KFI Suspend John and Ken until next Tuesday

[robnokshus06]

Your respect for on air personalities that mock the dead and call a dead woman a crack-ho is your own business. I do not believe that most people share that view. They are fortunate they do not answer to me. I would have handed them their walking papers and told my legal team to support the decision. John and Ken are an embarrassment to real broadcasters. They have been down this road before so obviously CC is willing to tolerate such behavior. Their PD should have canned them on the spot. I don't think what they said was even remotely funny. But it was a great example of on air talent behaving like teenage brats.

I take it you're not a fan of the First Amendment?

Free speech doesn't mean speech free from repercussions. They said what they wanted to say and now they're dealing with fallout from that (a week's vacation).

J&K also get paid to speak. However, if what they say winds up costing their company more than they bring in, then the company is going to have something to say about that. Media Matters? That's funny. It's the money that matters.

 

[Fornax]

It's nice to see some people understand the First Amendment. You are free to speak, but not freed of being accountable for your words. I wish I could believe J&K or KFI had one shred of regret for what happened. We can act as if we are all clever, talk radio consumers. But it's really simple, we're being played. Insensitive, racist comments suck you in because they make exciting talk radio. We're entertained by hate. Then we debate whether we have enough laws to protect the hate speech. J&K do some good things. But we celebrate them for pandering to worst that's in us. We're free to say hateful things, at least once, but it doesn't make it right to have said them.

 

[randy chase]

Don't know whether John and Ken are racists but their "crack-ho" statements about Whitney Houston are flat out mysoginist. So we know that about them by their own words.

As for CC finding their behavior "intolerable" that is hard to see when they grant them a one week vacation including President's Day as a reward for their on air fiasco.

They sound like a pair of high schoolers with their "crack-ho" comments. Disparaging Doug McIntyre over the wattage of his radio station is a weird response to the John and Ken behavior. So when you cannot deal with your issues you simply change the subject! Maybe we can also blame Doug for the uprising in Syria.....it is all his fault of course.

 

[radio-darn]

John and Ken are an embarrassment to real broadcasters.

"...real broadcasters" ???? I don't think we have many if any of them left - I think they all died or sold their stations to Jacor.

I remember them: community spirited gents who editorialized about their communities, got honors for civic involvement, were stalwarts of their church, didn't believe that women or minorities should be on the air, had little respect for the air personalities they did hire and could be pompous asses. But hey they had that good facade.

They'd have professed shock at J&K, but then would have reveled in the publicity and the thought how it might increase the audience and in turn increase ad sales, which was the only thing that really mattered to real broadcasters.

 

[randy chase]

If what you say is true that is a very sad commentary on broadcasting. And if John and Ken turn their on air disaster into a publicity stunt then shame on them. Come to think of it, shame on them period. There is no silver lining in calling Whitney Houston a crack-ho on KFI just days after her death. Don't remember hearing similar comments about KFI star Rush L when he was taking time off to rehab from reported oxy habit. So Rush is a superstar but Whitney is a crack-ho. Talk about double standards.

 

[nmoore6676]

John and Ken are an embarrassment to real broadcasters.

"...real broadcasters" ???? I don't think we have many if any of them left - I think they all died or sold their stations to Jacor.

I remember them: community spirited gents who editorialized about their communities, got honors for civic involvement, were stalwarts of their church, didn't believe that women or minorities should be on the air, had little respect for the air personalities they did hire and could be pompous asses. But hey they had that good facade.

They'd have professed shock at J&K, but then would have reveled in the publicity and the thought how it might increase the audience and in turn increase ad sales, which was the only thing that really mattered to real broadcasters.

I beg to disagree with your generalization of all local owners. Sounds like you were involved with the bad apples but not all of the local civic minded station owners and managers were the duplicitous hypocrites that you depict. In my community where I grew up local broadcaster "Smilin" Bob Yontz raised funding for the city's first paramedic response teams using his radio station. Other local radio and TV personality Ruth Lyons founded a charity to provide toys and entertainment to hospitalized children. I am sure that others can cite similar examples and there are some still left like here where I am now where a family owned station is heavily involved in local charities and civic promotions.

