• 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

"Why Is Talk Radio So Conservative?"

Re: Give Saddam His Own Talk Show!

> > > > "Are we better off with Saddam out of
> > > > power?," for example.
> > >
> > > Well, that's just an insultingly stupid question.
> > >
> >
> > And the answer is...
>
> We should give Saddam his own talk show! Hell, I used to
> joke that Tariq Aziz would do great hosting one of those
> daytime social issue talk shows. Call it Tariq, paint the
> studio pink flamingo, and do Maury topics. Al-Jazeera hired
> him first though. Damn.
>
> Saddam could do a show and reduce Iraqi unemployment by
> giving all those Revolutionary Guards security work on the
> show.
>
> "Today on Saddam, Missy caught Bo sleeping with Shana in the
> trailer park, but Bo denies it. We'll be sending Bo into
> the Infidel Room and we'll learn the truth with the use of
> Kathy Lee Gifford's new CD box set 'Cody and Cassidy - My
> Loving Treasures.' Also, a delicious new cookie recipe
> perfect for the holiday season: Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf,
> our former Iraqi Information Minister will be here with a
> recipe for Wahalashalahala Cookies. He promises there are
> so good, there won't be a single crumb anywhere in your
> little Baghdad. Also one of my wives, Martha Stewart on how
> to discipline the unruly help. It's a good thing, all today
> on Saddam!"

Love the talk show idea!!
>
 
There was more pre-Rush talk than you think

True, in the 1980s there were maybe a hundred or so full-time talkers. But beginning in the 60s and 70s, many stations that ran music added phone-in talk shows, mostly at night.

Morton Downey Jr. was on such a show on WDBO, Orlando before moving to KFBK. (He was canned there for punching out a guest.) In Savannah, Georgia, an engineer named "Easy Ed" Hartley soldered together a delay cart machine and became that market's first talk host on top-40 station WKBX (now WBMQ). Many newspeople became talk show hosts as Mark Fowler's deregulation of the airwaves in the 80s put many of them on the bricks.

There were many controversial hosts who moved from city to city, usually getting run out of town after a year or so for ruffling too many feathers. These were called "U-Haul" talk show hosts. They were in demand because so few cities had talk radio stations, anyone who did talk was seen as an expert someplace.

They may have had a strong 'hate' faction, but hadn't yet figured out how to
build a 'love' faction as well. Some hosts, such as the late Alan Berg and Neil Rogers, managed to figure out how to connect with a market and get its listeners to accept them, warts and all. I always liked this kind of approach (irrespective of ideology) as opposed to the Rush Limbaugh types who feigned
invulnerability, invincibility, and inerrancy (even if it was an act).

Screening techniques were primitive, and there was no internet, so it was easy to get on the phone and spout utter B.S. based on something read in some small, obscure newsletter distributed to a few faithful. Hybrids that automatically muted during a hang-up came along, which allowed hosts to sound polite and knowledgeable while quietly dumping a caller who was shouting his final points into a dead phone. Conservatives seemed to exploit this technology more
effectively than liberals did. They were better at appearing polite to callers one-on-one while bashing ill-defined groups, as opposed to going toe-to-toe with a caller on points.
 
Re: There was more pre-Rush talk than you think

> True, in the 1980s there were maybe a hundred or so
> full-time talkers. But beginning in the 60s and 70s, many
> stations that ran music added phone-in talk shows, mostly at
> night.

I did a very early 1-hour daily talk show in Warwick, R.I. in
1961-62. Topics were local or regional. Never political except
when an issue brought a politician into the studio to be questioned
mostly by callers. Also took on stuff like AT&T eliminating
exchange names and encouraging listeners to do some wild stuff
in placing long-distance calls (no direct dial then) to tick off
the telcos. It worked. They threatened to cut off our phone
service! The court system was also an easy target with "lenient
judges" a favorite.

> Screening techniques were primitive

Screening? Screening? We didn't need no stinkin' screening!

> Hybrids that automatically muted during a hang-up came along

Hybrids? Who had money for hybrids! We just buggered up handsets
and tapped the earphone leads!

Cart delay? The things you think of as cartridge machines hadn't been
invented. There were "Cousino" cartridges that had no delay capability.

Delay consisted on two Magnecorders, one on each side of the console.
The one on the left was fed from the audition channel of the board and
recorded. The one on the right played back and fed the program channel.
The cutoff mechanism was a pair of scissors. Seriously. No time
compensation. If you cut off a caller for obscenity you snipped and
slammed the mic key to program and started chattering while trying
like hell to re-thread the tape.

