's would be PBS talk show host - that is, when he's on the air. He takes more vacations than President Bush. I'm sure talk show listeners can't wait for Hewitt's to feature Shakespeare, religion, extreme sports or NASCAR - at times Hewitt sounds like a religious show host. Whereas Medved doesn't give much worth to single people, Hewitt doesn't take old people seriously, despite talk show listener demographics. For some reason Hewitt comes across as someone trying to make up for his 5 foot 7 inch stature although I have no idea how tall he is. His most redeeming facet, which puts him in my top five, is his recent work on judicial nominations. Plus he has finally realized that his listeners can discuss complicated issues - whereas in the past he would toss out one line questions any idiot caller could answer.
Mike Medved and Mike Rosen are the best debaters. Although recently Medved has gotten off on social rather than political issues. I mean - how many times do we need to discuss homosexuality, TV is bad, movies are good and being single is unnatural? Medved also annoys with his "conspiracy day" where he takes advantage of sickos who tell us over and over that the moon landing was staged in a Hollywood studio and that the secret Yale "Skull and Bones Society" runs the world. Still his debating skills secures the number two spot in my book.
Caustic and irreverent, Denver's Mike Rosen does not suffer fools gladly; but at times, he becomes a sport show host when he shills for the hapless Colorado Rockies - not coincidentally his station, KOA, carries Rockies games. The other day he jeopardized his top five standing when he did a segment on bad breath. I suppose, when you're on air some thirty plus days a year, some shows will stink - pun intended.
Last but least is the Laura Ingraham show, or as it should be known, Laura's musicfest. What Laura does not seem to understand is, while she may be tired of political talk, her audience isn't. Listeners want political talk not music and movie reviews. As the old saying goes "you gotta dance with the one that brung you," and Laura did not get where she is with her personal taste in music. But Laura does scores big with her attack of lefty sound bites. She and her staff must watch every political TV program aired and it pays off with an entertaining show.
The worse talk show host of a national syndicated program is Mike Gallagher. He doesn't bother with research. You will not hear anything new from Gallagher just the latest issues that gets calls. His demographics seem to be pissed off red necks.
While conservative talk appeal to millions of listeners, advertisers don't think much of its demographics as demonstrated by ads for hair growth, belly fat reduction, gold investing and dating services. Surly conservative talk show listeners aren't as dumb as advertisers think we are.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
A Pretend Debate
Stan Janiak, May 13, 2005
The following is a conversation I had with my 10 year old nephew, in which I explained the US Senate committee system and the filibuster. After reading several polls on the filibusters, a lot of people seem to be on the same intellectual level as my nephew.
There are 100 guys in the US Senate, but they aren't like the senators in Sparticus. They don't meet and discuss every issue. They don't have the time, so they create committees. Committees investigate proposed laws, nominations, treaties etc.and are made up of Republicans and Democrats.
If there are more Republican Senators, like there is now, there are more Republican Senators in committees.
Committees have different specialties, armed forces, agriculture, judiciary etc. In the Judiciary Committee, according to the Constitution (the Constitution is a blueprint on how the US government should work), Senators are given the responsibility to provide "advise and consent" to the President's regarding his nominees.
The President says he wants this person to work for him. He sends their name to the Senate and the Senate is supposed to investigate the person and vote for or against letting this person work for the president.
In the 1800s the job of investigating the President's choice of people was given to a committee. After the committee investigates a nominee or a proposed law they report their findings to the full Senate, the 100 guys.
The problem, now, is that the Judiciary Committee is not letting the full Senate vote on the nominees to the Federal Circuit Court. The Circuit Court is to the Supreme Court like a triple A baseball team is to the majors. The Democrats do not want to face a Bush nominee to the Supreme Court. So a minority of Senators are conducting a pretend extended debate.
Time was when a Senator stood up and talked on and on. No one could make him stop unless most of the Senators wanted him to stop. It takes 60 Senators to make a Senator stop talking (or in this case when he pretends to be talking). Nonstop talking is called a filibuster.
It became a pretend filibuster when these guys in the Senate decided that talking forever was too much work and uncomfortable especially if they had to sleep or go to the bathroom. Once a Senator stopped talking a vote could be taken to close debate.
In order for Senators to do their job, they need to make the Democrat (a pretend guy pretending to speak) in the Judicial committee stop pretending he's talking, but they can't do it because they need 60 senators to vote him to stop and there are only 55 Republicans in the Senate who want him to stop.
Its a political thing. President Bush wants judges that support the Constitution as written. Democrats want judges that think the Constitution is only a rough draft and should be updated to reflect the countries' "cultural changes."
And who decides if the culture is changing, the judges. Recently a Supreme Court judge admitted that he voted based on his personal feelings and on laws from other countries. Republicans say this is wrong and that the Constitution should be strictly followed. To do otherwise is to make up laws and that is the responsibility of the Congress not judges.
Since our country was founded years ago, our culture has changed and there is a way to adjust the Constitutionto reflect changes. It can be amended and its been done twenty-seven times.
But the Democrats are not interested in trying to change the Constitution by amendment, since a change would have to be okayed by 3/4 of the states and there are more Republican states than Democrat states.
Democrats feel that most judges are on their side and will changes laws the way they want them changed. They don't trust the American people to make the right decision when voting. When Bush won the last election the Democrats could not understand why the American people voted against their better interests. They know what is best for the people.
The following is a conversation I had with my 10 year old nephew, in which I explained the US Senate committee system and the filibuster. After reading several polls on the filibusters, a lot of people seem to be on the same intellectual level as my nephew.
There are 100 guys in the US Senate, but they aren't like the senators in Sparticus. They don't meet and discuss every issue. They don't have the time, so they create committees. Committees investigate proposed laws, nominations, treaties etc.and are made up of Republicans and Democrats.
If there are more Republican Senators, like there is now, there are more Republican Senators in committees.
Committees have different specialties, armed forces, agriculture, judiciary etc. In the Judiciary Committee, according to the Constitution (the Constitution is a blueprint on how the US government should work), Senators are given the responsibility to provide "advise and consent" to the President's regarding his nominees.
The President says he wants this person to work for him. He sends their name to the Senate and the Senate is supposed to investigate the person and vote for or against letting this person work for the president.
In the 1800s the job of investigating the President's choice of people was given to a committee. After the committee investigates a nominee or a proposed law they report their findings to the full Senate, the 100 guys.
The problem, now, is that the Judiciary Committee is not letting the full Senate vote on the nominees to the Federal Circuit Court. The Circuit Court is to the Supreme Court like a triple A baseball team is to the majors. The Democrats do not want to face a Bush nominee to the Supreme Court. So a minority of Senators are conducting a pretend extended debate.
Time was when a Senator stood up and talked on and on. No one could make him stop unless most of the Senators wanted him to stop. It takes 60 Senators to make a Senator stop talking (or in this case when he pretends to be talking). Nonstop talking is called a filibuster.
It became a pretend filibuster when these guys in the Senate decided that talking forever was too much work and uncomfortable especially if they had to sleep or go to the bathroom. Once a Senator stopped talking a vote could be taken to close debate.
In order for Senators to do their job, they need to make the Democrat (a pretend guy pretending to speak) in the Judicial committee stop pretending he's talking, but they can't do it because they need 60 senators to vote him to stop and there are only 55 Republicans in the Senate who want him to stop.
Its a political thing. President Bush wants judges that support the Constitution as written. Democrats want judges that think the Constitution is only a rough draft and should be updated to reflect the countries' "cultural changes."
And who decides if the culture is changing, the judges. Recently a Supreme Court judge admitted that he voted based on his personal feelings and on laws from other countries. Republicans say this is wrong and that the Constitution should be strictly followed. To do otherwise is to make up laws and that is the responsibility of the Congress not judges.
Since our country was founded years ago, our culture has changed and there is a way to adjust the Constitutionto reflect changes. It can be amended and its been done twenty-seven times.
But the Democrats are not interested in trying to change the Constitution by amendment, since a change would have to be okayed by 3/4 of the states and there are more Republican states than Democrat states.
Democrats feel that most judges are on their side and will changes laws the way they want them changed. They don't trust the American people to make the right decision when voting. When Bush won the last election the Democrats could not understand why the American people voted against their better interests. They know what is best for the people.
