First off, you should be commended to putting your dreams into action. Most people just dream and do nothing.

You could have "debates" on your show. Or, you could just take control of the show you have. I would limit callers to 4 or 5 minutes. You can't let them go on a 25 minute monologue like last night. You have to keep things moving along. If the caller makes a statement, then ask a question to keep them focused. Don't let them ramble. Russert is a good model. I think it's a good choice to keep Jaime in front with Mike providing "color" from time to time. Listen to the role playing on the "Laura Ingraham" show for example. She sounds more focused (sorry) and if you have engineering duties to take care of you should focus on that and only occasionally provide some interchange with Jaime. You may also want to give some thought to creating a bit of "tension" between the two of you when you do interchange. That doesn't have to be "negative" by the way.

You asked last night if you should suggest topics or just do an "open line" show. I think you should suggest a range of topics and then start by giving your two cents on those topics. That would provoke more conversation. Having callers get through and then talk about the weather, how they're doing, etc., is boring. Last night, you may have brought up Cheney, Iran, and the Olympics and gave a few minute monologue on each one.

Debates might be more interesting, but they could get ugly too. Then, you'd have to play referee on the spot and you wouldn't have the luxury of taking your time to be "objective" which could bias the argument one way or the other.

In my view, you have to decide whether you want a "show" or just a venue for regular posters to call in and "chit chat" live over the internet.

Just some suggestions.

Edited to remove unnecessary quotation.

As nice as it sounds to let Jaime take the major hosting duties, and for me to sit back and run the equipment, that is just not our intention. We both want to host the show equally, and there is no reason why that can't happen. It is entirely possible for one person to produce a show while hosting it, so I don't see any reason why two hosts with one handling the production duties would be impossible. We just have to smooth things out.

We're 3 shows in, and the amount of time required for running things during each show has been cut in half for each show. Every time we broadcast, the techincal ends of things get smoother and smoother, and I have to focus less and less on technical aspects, and can instead pay attention to what is going on.

This past show saw the introduction of three new pieces of hardware, which meant major changes in our audio chain. That meant more monitoring and tweaking as we went along, trying to get the best sound possible.

As for shortening up each call length, I don't quite think that is what we want to do. I know, it seems odd to give listeners enough time to get their actual opinions out. That is especially true if you're used to shows like the one you mentioned. The Ingraham-Hannity-O'Reilly-Limbaugh format of "caller makes one point, host inflates head while showing how caller is wrong or host is right" is just boring to us.

I've listened to talk radio since I was a kid, and the standard format grew old long ago. I find myself attracted to the talk shows that break from the standard format, and do their own thing. Altered formats make for unique radio, and unique radio-- even if callers talk about the weather, their grocery list, or their last trip to the bathroom-- is better than the typical, boring-at-best cookie-cutter talk shows that are crammed down our throats.

We want to be different than the standard, run-of-the-mill, sounds-like-everyone-else talk show. I think it will work. When we first started AD, people said that civil online debate was an impossibility, and look at us now. If we forced ourselves to fit into the same mold as everyone else, it would be more boring than taking the time to allow the callers to get their opinions out.

For the live debates, we don't really have any duty to remain objective, and I don't really think that would be possible. This isn't the forum, it's the radio show. Obviously, our opinions need to be closer to the front on the radio show than they would be, say, when we are trying to run a balanced forum.

Thanks for the thoughts,

Mike

Live debates would be pretty cool!

I thought last night's show was excellent! Lots of varied opinions, lots of diverse topics (still no Olympics, though ) and I loved hearing all of the ADers voices! I also liked that you and Jaime weren't cutting folks off mid-argument. As much as we'd all like the show to reach thousands upon thousands of listeners, at this point it's still pretty small and I don't see why there'd be any need to limit callers' time. I definitely like the dual-hosting, too. You two balance each other out very well. I liked the way you interacted with each other and with the callers. Plus, for me, I like that the show isn't all stiff and stuffy. Oh...and the Cheney commercial was HILARIOUS!

Next time I'll have to call earlier (and will have something worthwhile to talk about)!

You guys are doing a fantastic job! I'll have you know that last night was the first time I've ever missed an episode of Lost - I missed it so I could listen to the show. Thanks, guys and keep up the great work!

A note to everyone - I split the above three posts out of another, slightly unrelated topic, and open this. I invite all of you who listened to the show to share your thoughts and comments on it. Your feedback would be very helpful.

Thanks for the kind words, km. I hope you get a chance to call in next week. We'd love to hear from you.

One suggestion I might have in regards to the shows in general is that it might be useful to post an after action report of sorts here in this forum. Something like that might consist of:

- The songs/artists played during breaks (a lot of that music was really cool)
- User names of AD members that called in
- High level summary of topics discussed
- Anything notable worth mentioning about the show (like a live debate, a cool bit like the Cheney Hunt, stuff like that)

Just a thought.

We do currently on the audio archive (Mike will be posting last night's info soon).

I would like to have a 'reviews' topic after each show. Posting the info you suggested, Cube, would be a good way to start the topic. Thanks for the idea.

I listened to the archive...funny um advertiser you guys got going. Sorry I missed the show, but I have other people who also demand my attention. I promise next week to call and chat about the Olympics Mike since it seems we are the only two in America watching it.

Great Show!

As I was listening I could really tell the difference between this show and the last. The improvement was exponential. Everything sounded improved and professional.

I especially liked the CheneyHunt.com commercial. I think my favorite line in the entire show was from that commercial: "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear."

Kudos to Mike and Jaime for not only following their hearts, but succeeding.

JL

I just now listened to the archive for this episode. Wow, Julian does a perfect American accent.

I like the more laid-back format as compared to "normal" call-in shows. It's OK to have a little chit-chat, along with the political commentary. I liked hearing Cyan talk about her perception of the behavior of Americans in a Mexican border town. They wasn't "political" in the normal sense of the word, but it was certainly relevant.

Keep up the good work!

Aww - I'm blushing

Thanks

I've had plenty of practice in my am dram though. In the past three years I've done it three times (two on stage, one; as director, coaching other people). I might not be able to fool any given American 100% of the time, but I reckon I can kid most Brits.

Hope tonight's show goes even better, everyone!