Now, chillen, go quietly to bed and, if you're real good, I'll tell you
how to delay a 15 minute program by 5 minutes when all you have are
reel-to-reel tape decks. But now now.<P ID="signature">______________
In government, as in gardens:

Moles are far more intelligent than are gophers!</P>
 
The answer is NO.

> > > "Are we better off with Saddam out of
> > > power?," for example.
> >
> > Well, that's just an insultingly stupid question.
> >
>
> And the answer is...
>

$200,000,000, 2,100 American lives, who knows how many thousands of Iraqi lives, a country divided (US), a country in chaos (Iraqi), a bankrupt Presidency, and another unwinnable Vietnam, the answer is, NO!!!!
 
Re: And then there's the answer libs don't like to admit

> > > > "Are we better off with Saddam out of
> > > > power?," for example.
> > >
> > > Well, that's just an insultingly stupid question.
> > >
> >
> > And the answer is...
> >
>
> To reframe the issue correctly. Liberals have to be as smart
> as those who depend on the words of Frank Luntz and other
> media consultants who train and share information thats
> targeted to attack the liberals credibility. Conservatives
> currently have an advantage in framing at this point. Libs
> are getting it and doing more to not allow themselves to be
> trapped in questions like this that in no way really address
> the real issue which is ...does a nation attack a country
> that did not attack us (Al Queda attacked us on 9/11), and
> can we justify 2000+ soldiers deaths, over $200 billion of
> capital, and countless iraqi citizens killed to capture a
> man who never was (and evidence now supports this) the
> massive threat our administration said he was.
>
> Thats how you reframe stupid questions. Tom Betz was right
> to call it that.
>
> A another way to answer would be ...well the people that
> were going to be better off with Saddam out of power were
> the Iraquis..but because we have botched the postwar
> planning, allowed corruption to prevent real reconstruction,
> and have angered the Iraqui people, no we aren't better off.
>
> The Iraquis aren't better off despite the rushed
> constitution and government that is still not seen as more
> than an extension of the US government.
> We also aren't better off because Al Queda now has a
> playground with real targets to become better
> terrorists...Iraq. Saddam wasn't a massive threat. There was
> time to assemble the resources to do it correctly if it
> absolutely necessary to go in at that time. It wasn't and
> the evidence shows that it wasnt the time to do it. Bush
> failed to follow an excellent example, his father's.
>

Thanks again, glad to see there are still a few intellegent thinking people left in the country.
 
Radio-Undersider

Too bad you're not one of them.

>
> Thanks again, glad to see there are still a few intellegent
> thinking people left in the country.
>
 
WHOA!!!

> my book, that is real reconstruction. Bush senior had an
> excellent example? By what standard? He went into Iraq to
> remove Saddam from power, FAILED to do so, and when the
> going got tough, HE LEFT. This is a good example? There


Bush senior never went into Iraq to remove Saddam. Bush senior went into KUWAIT to remove Saddam. After that was accomplished, he left. You're so misinformed it's scary.
 
Re: Give Saddam His Own Talk Show!

> We should give Saddam his own talk show! Hell, I used to
> joke that Tariq Aziz would do great hosting one of those
> daytime social issue talk shows. Call it Tariq, paint the
> studio pink flamingo, and do Maury topics. Al-Jazeera hired
> him first though. Damn.

Did you mean Aziz or the information minister, Mohammad "There are no American tanks in Baghdad" Saheed al-Sahaaf, aka "Comical Ali?" The latter is working for Al-Jazeera. I believe Aziz was caught and is still awaiting trial.
 
Re: The answer is NO.

> > > > "Are we better off with Saddam out of
> > > > power?," for example.
> > >
> > > Well, that's just an insultingly stupid question.
> > >
> >
> > And the answer is...
> >
>
> $200,000,000,

You left off three zeroes, at least.<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>
 
Ooops, $200,000,000,000 and counting.

> > > > > "Are we better off with Saddam out of
> > > > > power?," for example.
> > > >
> > > > Well, that's just an insultingly stupid question.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And the answer is...
> > >
> >
> > $200,000,000,
>
> You left off three zeroes, at least.
>

Ooops $200,000,000,000.
 
Re: WHOA!!!

> > my book, that is real reconstruction. Bush senior had an
> > excellent example? By what standard? He went into Iraq
> to
> > remove Saddam from power, FAILED to do so, and when the
> > going got tough, HE LEFT. This is a good example? There
>
>
> Bush senior never went into Iraq to remove Saddam. Bush
> senior went into KUWAIT to remove Saddam. After that was
> accomplished, he left. You're so misinformed it's scary.
>
You are correct, Kuwait it was. What was I thinking about? Even I'm not sure!
 
Re: The answer is NO.

