• 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

WGN Radio

B

barneyb3

Guest
I live in Vidalia, Georgia and I just want to compliment WGN Radio for its outstanding progamming. I listen to WGN at night on the radio and on the internet during the day and I find most of the shows to be very entertaining. Its so nice to hear a station that isn't married to the liberal vs conservative format. Great Talent and great concept.
 
I think that WGN's conservative approach is far more subtle than most conservative talk stations. While they do not say "hooray for Bush" or "Hastert is a great guy", they very quietly support the conservative agenda. Often you find the announcers discuss how this initiative or that initiative of the Republican administration had been a howling success but rarely do they provide for an alternative view. Why I even heard their morning man say that Bush's tax refund of a couple years ago avoided a deep recession. That is quite the contrary to many learned thoughts on the issue.

I do enjoy Sports Central and Sid Rosenburg. At least he knows what he is talking about.
 
I don't think it's being "conservative" to say the Bush tax cuts were a good idea... I think it's just common sense.

Also, have you ever listened to Kathy and Judy? They are the two most liberal women I've ever heard on the radio....
 
HUH? WGN "conservative"???????



> I don't think it's being "conservative" to say the Bush tax
> cuts were a good idea... I think it's just common sense.
>
>
> Also, have you ever listened to Kathy and Judy? They are
> the two most liberal women I've ever heard on the radio....
>
 
Those of us down south enjoy it.

Every morning, I listen to Steve & Johnnie on the way to
work.

I've been in three different states, heading for the
morning drive at a station and listening to see what might
be good to check on when I get there.
 
I am saying that many of the "voices" on WGN have a conservative slant. As an example, this morning Spike did a piece on an E-mail that Barbra Streisand supposedly sent regarding her rather progressive views. According to Spike there were several grammatical errors in the piece which he proceeded to point out. He ended the segment with something about people who live in glass houses shouldn't.... Let's face it, Bush was not an English major in college yet I can not seem to remember Spike ever doing a "humorous" piece about Bush and his attempts at the English language.

He and Cochran and Williams tend to do these kinds of things. WGN is not WLS or WIND or the inumerable neo-conservative religious stations on the air today, but they tend to sway that way.

As for Kathy and Judy, they're (IMHO) a couple of old biddy's who shouldn't be taken too seriously. That's why their brand of liberalism can be on WGN. It's passe'. If WGN is going for balance, I'd like to see them program someone like Stephanie Miller during that time slot instead of K&J. Now that would present a far more contemporary view.
 
"Progressive"? "Contemporary"? People often associate those terms with left wing programming, be it radio or TV. Regressive and ancient would be better descriptives.

> As for Kathy and Judy, they're (IMHO) a couple of old
> biddy's who shouldn't be taken too seriously. That's why
> their brand of liberalism can be on WGN. It's passe'. If WGN
> is going for balance, I'd like to see them program someone
> like Stephanie Miller during that time slot instead of K&J.
> Now that would present a far more contemporary view.
 
> "Progressive"? "Contemporary"? People often associate
> those terms with left wing programming, be it radio or TV.
> Regressive and ancient would be better descriptives.
>
Yes, I agree. The Kathy and Judy show would be better described and ancient and regressive.
> > As for Kathy and Judy, they're (IMHO) a couple of old
> > biddy's who shouldn't be taken too seriously. That's why
> > their brand of liberalism can be on WGN. It's passe'. If
> WGN
> > is going for balance, I'd like to see them program someone
>
> > like Stephanie Miller during that time slot instead of
> K&J.
> > Now that would present a far more contemporary view.
>
 
> I do enjoy Sports Central and Sid Rosenburg. At least he
> knows what he is talking about.
>
I believe you mean "Milt Rosenberg" from Extension 720. "Sid Rosenberg" is or was with WFAN in New York, I can't recall if he got fired for drug use and things he said on the air that he probably shouldn't have.
 
