R&R Disses Bob Grant

[jimwalsh2001]

Radio & Records has withdrawn its previously announced Lifetime Achievement Award to Bob Grant (to have been awarded at its Talk Radio Seminar in March). In a statement, the publication said that it was "sensitive to the diversity of our community" and didn't want the award to imply its endorsement of his past comments that "contradict our values and the respect we have for all members of our community."


This is serious el Toro poopoo...

 

[jaymarvin]

This is total BS and I took the time to write R&R about it and everyone else ought to too. Bob should get the award. God R&R is a gutless bird cage liner.

 

[Ultimajock]

...I've always found Grant a lousy Joe Pyne wannabe for whom Joe's death was the biggest career push Bob could hope for. Having said that, R&R's revocation of the award is equally contemptable. Does R&R actually think we'll believe they didn't know the content of the man's program when they announced the award? Geez...

 

[Lando Griffin]

...I've always found Grant a lousy Joe Pyne wannabe for whom Joe's death was the biggest career push Bob could hope for. Having said that, R&R's revocation of the award is equally contemptable. Does R&R actually think we'll believe they didn't know the content of the man's program when they announced the award? Geez...

I believe R & R's phonies still do not know the actual content of his program as they are succumbing to the likes of Al Sharpton and his cronies -- going by their words alone.

 

[smedge2006]

I believe R & R's phonies still do not know the actual content of his program as they are succumbing to the likes of Al Sharpton and his cronies -- going by their words alone.

You mean they're taking quotes "out of context?" They're "Ward Churchilling" him? OMG!

I can see why the conservatives would rally around Grant. Less so any liberal talk show hosts... especially considering conservative efforts to strangle modern-day liberal talk radio in its crib.

 

[jaymarvin]

I'm liberal and I think it's wrong. Bob Grant and Joe Pyne were nothing alike. Once again it's not about politics it's about good radio. By the way Bob use to always have Lynn Samules (sp) on his show and she's as liberal as they come.

 

[mls]

I'm liberal and I think it's wrong. Bob Grant and Joe Pyne were nothing alike. Once again it's not about politics it's about good radio. By the way Bob use to always have Lynn Samules (sp) on his show and she's as liberal as they come.

Last time I looked, Lynn Samuels was white. The main objection to Grant is not that he's conservative, the objection is to his history of ugly racism. Arthur Frommer put it well when he quit WOR to protest the hiring of Grant:

The decision by WOR to fan the flames of racial conflict in New York, in order to earn additional millions in advertising revenue, is utterly irresponsible and abhorrent, and should be condemned by every New Yorker.... If the object of Bob Grant's vile filth had been Jews, or Italians, or Irish-Americans, it is inconceivable that WOR would have taken this step.... I can no more present my program on a WOR devoted to broadcasting what I regard as claims of a master race than I could have appeared with Joseph Goebbels on a radio station in Berlin devoted to the same end.

 

[Lando Griffin]

I'm liberal and I think it's wrong. Bob Grant and Joe Pyne were nothing alike. Once again it's not about politics it's about good radio. By the way Bob use to always have Lynn Samules (sp) on his show and she's as liberal as they come.

Last time I looked, Lynn Samuels was white. The main objection to Grant is not that he's conservative, the objection is to his history of ugly racism. Arthur Frommer put it well when he quit WOR to protest the hiring of Grant:

The decision by WOR to fan the flames of racial conflict in New York, in order to earn additional millions in advertising revenue, is utterly irresponsible and abhorrent, and should be condemned by every New Yorker.... If the object of Bob Grant's vile filth had been Jews, or Italians, or Irish-Americans, it is inconceivable that WOR would have taken this step.... I can no more present my program on a WOR devoted to broadcasting what I regard as claims of a master race than I could have appeared with Joseph Goebbels on a radio station in Berlin devoted to the same end.

Untrue. Detractors tend to use the code word "racist" for conservatives they disagree with. The objection to Grant is hsi conservatism and the controversy he gets from "shooting from the hip."
Arthur Frommer's show was boring anyway. It's more likely he felt threatened with the changes coming to improve WOR at the time, that he used Grant's hiring as a scapegoat to save himself from soon being fired. The new cooking show is better.

Grant is mostly maligned because he is not representative of any establishment and has never been "in lockstep" with any party talking points. In fact, while every other talk host was defending the administration's handling of the Iraq War, Grant was the only conservative host in the city to rail about its mismanagement.

As for "racism" I will simply take a quote from his show while on WOR that I remember (maybe a little fuzzy here) after a racist caller said, "...but Bob, I thuoght you were for the Whites!" Grant said: "...I'm for everybody....Get off my phone!" then he hung up on the guy.

While on WABC in the 90s, he used to have two people of differeing opinions on at the same time to have it out with each other with littel or no interference from him. Grant is a rarity among talk radio and wiht the generic state ir's in today (save for a few exceptions), there may never be another host like him.

 

[mls]

Untrue. Detractors tend to use the code word "racist" for conservatives they disagree with. The objection to Grant is hsi conservatism and the controversy he gets from "shooting from the hip."

Untrue. I disagree with conservatives Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, etc. but I don't call them "racists." But there was no question that Grant was a racist earlier in his career, even if he's toned down the racist stuff in his current incarnation.

From fair.org:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1343

"Minorities are the Big Apple's majority, you don't need the papers to tell you that, walk around and you know it," he has declared (quoted in Newsday, 6/2/92). "To me, that's a bad thing. I'm a white person." Grant repeatedly expresses his belief in the scientific form of racism called eugenics, and frequently promotes the "Bob Grant Mandatory Sterilization Program."

One of Grant's favorite words for African-Americans is "savages": The U.S., he said (1/6/92), has "millions of sub-humanoids, savages, who really would feel more at home careening along the sands of the Kalahari or the dry deserts of eastern Kenya--people who, for whatever reason, have not become civilized....
Grant has referred to black churchgoers as "screaming savages" (4/30/93); he's said (7/15/93) that black fraternity members represent "the savage mind, the primitive, primordial mentality."


[Link added as a courtesy by Radio Info]

 

[FightingIrish]

Grant and I are at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. But revoking the award was a low class move. If they're doling out something called a "Lifetime Achievement Award," don'tcha think they'd already be familiar with who he is and what his show's about? I say give him the award. He's earned it.

Incidentally, R&R has previously given various awards and nominations to people who have said far worse than Grant.

 

[Lando Griffin]

Untrue. Detractors tend to use the code word "racist" for conservatives they disagree with. The objection to Grant is hsi conservatism and the controversy he gets from "shooting from the hip."

Untrue. I disagree with conservatives Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, etc. but I don't call them "racists." But there was no question that Grant was a racist earlier in his career, even if he's toned down the racist stuff in his current incarnation.

From fair.org:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1343

"Minorities are the Big Apple's majority, you don't need the papers to tell you that, walk around and you know it," he has declared (quoted in Newsday, 6/2/92). "To me, that's a bad thing. I'm a white person." Grant repeatedly expresses his belief in the scientific form of racism called eugenics, and frequently promotes the "Bob Grant Mandatory Sterilization Program."

One of Grant's favorite words for African-Americans is "savages": The U.S., he said (1/6/92), has "millions of sub-humanoids, savages, who really would feel more at home careening along the sands of the Kalahari or the dry deserts of eastern Kenya--people who, for whatever reason, have not become civilized....
Grant has referred to black churchgoers as "screaming savages" (4/30/93); he's said (7/15/93) that black fraternity members represent "the savage mind, the primitive, primordial mentality."


[Link added as a courtesy by Radio Info]

While I do not question that you don't use the code word "racist" for views to the right of yours (I'll take your word for it), I would generally belive an organization founded primarily by a former ACLU Lawyer a tad suspect:

We'll start here:

"Minorities are the Big Apple's majority, you don't need the papers to tell you that, walk around and you know it," he has declared (quoted in Newsday, 6/2/92). "To me, that's a bad thing. I'm a white person." Grant repeatedly expresses his belief in the scientific form of racism called eugenics, and frequently promotes the "Bob Grant Mandatory Sterilization Program."

This excerpt is subject to interpretation: Granted, it doesn't sound nice, but at least he had the courage to point out problems with illegal immigration and the vast amount of children born into fatherless and sometimes loveless homes in several minority neighborhoods. The "Bob Grant Mandatory Sterilization Act of 1970" is a suggestion by the host to sterilize a woman as soon as she goes on welfare. It may not be nice and might be scary to some, but it was an opinion. As Bob always said: "Talk Radio is not for the faint of heart." What the idea should have done was open real discussion into the welfare system that people are so afraid to touch.

One of Grant's favorite words for African-Americans is "savages": The U.S., he said (1/6/92), has "millions of sub-humanoids, savages, who really would feel more at home careening along the sands of the Kalahari or the dry deserts of eastern Kenya--people who, for whatever reason, have not become civilized....
Grant has referred to black churchgoers as "screaming savages" (4/30/93); he's said (7/15/93) that black fraternity members represent "the savage mind, the primitive, primordial mentality.

Grant has repeatedly refered to criminals and belligerant people as "savages" regardless of color. What kind of organization would choose to equate all blacks with the miscreants that Grant had described? A racist one? ;D

I had always been suspecious of "FAIR" and its motives because its main target throughout the 1990s (when they may have had some relevancy in that political climate) was conservative talk radio.

I doubt Grant needs the likes of me to defend him; I would rather have more people look at him and his body of work with a more open mind.

 

[mls]

Grant has repeatedly refered to criminals and belligerant people as "savages" regardless of color. What kind of organization would choose to equate all blacks with the miscreants that Grant had described? A racist one? ;D

I see. Grant was including white criminals when he said they would feel more at home "careening along the sands of the Kalahari or the dry deserts of eastern Kenya." He was also including whites when he called black churchgoers "screaming savages" and said that black fraternity members represented "the savage mind, the primitive, primordial mentality." That makes sense. Not.

I haven't listened to Grant for many years, but I hear that he's learned from his mistakes and is no longer as outrageously racist as he was in an earlier incarnation. But his "body of work" still includes the disgusting language he was using back then. And that's true no matter who founded FAIR or what its biases may have been.

 

[smedge2006]

Arthur Frommer's show was boring anyway. It's more likely he felt threatened with the changes coming to improve WOR at the time, that he used Grant's hiring as a scapegoat to save himself from soon being fired. The new cooking show is better.

Frommer didn't do a cooking show, he did a travel show. He is known for his expertise in that field and didn't depend on WOR for a living. When Grant left WOR, Frommer came back to the station.

 

[NamJock]

I'm outta here, you guys are so off-topic, I'm surprised the word "Oprah" hasn't surfaced. ;<)

The deed came from above. Result of an activist complaint.

Go in peace and let us never speak of this again.

 

[mobile-exradiodj]

R&R is in a no win situation. Someone is pissed either way, especially in the heels of the Imus “nappy” situation. Now, the statement is rather flat “whole body of work”. They needed to add something about the current climate and a “regret” reference for Bob’s supporters.

I’m not pleased with WABC’s on-air remarks about the situation. I’ll leave it at that “without flaming” the thread. If the crew at WABC is able to remove Al from the convention, this greatly worries me. Will it stop there?

I have a feeling that Tom at the Conclave is going to field calls from WABC/Hannity supporters wanting to remove Ed Schultz’s scheduled keynote address in July. It’s a slippery slope once you start removing convention speakers.

Conventions are for getting “asses” in seats. Awards are ego trips that come and go. This all could have been avoided if Jay Marvin would have won this damn award.