> > > > "Are we better off with Saddam out of
> > > > power?," for example.
> > >
> > > Well, that's just an insultingly stupid question.
> > >
> >
> > And the answer is...
> >
>
> $200,000,000, 2,100 American lives, who knows how many
> thousands of Iraqi lives, a country divided (US), a country
> in chaos (Iraqi), a bankrupt Presidency, and another
> unwinnable Vietnam, the answer is, NO!!!!
>
The answer is YES!!
Who knows how many Iraqi lives, but for sure many less than if saddam were still in power.
SOME chaos in Iraq, but most is good and okay.
Bankrupt presidency? By what standard?
Unwinnable Vietnam? We could have won there, like we will in Iraq, but we left before we were done.
More schools, better equipped students, more power distribution, more water distribution, free and open elections, again, - YES is the correct answer.
 
Re: WHOA!!!

> > > my book, that is real reconstruction. Bush senior had
> an
> > > excellent example? By what standard? He went into Iraq
>
> > to
> > > remove Saddam from power, FAILED to do so, and when the
> > > going got tough, HE LEFT. This is a good example?
> There
> >
> >
> > Bush senior never went into Iraq to remove Saddam. Bush
> > senior went into KUWAIT to remove Saddam. After that was
> > accomplished, he left. You're so misinformed it's scary.
> >
> You are correct, Kuwait it was. What was I thinking about?
> Even I'm not sure!
>

Don't worry. Bushco changes history to suit whatever point they want to get across. If the current facts don't work for you, stick around a bit. They'll change.<P ID="signature">______________
The Liberal Talk Radio Update</P>
 
Re: The answer is NO.

> > > > > "Are we better off with Saddam out of
> > > > > power?," for example.
> > > >
> > > > Well, that's just an insultingly stupid question.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And the answer is...
> > >
> >
> > $200,000,000, 2,100 American lives, who knows how many
> > thousands of Iraqi lives, a country divided (US), a
> country
> > in chaos (Iraqi), a bankrupt Presidency, and another
> > unwinnable Vietnam, the answer is, NO!!!!
> >
> The answer is YES!!
> Who knows how many Iraqi lives, but for sure many less than
> if saddam were still in power.
> SOME chaos in Iraq, but most is good and okay.
> Bankrupt presidency? By what standard?
> Unwinnable Vietnam? We could have won there, like we will
> in Iraq, but we left before we were done.
> More schools, better equipped students, more power
> distribution, more water distribution, free and open
> elections, again, - YES is the correct answer.
>

I submit that we are losing the war. We are losing the support of the congress, we are losing the support of the American public, and I what suspect that we are losing whatever support we had from the Iraqi's.

The administration is in total denial. Until they realize that "more of the same" will only result in "more of the same", we will continue to lose ground. It's time to either win it, or leave it. The current policy is waste of time, money, and lives. There is no progress being made. There is no way that we will ever be able to hand responsibility over to the Iraqis. Colin Powell was right, "You break it, you own it".

I would say that a President that has slipped below 40% popularity, cannot handle a domestic crisis (Katrina, et al), has forgotten about social security reforms, and has an estranged relationship with his Vice President, is pretty much bankrupt.

I will, however, give thanks to conservative talk radio. It has completely changed my political ideology, from a moderate conservative to a moderate liberal, and moving further and further away from the conservative agenda every day.
 
OK, Joe, but NOW WHAT????????

Joe Joe Joe, Rush Rush Rush,

Why is the question "is the world is better off without Saddam" the right's response for everything. Whether or not it is, or it isn't, is academic.

At this point, it's a moot point. The question of the hour is not "is the world better off", the question is "NOW WHAT????"

I don't think the admistration has a clue.
 
Re: Give Saddam His Own Talk Show!

> Did you mean Aziz or the information minister, Mohammad
> "There are no American tanks in Baghdad" Saheed al-Sahaaf,
> aka "Comical Ali?" The latter is working for Al-Jazeera. I
> believe Aziz was caught and is still awaiting trial.

Aziz was the older Omar Shariff-looking short guy who said absolutely we will launch missiles at Israel during Gulf War One. He's so nutty, you gotta love him.

al-Sahaaf was the guy saying there were no tanks in Baghdad, but couldn't be heard above all of the tanks in Baghdad. :)

Aziz, by the way, was released and wasn't going to be charged with anything last time I heard. He was doing speaking tours.
 
Re: Give Saddam His Own Talk Show!

> Aziz was the older Omar Shariff-looking short guy who said
> absolutely we will launch missiles at Israel during Gulf War
> One. He's so nutty, you gotta love him.
>
> al-Sahaaf was the guy saying there were no tanks in Baghdad,
> but couldn't be heard above all of the tanks in Baghdad.
> :)

If Ed Wood was still alive, I think this guy would have a future as an actor in one of his movies. :-D

<a target="_blank" href=http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/>Link: WeLoveTheIraqiInformationMinister.com</a>

> Aziz, by the way, was released and wasn't going to be
> charged with anything last time I heard. He was doing
> speaking tours.