> I am saying that many of the "voices" on WGN have a
> conservative slant. As an example, this morning Spike did a
> piece on an E-mail that Barbra Streisand supposedly sent
> regarding her rather progressive views.

It was a post on B.S.'s own website from 2/28. It was on Drudge earlier today, and who knows how many morning shows picked up on it. As far as her "rather progressive views", you're kidding right? Far-left, or radical-left would be a more accurate description of Babs.


According to Spike
> there were several grammatical errors in the piece which he
> proceeded to point out. He ended the segment with something
> about people who live in glass houses shouldnt...
> > He and Cochran and Williams tend to do these kinds of
> things. WGN is not WLS or WIND or the inumerable
> neo-conservative religious stations on the air today, but
> they tend to sway that way.

Cochran is no conservative, possibly a moderate. Over the years though, I've heard him do far more anti-conservative than anti-liberal material. Williams did not vote for Bush and has said so on the air. He is a liberal, but he's not in the extreme, radical Michael Moore camp.

You mentioned in your first post, that you enjoy Sports Central. Kaplan sounds like a former liberal that's leaning more right lately. Waddle is a conservative, no question. You also mentioned Sid Rosenburg, no such person at WGN. Milt Rosenberg however is a former liberal. He's also a college professor, a highly educated intellectual, that happens to be a conservative.
>
> As for Kathy and Judy, they're (IMHO) a couple of old
> biddy's who shouldn't be taken too seriously. That's why
> their brand of liberalism can be on WGN.

So, you say the most liberal voices (K&J)on the station, shouldn't be taken too seriously. You think that Cochran (moderate), Williams (liberal) slant to the right. You say that you enjoy Sports Central (moderate & conservative) and Milt Rosenberg (conservative). So does this mean that you just started listening to WGN, don't know left from right, or just wanted to get a reaction to your posts?
>
 
> I think that WGN's conservative approach is far more subtle
> than most conservative talk stations. While they do not say
> "hooray for Bush" or "Hastert is a great guy", they very
> quietly support the conservative agenda. Often you find the
> announcers discuss how this initiative or that initiative of
> the Republican administration had been a howling success but
> rarely do they provide for an alternative view. Why I even
> heard their morning man say that Bush's tax refund of a
> couple years ago avoided a deep recession. That is quite the
> contrary to many learned thoughts on the issue.
>
> I do enjoy Sports Central and Sid Rosenburg. At least he
> knows what he is talking about.
>
I do agree that Milt Rosenberg knows it all. He's the only one on WGN that should be taken seriously. Whether he's talking world politics, cars, theatre or baseball. He's very learned on the subject. The rest of the programs are sheer entertainment. I think WGN is very entertaining. I love it.

Pete.<P ID="signature">______________
DXer Peter Atkinson</P>
 
> > I do enjoy Sports Central and Sid Rosenburg. At least he
> > knows what he is talking about.
> >
> I believe you mean "Milt Rosenberg" from Extension 720. "Sid
> Rosenberg" is or was with WFAN in New York, I can't recall
> if he got fired for drug use and things he said on the air
> that he probably shouldn't have.
>
Yes, I meant Milt. I do that all the time. Maybe it's early onset.

None-the-less, his show is nearly always well done and thought provoking. He is so good that my wife finds the shows interesting. She is kind of person who would rather spend her time discussing our grandson rather than the narcissistic proclivities of the reformation.
 
and Nick DiGilio was a Howard Dean supporter. So the left is well-represented on WGN. So is the right. Thank GOD they don't spend a lot of time on politics, though.

> > I am saying that many of the "voices" on WGN have a
> > conservative slant. As an example, this morning Spike did
> a
> > piece on an E-mail that Barbra Streisand supposedly sent
> > regarding her rather progressive views.
>
> It was a post on B.S.'s own website from 2/28. It was on
> Drudge earlier today, and who knows how many morning shows
> picked up on it. As far as her "rather progressive views",
> you're kidding right? Far-left, or radical-left would be a
> more accurate description of Babs.
>
>
> According to Spike
> > there were several grammatical errors in the piece which
> he
> > proceeded to point out. He ended the segment with
> something
> > about people who live in glass houses shouldnt...
> > > He and Cochran and Williams tend to do these kinds of
> > things. WGN is not WLS or WIND or the inumerable
> > neo-conservative religious stations on the air today, but
> > they tend to sway that way.
>
> Cochran is no conservative, possibly a moderate. Over the
> years though, I've heard him do far more anti-conservative
> than anti-liberal material. Williams did not vote for Bush
> and has said so on the air. He is a liberal, but he's not
> in the extreme, radical Michael Moore camp.
>
> You mentioned in your first post, that you enjoy Sports
> Central. Kaplan sounds like a former liberal that's leaning
> more right lately. Waddle is a conservative, no question.
> You also mentioned Sid Rosenburg, no such person at WGN.
> Milt Rosenberg however is a former liberal. He's also a
> college professor, a highly educated intellectual, that
> happens to be a conservative.
> >
> > As for Kathy and Judy, they're (IMHO) a couple of old
> > biddy's who shouldn't be taken too seriously. That's why
> > their brand of liberalism can be on WGN.
>
> So, you say the most liberal voices (K&J)on the station,
> shouldn't be taken too seriously. You think that Cochran
> (moderate), Williams (liberal) slant to the right. You say
> that you enjoy Sports Central (moderate & conservative) and
> Milt Rosenberg (conservative). So does this mean that you
> just started listening to WGN, don't know left from right,
> or just wanted to get a reaction to your posts?
> >
>
 
Oh, I know my right from my left; having served in elected office for over 24 years.

Maybe it's a bit tongue-in-cheek.

You may say Cochran is a moderate but I think he's just behind the Spikester in his political persuasion.

I will say that I haven't listened too any of Cochran and Williams only after 5:00PM ever since Air America began on WCPT.

About Sports Central, I hope they continue to leave politics at the studio door at 7:00PM.

As for Judy and Kathy, I still say they're a couple of old biddy's that WGN should have let loose and gone with a younger crop; regardless of political view.

Bruce
 
I mostly listen to WGN at night when it comes in loud and clear in Vidalia, Georgia on the radio.

At night the major emphasis seems to be the pop culture and subjects that are non-political. Politics aren't a big subject on the Steve and Johnnie show...just old musicians, most have never heard of. My only compaint about their show is....I wish they would take their gushing level down just a tad. They make every musical artist sound like Mozart reincarninated. However, I do enjoy their show.
 
> I mostly listen to WGN at night when it comes in loud and
> clear in Vidalia, Georgia on the radio.
>
> At night the major emphasis seems to be the pop culture and
> subjects that are non-political. Politics aren't a big
> subject on the Steve and Johnnie show...just old musicians,
> most have never heard of. My only compaint about their show
> is....I wish they would take their gushing level down just a
> tad. They make every musical artist sound like Mozart
> reincarninated. However, I do enjoy their show.
>
> I do agree. They do fawn over the musicians a bit much.
> Wish there was a local overnight talk show besides S&J.
> Too bad "Chicago Ed" isn't on the air any longer.
 
> None-the-less, his show is nearly always well done and
> thought provoking. He is so good that my wife finds the
> shows interesting. She is kind of person who would rather
> spend her time discussing our grandson rather than the
> narcissistic proclivities of the reformation.
>


My Aunt and Uncle live in Chicago. Like many people in their demo, WGN is by far and away their favorite radio station. My Aunt says she likes listening to Milt Rosenberg even if half the time she has no idea what he's talking about. She says his subject matter often goes way over her head.

I haven't heard Milt's show, but I think it takes quite a bit of talent to talk about things the audience doesn't understand or know anything about and STILL get them to enjoy listening.
 
All the other talk stations are running the same old same old syndicated shows. Like the slogan says WGN is Chicago. Their hosts have a viewpoint but they don't have all the vitriol of the syndicated hosts. The only other station I know of in the same league is KGO.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom