I've noticed, at least with the talk shows that I listen to, that the Penn State scandal is getting more time on Sportstalk shows then News/Talk shows. That's reasonable, but I'm surprised at how little time some News-Talk shows have spent discussing the scandal and its implications. Dennis Prager and Michael Savage are two I listen to regularly. Am I correct, or are other talkers like Rush, Beck, Igraham and Hannity spending lots of time on this, and I'm just missing it.
-
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
Sandusky doesn't take over
- Thread starter johnbasalla
- Start date
Sandusky won't get a lot of play on talk radio unless they can connect him to the president. Nancy Pelosi, or the Occupy movement, or unless some obscure left-leaning professor writes a letter defending him.
This scandal's a lot more interesting to sports fans and religious talkers like American Family Radio (Wildmons, not Camping) than it is to political talkers.
Politics has its own bevy of sexual predators/deviants/etc. already. If the political talkers start talking about the deviants in other industries, they'll need more than 15 hours a week...
Politics has its own bevy of sexual predators/deviants/etc. already. If the political talkers start talking about the deviants in other industries, they'll need more than 15 hours a week...
quadraphonic said:
That's funny.
Actually though, this issue is very serious and discussions on it are quite dramatic. It transcends sports, so saying it is mostly of interest to sports fans is diminishing the reality. Most people I know have opinions about this...and I am not talking about just Men 25-54 or 18-34.
Any GOOD talk show host would talk about this. It is highly sensational and very emotional for a great many people in this society across the board. It also touches on a variety of issues.
This is talkradio GOLD, and I suggest that any host who ignores this is operating in a bubble---the kind of disconnect that turns a lot of "normal" people away from talkradio.
Agreed. We've covered this story every day since its broke. If not for the news coverage, at least to raise awareness of how common pedophilia is, or what the proper protocol is in each state regarding reporting of sexual abuse. The latest story is McQueary states he did stop the rape and talked to police back in 2002.
And for the record, I'm one of the many people that's been riveted to sports talk radio since this scandal broke. It is so sensationalistic, so lurid, so inconceivable... and if you AREN'T doing soul-searching listening to it, you aren't a human being.
I'm in agreement with Mr. Obral, trying to turn this into a political football (so to speak) is unfortunate and as lame as trying to tie to politics that insane guy who shot Rep. Giffords.
I wasn't saying that these poli-talkers weren't talking about the Penn State scandal, I am saying that I'm surprised at how little time they seem to give to this scandal and the issues it raises. I think it's a mistake. It is a sad, but riveting story with a number of implications that social conservatives would be interested in hearing and talking about. I don't listen much to Sportstalk, but the lack of coverage and opinion on newstalk shows lead me to turn on
Sportstalk radio. Wednesday, for example, Jim Rome had almost a full hour with a segment featuring Bob Costas who interviewed Jerry Sandusky, and then further talk about the issue. I regularly listen to Dennis Prager, but he has lost me some of the time to Romey, at least for awhile. The night of the day the charges came out, I spent hours listening to one of our local sportstalk stations, WKNR, who smartly dumped everything else scheduled to talk about this.
I wasn't saying that these poli-talkers weren't talking about the Penn State scandal, I am saying that I'm surprised at how little time they seem to give to this scandal and the issues it raises. I think it's a mistake. It is a sad, but riveting story with a number of implications that social conservatives would be interested in hearing and talking about. I don't listen much to Sportstalk, but the lack of coverage and opinion on newstalk shows lead me to turn on
Sportstalk radio. Wednesday, for example, Jim Rome had almost a full hour with a segment featuring Bob Costas who interviewed Jerry Sandusky, and then further talk about the issue. I regularly listen to Dennis Prager, but he has lost me some of the time to Romey, at least for awhile. The night of the day the charges came out, I spent hours listening to one of our local sportstalk stations, WKNR, who smartly dumped everything else scheduled to talk about this.
Nathan Obral said:
Can you explain why conservative talk show hosts (like Wallbanger) aren't talking about a story that the most covered story and the rage of the nation for the last week?
johnbasalla said:
And so did WKNR's new competitor, WKRK "92.3 The Fan". They even stopped talking about Peyton Hillis and the latest drama out of Berea!
I think it WAS red hot, last week into the game.
Most of the sports stations have moved onto other stuff this week, though any major new developments could change that.
Most of the sports stations have moved onto other stuff this week, though any major new developments could change that.
Can somebody tell me what Jim Rome's initial takes were when the story broke? I was unable to listen to him the day of or after the story broke due to work committments.
One unique opinion expressed by a newstalker was one given by Dennis Prager. He opined that Jerry Sandusky might want to consider suicide! I called his show and he put me on. I said that if that were to happen, then Sandusky wouldn't pay for his crimes here on earth, and that he ought to have to hear from those whose lives he harmed/destroyed. I reminded Dennis that during World War II the Allies tried mightly to make sure that captured Nazis didn't "off" themselves so that they would be forced to pay for their crimes in this life. I specifically pointed out that after Heinrich Himmler swallowed a poison pill hidden in his mouth, everything was done to save his life, including pumping his stomach. Prager said that Sandusky had harmed so many lives, including those of the families of his victims. I wanted to point out that the Nazis absolutely destroyed "so many more lives" - to the tune of millions, but by that time Prager or his Board Ops had hung up on me as he continued his response.
Even if the Nazis couldn't get away with it, Jerry Sandusky still might want to consider suicide. If he does it in custody, it's likely that someone from law enforcement would try and help him. Or not.
Or, just to present another option: before a trial, someone might want to help him suicide himself, however that would work out.
From what I've heard of the interviews he's done, he doesn't seem to think there's any problem. After all this time, being "resigned" 12 years ago, unenforceably banned from campus, etc. no matter how many times someone repeats it and shows him what lives he's wrecked, he's already stone-hearted/oblivious/whatever the case may be, and won't see a problem, no matter how it's presented.
As for Jim Rome here's some idea...
http://www.jimrome.com/take/jerry-sandusky-interview/28384
Or, just to present another option: before a trial, someone might want to help him suicide himself, however that would work out.
From what I've heard of the interviews he's done, he doesn't seem to think there's any problem. After all this time, being "resigned" 12 years ago, unenforceably banned from campus, etc. no matter how many times someone repeats it and shows him what lives he's wrecked, he's already stone-hearted/oblivious/whatever the case may be, and won't see a problem, no matter how it's presented.
As for Jim Rome here's some idea...
http://www.jimrome.com/take/jerry-sandusky-interview/28384
Thank you "Quadrophonic" for the Rome link. I'll check it out. As for the Nazis not getting away with it ... unfortunately a number of them did. As I pointed out Himmler (one of the key people involved in the Holocaust) bit on a poison pill and promptly died. Luftwaffe chief Hermann Goering befriended an American guard while in prison. The guard, it is believed, gave him poison thus allowing him to escape the hang-man's noose almost right before he was to be hung. Martin Boorman apparently swallowed his poison instead of allowing himself to be captured as he tried to escape from the ruins of Berlin, Germany as the war rapidly spead towards its conclusion.
Almost all of the key Nazis committed suicide if they could.
Almost all of the key Nazis committed suicide if they could.
The Rome link is about the Costas interview. I did hear Romes show on that day. I'm talking about the day or the day after the story broke. That's the one I didn't hear.
Another big piece of this story is how many of these kids kept quiet for so long. Guess their mommas never taught them that they don't have to keep secrets, and they don't have to "be nice" to the friendly man, no matter the tactics he might use to harass, ridicule or otherwise make you shut up and go away or buckle.
- Status