I could never understand why they were so angry during those years. They should have been overjoyed. But it wasn't enough.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
JIM BOHANNON TO RETIRE FROM SYNDICATED TALK SHOW; RICH VALDES TO TAKE OVER
- Thread starter Y2kTheNewOldies
- Start date
I could never understand why they were so angry during those years. They should have been overjoyed. But it wasn't enough.
Specifics? Remember, much of this is opinion and the stats can vary from source to source.Except that Jim was better prepared to deal with false information. I head one of Rich's interviews talking about the national debt, and it was filled with inaccuracies that Rich agreed with. I don't think Jim would have taken that approach. He had a way of correcting the information without being rude, and then going to commercial.
Specifics? Remember, much of this is opinion and the stats can vary from source to source.
Sure, Rich was interviewing Steve Moore, who was a former WH financial advisor. He said the current administration has run up a $4 trillion dollar debt. That's not true. It's less than $2 trillion. But the administration Steve worked for ran up an $8 trillion debt, $4 trillion in its last year. The reason the debt keeps increasing is because congress keeps increasing the debt limit. It's done so under 3 administrations. I'm sure Jim would have brought that up. Instead Rich used that incorrect number as a reason to vote out the current adinistration.
As this article points out:Sure, Rich was interviewing Steve Moore, who was a former WH financial advisor. He said the current administration has run up a $4 trillion dollar debt. That's not true. It's less than $2 trillion. But the administration Steve worked for ran up an $8 trillion debt, $4 trillion in its last year. The reason the debt keeps increasing is because congress keeps increasing the debt limit. It's done so under 3 administrations. I'm sure Jim would have brought that up. Instead Rich used that incorrect number as a reason to vote out the current adinistration.
... the national debt is fluid and doesn't necessarily correlate to each year of an administration. It's unlikely that Bohannon had hard-and-fast numbers at his fingertips when Valdes did not.
It's unlikely that Bohannon had hard-and-fast numbers at his fingertips when Valdes did not.
What the guest was talking about was who is responsible for the debt. The constitution places responsibility for the budget in the hands of congress, not the president. Jim would know this. So replacing the president wouldn't address the debt issue. In fact, as your linked article shows, the debt has grown continually through several administrations.
The other problem is the guest was supposedly an expert on government finances. Yet he was making a partisan attack on one administration without putting it in the context of what happened during his watch, which was that a huge tax cut created a $2 trillion shortfall. It's very likely that if there's a change in administrations, the new group will seek to cut taxes again, furthering the debt.
It's interesting that you were able to come up with a link pretty quickly (the same site I used for my information BTW). Most talk shows I know have access to the internet. Most hosts have a producer. So correct numbers are accessible if someone is willing to look.
Do you ever wonder if folks like Hanity or Carlson really believe what they are spouting or if it's just a carnival freak show and that is what the rubes are buying?
They don't exist in a bubble. They have producers and staff who have input into what they say. There is corporate ownership that also has a stake in the process. From what I understand, there is a strategy to what they say that is supposed to affect the bottom line. I guess it's working.
I'm not an economist so I won't try to argue the point. But it's a complex issue that Bohannon probably would have addressed by shouting down the guest.What the guest was talking about was who is responsible for the debt. The constitution places responsibility for the budget in the hands of congress, not the president. Jim would know this. So replacing the president wouldn't address the debt issue. In fact, as your linked article shows, the debt has grown continually through several administrations.
The other problem is the guest was supposedly an expert on government finances. Yet he was making a partisan attack on one administration without putting it in the context of what happened during his watch, which was that a huge tax cut created a $2 trillion shortfall. It's very likely that if there's a change in administrations, the new group will seek to cut taxes again, furthering the debt.
It's interesting that you were able to come up with a link pretty quickly (the same site I used for my information BTW). Most talk shows I know have access to the internet. Most hosts have a producer. So correct numbers are accessible if someone is willing to look.
This article from The Washington Post, hardly a right wing rag, sheds more light on the complexity:
In any case, I find Valdes more likable, interesting and entertaining, so I'll leave it there.
I'm not an economist so I won't try to argue the point. But it's a complex issue that Bohannon probably would have addressed by shouting down the guest.
I've never heard Jim "shout down a guest." Not to say he hasn't. Just that I've never heard him do it.
I just listened to the most recent Podcast with Rich Valdes. It's nothing like Jim Bohannon.
It's Conservative Talk outright. Right from the beginning he goes off on "Mandatory Covid Shots," "Pro Crime Progressive prosecuters funded by George Soros and crime prevention is racist" "Hunter Biden"
It's the same stuff you hear on other Conservative shows.
Jim Bohannon was obviously a Conservative. He didn't hide it when the topic came up, but he didn't ramble on about it like this.
It's Conservative Talk outright. Right from the beginning he goes off on "Mandatory Covid Shots," "Pro Crime Progressive prosecuters funded by George Soros and crime prevention is racist" "Hunter Biden"
It's the same stuff you hear on other Conservative shows.
Jim Bohannon was obviously a Conservative. He didn't hide it when the topic came up, but he didn't ramble on about it like this.
Oops - Think I goofed up the reply again. No, I never heard Jim shout down anyone. Nor did he go on about conspiracy theories.I've never heard Jim "shout down a guest." Not to say he hasn't. Just that I've never heard him do it.
He used to at times refer to himself as a "militant moderate". In reality he was center and tended to drift right depending on the issue. That said, as others have mentioned, he was well-read, knowledgeable and brought on guests from many different walks of life and to discuss a plethora of subjects; his show wasn't necessarily centered around politics and he didn't mind calling people out when they started going off the rails, regardless of which end of the political spectrum their views represented.Jim Bohannon was obviously a Conservative. He didn't hide it when the topic came up, but he didn't ramble on about it like this.
Don't judge the show by the podcast.I just listened to the most recent Podcast with Rich Valdes. It's nothing like Jim Bohannon.
"Shouting" is probably the wrong word, I should say he often "belittled" the callers and sometimes the guests. He's a smart guy and he often used that to put down other opinions as though "from on high" rather than even discussing them. Frankly I found it unpleasant.I've never heard Jim "shout down a guest." Not to say he hasn't. Just that I've never heard him do it.
The podcast I listened to is literally a recording of the show itself.Don't judge the show by the podcast.
Are you sure? I believe the podcast is a recording of the 1-hour show he does for WPHT. He mentions that at the end. Unlike his Bohannon show, it's straight politics.The podcast I listened to is literally a recording of the show itself.
Are you sure? I believe the podcast is a recording of the 1-hour show he does for WPHT. He mentions that at the end. Unlike his Bohannon show, it's straight politics.
If you go to the Jim Bohannon website, you will get podcasts of the Jim Bohannon Show, which includes the version hosted by Rich Valdes as well as Jim’s final shows. He brought up everything I mentioned during the show’s opening on October 22nd.
It's just disappointing to me that Jim Bohannon, the one Westwood One show that was rarely about politics, is now a political show under Rich Valdes. When KABC, KGO and other stations were consistently #1 with diverse all-talk formats years ago, did we ever think it would come to this? Nearly every talk station in every market is about Very Conservative Politics. Red state, blue state, doesn't matter.
Dave Ramsey and Coast to Coast AM with George Noory are the only major syndicated shows that are usually politics-free. Clark Howard retired a couple of years ago and Jim Bohannon is retired now.
Yet the nation's highest revenue talk station, still on AM, KFI Los Angeles, is fairly moderate and only does politics sometimes. You'd think it would be an example for others to follow. But I guess not.
Dave Ramsey and Coast to Coast AM with George Noory are the only major syndicated shows that are usually politics-free. Clark Howard retired a couple of years ago and Jim Bohannon is retired now.
Yet the nation's highest revenue talk station, still on AM, KFI Los Angeles, is fairly moderate and only does politics sometimes. You'd think it would be an example for others to follow. But I guess not.
WLW still has a couple of centrists leaning right (as well as right-wing hosts), and sports-oriented hosts, but KFIs and WLWs are few and far between. If you'd have told me 10 years ago that FCC-licensed radio stations in major markets with major signals would be claiming the current government is illegitimate and people who tried to overthrow the results of an election were in the right, I'd have looked at you strangeIt's just disappointing to me that Jim Bohannon, the one Westwood One show that was rarely about politics, is now a political show under Rich Valdes. When KABC, KGO and other stations were consistently #1 with diverse all-talk formats years ago, did we ever think it would come to this? Nearly every talk station in every market is about Very Conservative Politics. Red state, blue state, doesn't matter.
Dave Ramsey and Coast to Coast AM with George Noory are the only major syndicated shows that are usually politics-free. Clark Howard retired a couple of years ago and Jim Bohannon is retired now.
Yet the nation's highest revenue talk station, still on AM, KFI Los Angeles, is fairly moderate and only does politics sometimes. You'd think it would be an example for others to follow. But I guess not.
I can understand Rick Edelman's show being an infomercial for his business, but how is Bill Handel's "Handel on the Law" an infomercial? He's not active as an attorney, or promoting himself for attorney services. He does have a list of lawyers he refers people to on a website. Now if he is getting payment for referring someone who becomes one of their clients, then it might be valid calling it an infomercial.I don't disagree. You might also put Lars Larson in the category of hosts who still do non-political interviews.
Talk radio used to include hosts like Dr. Dean Edell, Clark Howard, Ric Edelman before his show became an infomercial, and KFI's "Handel on the Law" before that became pretty much an infomercial. There's certainly room for those kinds of shows and maybe they'll come around again.
That said, I find that Rich Valdes does a good job of not being overly political. He listens to callers with opposing views, and doesn't shout them down or cut them off with, "Thank you for your call," and then rant for the next few minutes like so many talk show hosts do. The show is only one week old. Lets see if he works at broadening the topics.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.