 

[uncamark]

In terms of contemporary talk radio, what John and Ken did is not all that surprising. Sean Ross' article last week on this site pointed out that Whitney Houston was mainly being heard before her death on urban AC and mainstream AC formats--neither one of which share audiences with talk stations. And it should be pointed out that in the minds of many of the over-65 P1s for the talk format, if they viewed Houston at all, they viewed as a caterwauler who didn't sing like Dinah Shore, while the younger end of the audience shares their talk listening with classic rock, country and classic hits formats, none of which were Houston supporters (in fact, one can argue that classic hits stations cut off at 1985 to avoid having to play Houston's hits). Considering all this, it's not surprising that John and Ken made the remarks and that KFI responded with a relative wristslap--as the folks at the UK's Ofcom would say when turning down some listener/viewer complaints, their remarks "did not exceed their listeners' expectations."

To paraphrase the title one of Houston's last hits, it's not right, it's not OK. Unfortunately, it's the way talk radio is played in 2012 and it's John and Ken reflecting their predominately white, male, over-50, conservative audience.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

In terms of contemporary talk radio, what John and Ken did is not all that surprising. Sean Ross' article last week on this site pointed out that Whitney Houston was mainly being heard before her death on urban AC and mainstream AC formats--neither one of which share audiences with talk stations. And it should be pointed out that in the minds of many of the over-65 P1s for the talk format, if they viewed Houston at all, they viewed as a caterwauler who didn't sing like Dinah Shore, while the younger end of the audience shares their talk listening with classic rock, country and classic hits formats, none of which were Houston supporters (in fact, one can argue that classic hits stations cut off at 1985 to avoid having to play Houston's hits). Considering all this, it's not surprising that John and Ken made the remarks and that KFI responded with a relative wristslap--as the folks at the UK's Ofcom would say when turning down some listener/viewer complaints, their remarks "did not exceed their listeners' expectations."

To paraphrase the title one of Houston's last hits, it's not right, it's not OK. Unfortunately, it's the way talk radio is played in 2012 and it's John and Ken reflecting their predominately white, male, over-50, conservative audience.

Wow, what a perfect summary of the underhanded racism that has been the undertone of this entire thread. Maybe what they said is "right", maybe not, but who are you to judge? However, nobody has mentioned the fact that Whitney herself talked like a low-class foul-mouthed sailor, and that was all spoken while in public. Who knows what she said when the cameras weren't rolling? I'm sure it would be ok with some of these posters if she called one of her BLACK "sisters" a "crack-ho", language that was far from unfamiliar to her mouth (You know, "She's black, you wouldn't understand..."). BUT, if it's two WHITE guys, saying similar things to their WHITE, MALE, OVER-50, and (worst of all) CONSERVATIVE audience, well then they are to be condemned in the strongest of possible terms, with absolute public ostracization and loss of their livelihoods, the most desired outcome. That, to paraphrase the title one of Houston's last hits, "[is] not right, it's not OK".

Here is the most ironic element to all of this. Dr. King said he wanted a world where people were judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Dr. King's dreams have been realized. She was not judged by the color of her skin, in fact I don't think her race came up in the conversation at all (I happened to hear most of, but not all of, the "offending" segment live last week). She was put down for her abuse of drugs and alcohol, the unhealthy and sometimes violent relationships she had during her career, an inability to keep up even basic standards of appearance, making an ass of herself at various events, both over the course of her career and in the immediate days leading up to her death (which makes it a valid news topic as well), and her low-class foul mouth that was a constant source of irritation to even her close confidants. These elements of her "character" are what destroyed the great talent she had and made her the disgraceful person she had become. John and Ken in this case have nothing to apologize for. Whitney, on the other hand, has much to apologize for.

