• 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

Radio Eq.: Bad Ass Christian Talk?

raccoonradio

raccoonradio

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com

Would have posted in "Religious" but maybe this is closer to News-Talk.

"Bad Ass Christian Talk?
New Religious Format Seeks Audience

"Today's All Access online edition contains an ad that had the Radio Equalizer just plain baffled:
CHRISTIAN RADIO NETWORK FOR MEN 25-54

"WOW! We still have not found the right guy, who does not sound like he works at Salem. For the last time... if you are a FLAME-THROWING AIR-TALENT who has personality and not a limp-wristed girly man sound, send you're (sic) Mp3 now to
[email protected] or [email protected] Our national network targets christian men 25-54 "No chicks".
 
>> "WOW! We still have not found the right guy, who does not
> sound like he works at Salem.

LOL!!!!!!! This could apply to Salem's secular talk as well...
 
I've seen that ad, and quite frankly, they give NO indication WHO they are. It's just a mysterious "HOT Christain Talk" program.

If a Christain can't put their name on the ad, it's not worth investigating. There is NO reputation to speak of, and if it is "new", then there should be a name to contact and speak with. Not just the blind box email addresses. There should be a phone number and address on the website. To my recollection, I did not see one...maybe I'm going blind.

<P ID="signature">______________



</P>
 
I'm suddenly rich!

> "WOW! We still have not found the right guy, who does not
> sound like he works at Salem. For the last time... if you
> are a FLAME-THROWING AIR-TALENT who has personality and not
> a limp-wristed girly man sound, send you're (sic) Mp3 now to
>
> [email protected] or [email protected] Our
> national network targets christian men 25-54 "No chicks".


1. "not found the right guy". Excludes females. Illegal.

2. "limp-wristed". Illegal, harrassment.

3. "No chicks". Not just sexists; blatant gender discrimination.


Now, where in hell did I put my old Haloween sack dress, wig,
and 4-inch size thirteen heels? All I gotta do is cross dress,
apply and sue! Should be good for at least three million....
unless, of course, I get hired!
<P ID="signature">______________
Yes, and even the fleas on their children's pets and the cockroaches under their sinks.</P>
 
Re: I'm suddenly rich!

Yeah, Brian Maloney, whose blog talked about this, wasn't
sure if it was just somebody goofing around or not...or maybe there
really is a site for kick-butt Christian talk radio!

> Now, where in hell did I put my old Haloween sack dress,
> wig,
> and 4-inch size thirteen heels? All I gotta do is cross
> dress,
> apply and sue! Should be good for at least three
> million....
> unless, of course, I get hired!
>
LOL!
 
Re: I'm suddenly rich!

>
> 1. "not found the right guy". Excludes females. Illegal.
>
> 2. "limp-wristed". Illegal, harrassment.
>
> 3. "No chicks". Not just sexists; blatant gender
> discrimination.
>
>
> Now, where in hell did I put my old Haloween sack dress,
> wig,
> and 4-inch size thirteen heels? All I gotta do is cross
> dress,
> apply and sue! Should be good for at least three
> million....
> unless, of course, I get hired!
>

That's an excellent point.

Male talk hosts for male talk is fine and dandy, but you cannot even place the ad seeking only men. Someone get in touch with this guy by email and persuade him to talk to counsel next time.
 
Re: Radio Eq.: Bad Ass Christian Talk? *DELETED*

Post deleted by doc9464
 
> I've seen that ad, and quite frankly, they give NO
> indication WHO they are. It's just a mysterious "HOT
> Christain Talk" program.
>
> If a Christain can't put their name on the ad, it's not
> worth investigating. There is NO reputation to speak of, and
> if it is "new", then there should be a name to contact and
> speak with. Not just the blind box email addresses. There
> should be a phone number and address on the website. To my
> recollection, I did not see one...maybe I'm going blind.

Charlie,

The only name I could find at all was Doc Burkhart, affiliate relations.
Wonder if this is the same person in charge of Jacksonville's "Mighty 1530"
that seems to have faded into the woodwork over on the North Florida board.

I totally agree..no phone number, no address..as a long-time operations manager
I'd never respond to an ad like this. A station putting that on in our market would lose what few advertisers it had in 60 days or less.