 

[Lando Griffin]

Arthur Frommer's show was boring anyway. It's more likely he felt threatened with the changes coming to improve WOR at the time, that he used Grant's hiring as a scapegoat to save himself from soon being fired. The new cooking show is better.

Frommer didn't do a cooking show, he did a travel show. He is known for his expertise in that field and didn't depend on WOR for a living. When Grant left WOR, Frommer came back to the station.

Smedge, thanks for the info . Unfortunately, since I had last week booked Frommer on a show I am producing and am quite familiar with his body of work, I know he did a travel show on WOR. It was replaced by a new cooking show. So -- the new cooking show is better. ;D

 

[DaleGriffin]

R&R is in a no win situation. Someone is pissed either way, especially in the heels of the Imus “nappy” situation. Now, the statement is rather flat “whole body of work”. They needed to add something about the current climate and a “regret” reference for Bob’s supporters.

I’m not pleased with WABC’s on-air remarks about the situation. I’ll leave it at that “without flaming” the thread. If the crew at WABC is able to remove Al from the convention, this greatly worries me. Will it stop there?

I have a feeling that Tom at the Conclave is going to field calls from WABC/Hannity supporters wanting to remove Ed Schultz’s scheduled keynote address in July. It’s a slippery slope once you start removing convention speakers.

Conventions are for getting “asses” in seats. Awards are ego trips that come and go. This all could have been avoided if Jay Marvin would have won this damn award.

Removing Sharpton and removing Schultz are two different things. Sharpton should be dumped given that he has said racial insensitive things and is hardly a radio mover and shaker. If they went after Schultz's seat, which I believe you are just making up, then that would be wrong.

 

[Phil Boyce]

Mobile says:

If the crew at WABC is able to remove Al from the convention, this greatly worries me. Will it stop there?

I have a feeling that Tom at the Conclave is going to field calls from WABC/Hannity supporters wanting to remove Ed Schultz’s scheduled keynote address in July. It’s a slippery slope once you start removing convention speakers.

Nobody at WABC has advocated removing Al Sharpton or Ed Schultz. I certainly would not favor that, at all. Having a diversity of opinions at a trade seminar is a good thing. My problem is that they removed Bob Grant, and yet invited Al Sharpton. If you are going to invite Al, that's fine with me. Just do not kick out Bob Grant at the same event. I was not ever going to complain about Al getting invited to speak. My concern is with the hypocrisy of the R+R parent company for kicking out Grant when they embrace Sharpton. I never even thought about Big Ed, but I have no problem with him speaking. If people want to hear they guy, go ahead.

You are right about the slippery slope...and R+R stepped over the side of that hill when they kicked out Grant.

pb

 

[jaymarvin]

First who cares what Al Sharpton has to say? If I'm a OD, PD, or on the air what am I going to learn from Rev Al? What a waste of time. Second Bob Grant was not, and is not, a racist. I have a lot of old airchecks of him to prove it. Bob picked on everyone and did it in a very funny, combative way. Yes, I said combative. That's the way talk radio was in the 60's into the 80's and 90's. I did it myself. And once got kicked off the air for two days for really getting into it with members of the Nation Of Islam. I'm a left of center, common sense talk show host. R&R owes us in radio an answer for what they did. They also owe Bob Grant that award. How many people did Grant influance over the years? It goes back to the point I've tried to make about talk radio. Who gives a damn about the hosts poilitcs. Hire the best talent you can find, and you'll get good numbers. Bob is one of the best. I only wish I could tell him in person. I would rank him in the top five all time great talk show hosts along with Neil Rogers, Jim Rome, and Joe Pyne. These guys did good radio because it was good. Not because they were political crusaders. I could go on and on about this.

 

[DaleGriffin]

Off topic - Jim Rome? Have you seen Frank Caliendo's Jim Rome? It is dead on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s8BZjcP3qU