 

[leethalweapon]

I heard the "crack whore" bit, at work this morning. I didn't see what was so shocking about it. They were just saying what a lot of people were thinking. Whitney Houston's time in the spolight had long passed her by. So this was no surprise really. My only question is, was it too soon?

 

[Fornax]

In terms of contemporary talk radio, what John and Ken did is not all that surprising. Sean Ross' article last week on this site pointed out that Whitney Houston was mainly being heard before her death on urban AC and mainstream AC formats--neither one of which share audiences with talk stations. And it should be pointed out that in the minds of many of the over-65 P1s for the talk format, if they viewed Houston at all, they viewed as a caterwauler who didn't sing like Dinah Shore, while the younger end of the audience shares their talk listening with classic rock, country and classic hits formats, none of which were Houston supporters (in fact, one can argue that classic hits stations cut off at 1985 to avoid having to play Houston's hits). Considering all this, it's not surprising that John and Ken made the remarks and that KFI responded with a relative wristslap--as the folks at the UK's Ofcom would say when turning down some listener/viewer complaints, their remarks "did not exceed their listeners' expectations."

To paraphrase the title one of Houston's last hits, it's not right, it's not OK. Unfortunately, it's the way talk radio is played in 2012 and it's John and Ken reflecting their predominately white, male, over-50, conservative audience.

Wow, what a perfect summary of the underhanded racism that has been the undertone of this entire thread. Maybe what they said is "right", maybe not, but who are you to judge? However, nobody has mentioned the fact that Whitney herself talked like a low-class foul-mouthed sailor, and that was all spoken while in public. Who knows what she said when the cameras weren't rolling? I'm sure it would be ok with some of these posters if she called one of her BLACK "sisters" a "crack-ho", language that was far from unfamiliar to her mouth (You know, "She's black, you wouldn't understand..."). BUT, if it's two WHITE guys, saying similar things to their WHITE, MALE, OVER-50, and (worst of all) CONSERVATIVE audience, well then they are to be condemned in the strongest of possible terms, with absolute public ostracization and loss of their livelihoods, the most desired outcome. That, to paraphrase the title one of Houston's last hits, "[is] not right, it's not OK".

Here is the most ironic element to all of this. Dr. King said he wanted a world where people were judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Dr. King's dreams have been realized. She was not judged by the color of her skin, in fact I don't think her race came up in the conversation at all (I happened to hear most of, but not all of, the "offending" segment live last week). She was put down for her abuse of drugs and alcohol, the unhealthy and sometimes violent relationships she had during her career, an inability to keep up even basic standards of appearance, making an ass of herself at various events, both over the course of her career and in the immediate days leading up to her death (which makes it a valid news topic as well), and her low-class foul mouth that was a constant source of irritation to even her close confidants. These elements of her "character" are what destroyed the great talent she had and made her the disgraceful person she had become. John and Ken in this case have nothing to apologize for. Whitney, on the other hand, has much to apologize for.

Nice try. When was the last time you heard a white woman with a substance abuse problem referred to as a "crack ho?" And I don't see how making racist comments to a receptive audience ever makes it ok.

 

[davideduardo]

Sean Ross' article last week on this site pointed out that Whitney Houston was mainly being heard before her death on urban AC and mainstream AC formats--neither one of which share audiences with talk stations.

To the contrary, in 25-54, where KFI is typically in the top five, KOST, KCBS and KBIG are the top shared cume stations. Each shares about a third of the KFI cume.

More than half of KFI's cumers, and more than 2/3 of their streamers, are under 55.

And it should be pointed out that in the minds of many of the over-65 P1s for the talk format, if they viewed Houston at all, they viewed as a caterwauler who didn't sing like Dinah Shore, while the younger end of the audience shares their talk listening with classic rock, country and classic hits formats, none of which were Houston supporters

While KCBS leans to the rock side, it's hardly a full fledged classic rocker. KFI shares twice as many cumers with AMP or with KIIS than it does with KKGO, and even shares more with KIIS than with KRTH. In fact, it shares as much 25-54 cume with KTWV as with KRTH.

If you look at 3-7 alone, the 25-54 sharing with ACs... KBIG, KOST and KTWV, is even greater.

 

[ajc_trw]

Re: KFI Suspend John and Ken until next Monday?

Just heard Bill Handel say John & Ken won't be back till next Monday and that Kennedy will be filling in the rest of the week. I'm sure they'll be back but it doesn't look good if they added an additional four days to their suspension. :-X

 

[Bug on the rug]

Makes us want j&k that much more!! ;D

 

[justpassingthough]

I'm in no way a Whitney Houston apologist, as I thought it was interesting that on the same Grammy telecast that Ms. Houston got essentially celebrated for succumbing to her personal demons, Chris Brown was chastised for "trying" to overcome his demons. It speaks volumes about our politically correct society. Whitney Houston's addiction to drugs caused emotional and physical damage to those in her life, just like Chris Brown's actions against Rihanna. Anyone who has ever had to deal with substance abuse in their family knows the toll it can take.

I'm also not defending Chris Brown's actions here, because they were reprehensible as well, but certainly some perspective is needed. Blind worship of our "heroes" is dangerous and misguided. Most people are flawed individuals, but if you ever thought Whitney Houston deserved a second, third or fourth chance, then the same should be accomodated for Chris Brown.

With that said, what John & Ken said was well within their rights, but it was infantile and it denigrates the opportunity for the important conversation regarding substance abuse (specifically prescription drugs) that has become rampant in our society. Using the term "crack ho" implies a cracked out Black women, and thats where it crosses the line. Dr. King was all for seeing the content of one's character over the color of the skin, but "crack ho" clearly implies a Black woman- so they unnecessarily brought race into it. If they had to be insensitive, a simple "cracked out Whitney Houston" would have worked.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

If you think (as apparently many others here do) that the term "ho" refers, by its definition, to exclusively a black woman is naive and incorrect. The urban dictionary doesn't even mention race on the first page (of 21!) of its specific definitions. The one person it does refer to, Anne Coulter, is actually white. And while I don't profess to be a resident or member of "the hood", I am not unfamiliar with it either and my personal experience is consistent with the dictionary - any one, including members of any race (and in some cases, even gender!) can be referred to as a ho.

Thus there is little support for the "they called her a ho, so therefore they are racists" card.

 

[justpassingthough]

If you think (as apparently many others here do) that the term "ho" refers, by its definition, to exclusively a black woman is naive and incorrect. The urban dictionary doesn't even mention race on the first page (of 21!) of its specific definitions. The one person it does refer to, Anne Coulter, is actually white. And while I don't profess to be a resident or member of "the hood", I am not unfamiliar with it either and my personal experience is consistent with the dictionary - any one, including members of any race (and in some cases, even gender!) can be referred to as a ho.

Thus there is little support for the "they called her a ho, so therefore they are racists" card.

Historically, "ho" was a term popularized by hip hop artists as a way to describe female prostitutes, and then was broadened to include all women in a misogynistic fashion. Its roots are in the Black community.

Imus was fired for calling what was largely a group of Black women "nappy headed hos"- the term "ho" has a racial connontation. While it certainly isn't illegal to be racist, it shouldn't be surprising when there is backlash for using a racial charged term.

 

[Fornax]

If you think (as apparently many others here do) that the term "ho" refers, by its definition, to exclusively a black woman is naive and incorrect. The urban dictionary doesn't even mention race on the first page (of 21!) of its specific definitions. The one person it does refer to, Anne Coulter, is actually white. And while I don't profess to be a resident or member of "the hood", I am not unfamiliar with it either and my personal experience is consistent with the dictionary - any one, including members of any race (and in some cases, even gender!) can be referred to as a ho.

Thus there is little support for the "they called her a ho, so therefore they are racists" card.

Good grief, you sound like Dr. Laura! Go ahead, be a nitwit, use the word "ho" in referring to an African American woman on the air and then pray you're as sucessful and John & Ken so you can keep your job. justpassingthrough did a good job of summarizing use of the word "ho." You can't rise above people's perceptions. And you shouldn't try to intellectualize the use of a racist label as somehow justified or based in truth.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

If you think (as apparently many others here do) that the term "ho" refers, by its definition, to exclusively a black woman is naive and incorrect. The urban dictionary doesn't even mention race on the first page (of 21!) of its specific definitions. The one person it does refer to, Anne Coulter, is actually white. And while I don't profess to be a resident or member of "the hood", I am not unfamiliar with it either and my personal experience is consistent with the dictionary - any one, including members of any race (and in some cases, even gender!) can be referred to as a ho.

Thus there is little support for the "they called her a ho, so therefore they are racists" card.

al

Good grief, you sound like Dr. Laura! Go ahead, be a nitwit, use the word "ho" in referring to an African American woman on the air and then pray you're as sucessful and John & Ken so you can keep your job. justpassingthrough did a good job of summarizing use of the word "ho." You can't rise above people's perceptions. And you shouldn't try to intellectualize the use of a racist label as somehow justified or based in truth.

Please don't confuse my defense of them with my personal standards, which indeed may not have been your intent. I personally find the word, like many others that are used in certain circles to be ugly, low-class, repulsive and simply inappropriate in nearly any context. You have never, and will never, hear such language come out of my mouth.

However, I also extend people the benefit of the doubt. J&K used the term in its usual "street" context (such as it is, given my view above), which is a slur mainly to imply the low-class nature of the person they were talking about - not that she was specifically black, or specifically a "whore" or both. Therefore, as is always appropriate, they are, in my mind, offered the benefit of the doubt and I would only come to a conclusion that they are "racists" if given overwhelming evidence. Serious charges require compelling evidence. I've listened to them for years and have seen them put down people of every color, race and creed. The evidence is clear - They may be low-brow, but not racists. In short, from my point of view, they were wrong to use the term, you all are equally wrong in your rush to condemn them.

And if most are being really honest, it's never been about the comment, or the rant, or the daughter or anything else. it's about harming two popular hosts with whom they don't like - they see their chance to "get them" and they're not going to pass it up. If trumped up racism charges is what it will take to do it, so be it. They tried to do it with Larry Elder, they did do it to Imus and Dr. Laura and they'll do it to J&K. Shameful.

 

[justpassingthough]

Using a term like "ho" and being ignorant in its roots is just as foolish as using the term out of malice. Humor of an offensive or stereotypical nature can be viewed as funny when its done properly and seeks to downplay the cultural and historical ties to stereotypes. Too many stand-up comedians to name come to mind. The humor automatically becomes low-brow, though, when its guys like John & Ken who either used the term in malice, or if we give them the benefit of the doubt, were ignorant in their use of the term and used something inappropriate to describe the situation.

So maybe its not that John & Ken are outright racists, but that they're just ignorant to the weight that particular term carried, and for that, they'll serve a short suspension.

 

[DJBigOne]

It's just another example of the racist society we live in. If a host calls Amy Winehouse a crack ho, then there is no problem. But call Whitney Houston a crack-ho, or say the New Jersey basketball players looked like "nappy-headed hos", well then its off to the re-education camp for you. I wish there was more nuance to it, but when it comes to what you can and can't say, the issue is as simple as black and white.

ChannelFlipper is right. I would call this "reverse racism", whether it's a stunt or not.

It does exist! It's OK for a black comedian to use the N word, but if a white person uses it he's crucified.

Have you ever heard of someone disciplined for calling someone a "cracker"? How about "redneck", or "white trash"?

Personally, I like the saying, "you can take the girl out of the trailer park, but can't take the trailer park out of the girl.

Until we get over our politically correct B.S., nothing will ever change in this country. Re-education camps may be right over the horizon. Hell, we already got "sensitivity training"!