As a Christian male, I also would say that the programming choices for guys are slim, but, THIS AIN'T AT ALL the answer..
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Memories Radio..
www.live365.com/stations/alanmccall</P>
 
"I totally agree..no phone number, no address..as a long-time operations manager I'd never respond to an ad like this. A station putting that on in our market would lose what few advertisers it had in 60 days or less.

The whole thing may be nothing more than an email address trap for spammers.

I note that the "Bad Ass Christian" moniker did not appear in the ad. It was Maloney's headline. Hell, maybe HE made it up and sent it into All Access so he could then write about it. He is not the most credible person in the world.<P ID="signature">______________
Jerry

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" - late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan</P>
 
> The whole thing may be nothing more than an email address
> trap for spammers.

Huh? Explain your rationale further...why would someone want spam? At 2 addresses at that? Seems to be a waste of resources to do that.

> I note that the "Bad Ass Christian" moniker did not appear
> in the ad. It was Maloney's headline. Hell, maybe HE made it
> up and sent it into All Access so he could then write about
> it. He is not the most credible person in the world.

[INSERT SARCASM] Or maybe you did, so he would write about it, so you could say "he is not the most credible person". [END SARCASM] My point being, try not to make accusations that that have no source to refer to. It just sounds rediculous. Your credibility comes into question when you question someone else's credibility without giving a reason other than saying he is not credible...Follow? If you have a real reason to post such a thing, then back it up with something other than: "he is not the most credible person". I hope that makes sense...
<P ID="signature">______________



</P>
 
Well I'm conservative on most issues but I don't get into the
religious stuff. Heard of "South Park Conservatives"?** Maybe I'm
one. "I hate conservatives, but i really f---n' hate liberals,"
said one of SP's creators. I like Hannity and Ingraham but not
Savage.
-------------------------------------------------------------
FROM wikipedia, by way of explanation:
**- Q: I don’t know if you’ve heard about this, but there have been essays written about the concept of the "South Park Republican."

TREY: Yeah, we have seen that. What we're sick of — and it's getting even worse — is: You either like Michael Moore or you wanna f---n' go overseas and shoot Iraqis. There can't be a middle ground. Basically, if you think Michael Moore's full of (Crap), then you are a super-Christian right-wing whatever. And we're both just pretty middle-ground guys. We find just as many things to rip on on the left as we do on the right. People on the far left and the far right are the same exact person to us.

"...While the show often lampoons political correctness it is equally critical of racism, sexism and homophobia."

> All i can say right now is 3 words - Im gonna HURL!
>
> This is a joke....like angry white men need another outlet
> outside of conservative radio...
 
'splaining myself

<font=times new roman size=3>
Me: "The whole thing may be nothing more than an email address trap for spammers.

"You: Explain your rationale further...why would someone want spam? At 2 addresses at that? Seems to be a waste of resources to do that.

It's a typo. (Cut me a break. You misspelled "ridiculous") I should have written "for spamming", not "for spammers". The poster could simply be harvesting email addresses. The targets email in either to apply for the advertised job, or to express outrage at the blatant sexual discrimination. The poster adds their email address to the database. It's just a theory.

Me: "I note that the "Bad Ass Christian" moniker did not appear in the ad. It was Maloney's headline. Hell, maybe HE made it up and sent it into All Access so he could then write about it. He is not the most credible person in the world."

You: "[INSERT SARCASM] Or maybe you did, so he would write about it, so you could say "he is not the most credible person".

You're suggesting I hacked into Brian Malroney's blog and wrote his headline?!Okay, I've explained myself. Now it's your turn. Or is "[INSERT SARCASM]" supposed to negate that which comes after it?

"[END SARCASM] My point being, try not to make accusations that that have no source to refer to. It just sounds <strike>rediculous</strike> ridiculous. Your credibility comes into question when you question someone else's credibility without giving a reason other than saying he is not credible...

[INSERT SARCASM] I don't have any credibility. If I did, I wouldn't post here.[END SARCASM]

"Follow?

Yes, I follow your moderator-ness. You turned off the [SARCASM] now may I suggest that you < /condescension >?

"If you have a real reason to post such a thing, then back it up with something other than: "he is not the most credible person". I hope that makes sense...

Hope springs eternal.

I didn't know I needed to back up my opinions but I'll indulge you. I don't expect you to conduct a thread search before posting but for the record, I'm not hiding my reasons. <u>As I wrote</u> on this esteemed board last month:

"In a sense, you have to hand it to Brian "The Equalizer" Maloney. He's gotten a lot of mileage with his cockamamie story about being fired by Entercom for his remarks about Dan Rather. Please. While I never worked in Seattle, I worked for Entercom and just don't believe that's the reason he no longer works there. I love the bio he publishes which says: "A talk host since 1993, Time Magazine has compared Maloney to Rush Limbaugh. " That's like saying I've been compared to Bill Gates. Yeah, he founded Microsoft and I own a computer."<P ID="signature">______________
Jerry

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" - late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan</P>
 
Re: 'splaining myself

Apparently you took my post too seriously. Sorry my [sarcasm] didn't come across as well as it should have.


> It's a typo. (Cut me a break. You misspelled "ridiculous")

Um, I wasn't gunning for the typo. I don't do that because I do make the occassional spelling error, as you have even pointed out. But you did answer my question. I truely wasn't sure why someone would waste their time, but your explaination makes sense. Sorry to have ruffled your feathers.


> You're suggesting I hacked into Brian Malroney's blog and
> wrote his headline?

No, I was suggesting with [sarcasm] that it wsa you who put the Ad up on AllAcess. I said it with [sarcasm] because it wasn't meant to be taken so seriously, thus I ad "[sarcasm]" to my post so you can understand I am not being serious.


> [INSERT SARCASM] I don't have any credibility. If I did, I
> wouldn't post here.[END SARCASM]

Funny. I almost laughed out loud.


> "Follow?
>
> Yes, I follow your moderator-ness. You turned off the
> [SARCASM] now may I suggest that you < /condescension >?

I am not trying to be condesending. Sorry you took it that way.


> I didn't know I needed to back up my opinions but I'll
> indulge you.

Obviously, opinions don't really need any referenceable source. But you do have to be careful how you phrase coments like that, because they can be interpreted as fact.


> I don't expect you to conduct a thread search
> before posting but for the record, I'm not hiding my
> reasons.

Good, because most people don't "search" every posters posts and read every post going back 3 years to familiarize themselves with each other. Why should they?

Whether you choose to accept it or not, my post was good natured, and with good intentions. I wasn't coming down on you. I was actually trying to make light of what you said, but add a serious point that people should be careful what they say, or at least how they say it (as is obvious by the fact that you misunderstood my "tone").

Again, my apologies. <P ID="signature">______________



</P>
 
Re: 'splaining myself

"Again, my apologies."

Not necessary but thanks anyway.

No, I did not take the tone of your email the way you intended but I also knew that my reply was excessively snotty. Sometimes I just can't help myself.<P ID="signature">______________
Jerry

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" - late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan</P>
 
> "WOW! We still have not found the right guy, who does not
> sound like he works at Salem. For the last time... if you
> are a FLAME-THROWING AIR-TALENT who has personality and not
> a limp-wristed girly man sound, send you're (sic) Mp3 now to
> [email protected] or [email protected] Our
> national network targets christian men 25-54 "No chicks".

Up to the last line, it was a perfect fit for Laura Ingraham.

Too bad.

73s from 954
<P ID="signature">______________
Mike Sheridan's History of WGMA, the Country Giant</P>
 
> Well I'm conservative on most issues but I don't get into
> the
> religious stuff. Heard of "South Park Conservatives"?**
> Maybe I'm
> one. "I hate conservatives, but i really f---n' hate
> liberals,"
> said one of SP's creators. I like Hannity and Ingraham but
> not
> Savage.
-> ------------------------------------------------------------

Rarely do Mr Nelson and I agree on anything....but after reading his comments...i have decided that my earlier comments were not correct for this discussion....

I don't think "hot talk" works with "Christian Talk" radio. I don't have a problem with anyones religion but i hate when peoples religions are hijacked.....i try not to blend religion with politics (my own beliefs) and i disagree strongly with those who do.....but thats just me....

I hope this was a joke about the format change...it just feels wrong......but in the mean time....thanks Bob N

...(will a black hole be created here because i saw some agreement/consensus with Bob...hope not...didnt mean to bend too many laws of physics..... LOL)
 
Re: 'splaining myself

LOL...Something was telling me you might be dishing it back..I just wanted to be sure, in case I did offend! <P ID="signature">______________



</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom