R&R Disses Bob Grant

[jaymarvin]

I'll check it out.

 

[mls]

Bob Grant was not, and is not, a racist. I have a lot of old airchecks of him to prove it.

How do those old airchecks "prove" he wasn't a racist? Those of us who lived in the New York area when Grant was railing against "savages" had no doubt who he was talking about, and it wasn't white criminals, white churchgoers, or white fraternity members. He may or may not be a racist, but he certainly played one on the radio.

Now he just sounds like a tired old man.

 

[jaymarvin]

How do they prove my point? Because it's a good slice of Bob's work on WABC. The trouble with what R&R has done is they have given into the "PC" police. So you have to ask the question who sets the rules and regs we operate under? If they'll go after Grant what's to stop them from going after me? The guy has a 60 year track record. And knock off the crap about a "tired old man." It just cheapens your argument.

 

[Lando Griffin]

I would have to say that Jay Marvin would be a VERY credible source on this one.

This R&R debacle should prove one thing: the political climate is so PC in this country that many had been afraid to speak out over the years for fear of being labled "racist." It is a surefire career killer. It also proves how Big Media had tried hard to villify conservative hosts and others with some right-of-center views. The problem for them is that many people think the same way as some conservative hosts and that scares the Great Society-types into a corner. Therefore, calling someone who exposes the nation's ills as "racist" was effective for many years.

In the case of Bob Grant and the popular references to the term "savages," I ask these questions:

1. Were the Crown Heights rioters not acting like savages?
2. Would the same term apply to the looters and gangs in the LA Riots?
3. What kind of people riot anyway (this includes the riots in Montreal the last time the Canadiens won the Stanley Cup)?
4. Some black fraternities have skirted around state hazing laws using race as a shield from investigation -- is that not worth pointing out?
5. Is it racist to point out the racism spewed by the likes of Cornel West, who is obligated to educate, but chose to indocrtinate at Harvard and was finally called to the carpet on it?
6. Does one not wonder why Al Sharpton has been the loudest critic of the most prominent man to call him out for being a publicity-hog, liar and phoney race-baiter from the Tawana Brawley incident on forward? (...and who can argue that Sharpton isn't still doing the same things)

I suppose some who don't want Americans to find out what's really happening here can shout many critics down with chants of "racism," but if Grant was truly a racist in the true sense of the word, he would not have lasted as long as he did on the air.

 

[jaymarvin]

This kind of pressure comes from both the left and the right. I got a ton of hate e-mails today because I was on Hillary's case about last night's debate. All morning I got "you're no progressive." I said you're right I'm a mainstream American who backs Edwards and thought Hillary did a bad job up against Obama. I also get it from the right who are on me for being a "lefty" and an un-American jerk. Bob Grant is a talk show host. He's been a great one for over 60 years. I don't agree with him. But I'm so sick and tired of the right vs left formula on talk radio. Bottom line is Bob is a great host like him or not. So many of us coming up in talk radio learned from Bob Grant air checks. Then we found our own way of doing talk. This whole thing about giving him an award he should have gotten sooner, and then taken it away is sick and wrong. This is by far the worst thing R&R has ever done. Oh, you know one of the reasons I never go to their talk radio seminars? Because what is Al Sharpton or Dennis Miller going to tell me about talk radio I don't already know? How about letting Bob Grant be the headline speaker? Think what you could learn from someone who has done it for 60 years and has gotten numbers.

 

[mls]

I would have to say that Jay Marvin would be a VERY credible source on this one.

This R&R debacle should prove one thing: the political climate is so PC in this country that many had been afraid to speak out over the years for fear of being labled "racist." It is a surefire career killer. It also proves how Big Media had tried hard to villify conservative hosts and others with some right-of-center views. The problem for them is that many people think the same way as some conservative hosts and that scares the Great Society-types into a corner. Therefore, calling someone who exposes the nation's ills as "racist" was effective for many years.

In the case of Bob Grant and the popular references to the term "savages," I ask these questions:

1. Were the Crown Heights rioters not acting like savages?
2. Would the same term apply to the looters and gangs in the LA Riots?
3. What kind of people riot anyway (this includes the riots in Montreal the last time the Canadiens won the Stanley Cup)?
4. Some black fraternities have skirted around state hazing laws using race as a shield from investigation -- is that not worth pointing out?
5. Is it racist to point out the racism spewed by the likes of Cornel West, who is obligated to educate, but chose to indocrtinate at Harvard and was finally called to the carpet on it?
6. Does one not wonder why Al Sharpton has been the loudest critic of the most prominent man to call him out for being a publicity-hog, liar and phoney race-baiter from the Tawana Brawley incident on forward? (...and who can argue that Sharpton isn't still doing the same things)

I suppose some who don't want Americans to find out what's really happening here can shout many critics down with chants of "racism," but if Grant was truly a racist in the true sense of the word, he would not have lasted as long as he did on the air.

Good grief. So "Big Media" has silenced conservative hosts and that's why radio is dominated by lefty talk show hosts such as Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy. Not.
Seems to me that devoting much of one's air time to the sins of black "savages" and ignoring the sins of whites qualifies one as a racist. I suppose I should be grateful that Grant has toned down his racist rhetoric considerably, but that still doesn't qualify him for a lifetime award.

 

[jimwalsh2001]

I'm so sick and tired of the right vs left formula on talk radio.

Amen...

 

[jaymarvin]

No, it has nothing to do with big media. Big media goes after the money. If they think they have found something that works they'll crank it out like widgets. Progressive radio doesn't work right now because Air America is a mess, and puts out bad product. Plus part of that spectrum is covered by NPR. The Bob Grant thing has to do with pressure groups who would be the first to cry foul if it happens to them!

 

[Lando Griffin]

I would have to say that Jay Marvin would be a VERY credible source on this one.

This R&R debacle should prove one thing: the political climate is so PC in this country that many had been afraid to speak out over the years for fear of being labled "racist." It is a surefire career killer. It also proves how Big Media had tried hard to villify conservative hosts and others with some right-of-center views. The problem for them is that many people think the same way as some conservative hosts and that scares the Great Society-types into a corner. Therefore, calling someone who exposes the nation's ills as "racist" was effective for many years.

In the case of Bob Grant and the popular references to the term "savages," I ask these questions:

1. Were the Crown Heights rioters not acting like savages?
2. Would the same term apply to the looters and gangs in the LA Riots?
3. What kind of people riot anyway (this includes the riots in Montreal the last time the Canadiens won the Stanley Cup)?
4. Some black fraternities have skirted around state hazing laws using race as a shield from investigation -- is that not worth pointing out?
5. Is it racist to point out the racism spewed by the likes of Cornel West, who is obligated to educate, but chose to indocrtinate at Harvard and was finally called to the carpet on it?
6. Does one not wonder why Al Sharpton has been the loudest critic of the most prominent man to call him out for being a publicity-hog, liar and phoney race-baiter from the Tawana Brawley incident on forward? (...and who can argue that Sharpton isn't still doing the same things)

I suppose some who don't want Americans to find out what's really happening here can shout many critics down with chants of "racism," but if Grant was truly a racist in the true sense of the word, he would not have lasted as long as he did on the air.

Good grief. So "Big Media" has silenced conservative hosts and that's why radio is dominated by lefty talk show hosts such as Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy. Not.
Seems to me that devoting much of one's air time to the sins of black "savages" and ignoring the sins of whites qualifies one as a racist. I suppose I should be grateful that Grant has toned down his racist rhetoric considerably, but that still doesn't qualify him for a lifetime award.

I will try to type this more slowly ... If you read the post you will find that it does not say Beg media silenced conservative talk show hosts -- it said "villify." How many articles in the 1990s by large newspapers (Daily News, etc) have done stories dubbing conservative talk radio as "hate radio?" It was easy to hack out such pieces in that political climate. Heck, even Mad Magazine depicted Rush listeners as Hitler-types in at least one comic pictoral (sitting in front of a radio with a Hitler mustache and arm in the Nazi salute position).

I understand you son't want facts to spoil your argument, but most Bob Grant criticism comes from two types:
1. Those who don't listen on a regular basis -- or have never listened.
2. Those who disagree and use the bandwagon arguments to villify the message and messenger.

If more time was spent on addressing problems brought up by Grant and others (either side of the fence), then we may not have as much of the economic and social problems we have today.

 

[mls]

" How many articles in the 1990s by large newspapers (Daily News, etc) have done stories dubbing conservative talk radio as "hate radio?" It was easy to hack out such pieces in that political climate. Heck, even Mad Magazine depicted Rush listeners as Hitler-types in at least one comic pictoral (sitting in front of a radio with a Hitler mustache and arm in the Nazi salute position).

I understand you son't want facts to spoil your argument, but most Bob Grant criticism comes from two types:
1. Those who don't listen on a regular basis -- or have never listened.
2. Those who disagree and use the bandwagon arguments to villify the message and messenger.

If more time was spent on addressing problems brought up by Grant and others (either side of the fence), then we may not have as much of the economic and social problems we have today.

You poor baby! Big Media has prevented bigots from speaking freely! Racists can no longer feel comfortable calling "them" "savages"! Bob Grant has been pressured into dialing it down several notches! How awful!

I've been arguing with bigots for more than 40 years when I could have doing something more constructive. I'm out of here.

 

[mobile-exradiodj]

Dennis Miller going to tell me about talk radio I don't already know?

First, let's be real. We all know why Dennis got the gig. He was pimpin' his new radio show and tryin' to break wind with 100 stations; thus, R&R gave him a keynote address. It's no different than Lou Dobbs this year. It almost makes you wonder what kind of backdoor deals are being done for keynote speakers.

 

[mobile-exradiodj]

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

Thanks for a very clear position.

Over the years, R&R has tried to do a good mix speakers and panelists from Rush to Franken and that's what makes their conventions a success. There's only one thing I don't get...why Sharpton? He's a panelist not a keynote. I might add with Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller and more. Al will be lucky to get 10-15 minutes during the session, which is the same amount of time that you will have in the "PPM" session. There's gotta to be more to the story. Is Mr. Sharpton responsible for contacting the R&R's parent company and having Bob's award taken away?

 

[jaymarvin]

Who cares if Sharpton is behind what happened to Grant? What's Sharpton going to teach anyone about talk radio? What a waste. Why not get someone like Chuck Blore (who can talk about radio and where its been and where hen thinks its going) or Gabe Hobbs VP of talk for CC. Still what happened to Grant is wrong.

 

[mobile-exradiodj]

Still what happened to Grant is wrong.

I couldn't argee more. You don't take awards away after they are announced.

Sharpton is not going to talk about radio at the convention, so if you're looking to learn his approach it isn't gonna happen. Bascially, he's in a "mock" presidential debate with four others that George Stephanopoulos will ask the questions based upon the "hot issues" of the campaign.

Entertaining...maybe
Educational...not really

 

[mobile-exradiodj]

Why not get someone like Chuck Blore (who can talk about radio and where its been and where hen thinks its going) or Gabe Hobbs VP of talk for CC.

Nothing against Gabe or Chuck...However, do you really think that they can put more "asses" in seats than Lou Dobbs and Bob Schieffer?

 

[jimwalsh2001]

Nothing against Gabe or Chuck...However, do you really think that they can put more "asses" in seats than Lou Dobbs and Bob Schieffer?

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't bother walking across the street to hear what Lou Dobbs had to say...

 

[mobile-exradiodj]

We are just two weeks away from this convention and this Friday is your last day for the special discount. Good news for Jay Marvin, Gabe Hobbs will be the moderator for DISASTERS -- STEPPING UP TO THE CHALLENGE session. Regular poster on this site, Holland Cooke, will be moderator for the PPM session while Phil Boyce has pulled out of the panel with Cooke. Chad Lopez, WCBS/New York will take his place. It should be very interesting to hear about accreditation issues. John Snyder, Arbitron, might be on the hot seat. I'm sure the everything is fine line will be said about New York & Philly.