I didn't know Aziz had been released.
 
Re: The answer is NO.

> > > > > > "Are we better off with Saddam out of
> > > > > > power?," for example.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, that's just an insultingly stupid question.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > And the answer is...
> > > >
> > >
> > > $200,000,000, 2,100 American lives, who knows how many
> > > thousands of Iraqi lives, a country divided (US), a
> > country
> > > in chaos (Iraqi), a bankrupt Presidency, and another
> > > unwinnable Vietnam, the answer is, NO!!!!
> > >
> > The answer is YES!!
> > Who knows how many Iraqi lives, but for sure many less
> than
> > if saddam were still in power.
> > SOME chaos in Iraq, but most is good and okay.
> > Bankrupt presidency? By what standard?
> > Unwinnable Vietnam? We could have won there, like we will
>
> > in Iraq, but we left before we were done.
> > More schools, better equipped students, more power
> > distribution, more water distribution, free and open
> > elections, again, - YES is the correct answer.
> >
>
> I submit that we are losing the war. We are losing the
> support of the congress, we are losing the support of the
> American public, and I what suspect that we are losing
> whatever support we had from the Iraqi's.
>
> The administration is in total denial. Until they realize
> that "more of the same" will only result in "more of the
> same", we will continue to lose ground. It's time to either
> win it, or leave it. The current policy is waste of time,
> money, and lives. There is no progress being made. There
> is no way that we will ever be able to hand responsibility
> over to the Iraqis. Colin Powell was right, "You break it,
> you own it".
>
> I would say that a President that has slipped below 40%
> popularity, cannot handle a domestic crisis (Katrina, et
> al), has forgotten about social security reforms, and has an
> estranged relationship with his Vice President, is pretty
> much bankrupt.
>
> I will, however, give thanks to conservative talk radio. It
> has completely changed my political ideology, from a
> moderate conservative to a moderate liberal, and moving
> further and further away from the conservative agenda every
> day.
>
Losing the support of congress? Because 3 people of 432 vote to get the troops out now? While those three are "lost support" still it is .0069444% of the house of rep's, hardly worth noting!
We had suport frrom almost all of Iraq, and maybe we lost "some" support, but I believe we have vast majority support still.
"More of the same" correctly, is bad news for all involved. If we would go in with the B-2's, B-52's, etc. and LEVEL the sunni triangle, I'll bet the terrorist attacks come to an almost complete stop. Unfortunately, GW does not have what it takes to do the job correctly, instead he just "wimps out". Truly sad.
GW is below 40%, Congressional Repub's are lower that that, and Democrats are lower yet. That makes him most popular at the federal level. Pretty good spot to be in.
Katrina was not his responsibility. Where were the governor of La, and the the New Orleans mayor? Why were three states hit, only one had the serios problems? Why was there no evacuation early in La like there was elsewhere? Why are there rows of school buses in N.O. that could have been used to get people out, instead, the mayor let them be to soak in water and said we had to get all the greyhound busses from around the US over there? Why when a hurricane came to Florida later, did GW's brother, Jeb, another republican take FULL responsibility for all that went wrong? When will Gov. Kathlee from LA do this? How about the N.O. mayor? Still waiting...
Forgotten about social security reforms - Maybe, just maybe, more important thing's to worry about ( heard of Iraq? ).
Estranged relationship with his Vice President - In what way? News to me - I see no problems at all.
 
Re: WHOA!!!

> > > > my book, that is real reconstruction. Bush senior had
>
> > an
> > > > excellent example? By what standard? He went into
> Iraq
> >
> > > to
> > > > remove Saddam from power, FAILED to do so, and when
> the
> > > > going got tough, HE LEFT. This is a good example?
> > There
> > >
> > >
> > > Bush senior never went into Iraq to remove Saddam. Bush
>
> > > senior went into KUWAIT to remove Saddam. After that
> was
> > > accomplished, he left. You're so misinformed it's
> scary.
> > >
> > You are correct, Kuwait it was. What was I thinking
> about?
> > Even I'm not sure!
> >
>
> Don't worry. Bushco changes history to suit whatever point
> they want to get across. If the current facts don't work
> for you, stick around a bit. They'll change.
>
And some example's of them changing history are...
Fact's change? Tomorrow the grass will be red, purple, or something else? Maybe the sun will be pink? How do "Facts" change? Will we soon find out that Jimmy Carter was the first president of the US, not George Washington? What "facts" have changed?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom