We're going to go ahead and create a topic for each radio show so that everyone can discuss/predict/review each show.

This topic is for discussing the Feb 22, 2006 AD Radio show.

So, what do you think will be the topic tonight?

How about the comedy bit?

Who will call?

I'll talk to you guys tonight!

Mike

I say try and spin off a topic regarding the iraqi muslims and the fighting that they are doing themselves. See if we can get 2 people to argue eachother... that would be "intresting" to hear.

We're not going to try the live debate for another 6 weeks or so.

Our studio setup is changing so rapidly, and I'm learning so much so fast about broadcast production, that it would just be very hard to have multiple simultaneous callers at this point. I'm still trying to get the levels and compression settings right for the studio audio and for a single caller. Until that is setup right, it isn't smart to move forward to live debate. We're getting closer and closer to how I want the setup every week, though, so that is good.

I think Jaime and I are really banking on some UAE/US Ports discussion tonight. Since it's such a hot item, and since Cheney hasn't shot anyone this week, we've focused our show prep on the port situation. I hope that is a major topic...

Mike

I predict Stefan Fargus calls, as do Titus, crashfourit, and me.

Hot topics: ports, Iraqi civil war, alien abductions . Ok, I made that last one up.

The audio for the February 22, 2006 show has been posted to the America's Debate Radio Audio Archive.

The show went very well, until we had a server problem that took us offline for a while. We took 10 calls, and covered the port issue, civil war in Iraq, controversial cartoons, and a bit of the Olympics. We played a President's Day tribute to modern presidential lows during the break.

Thanks to everyone who participated.

Please give it a listen, and tell us what you think!

Mike

Greatly enjoyed the show, found the show through iTunes Podcasts and have been impressed. Interesting to hear people's opinions in the States as opposed to Media positioning.

How cool is that?!

Welcom, Delvy. I'm glad you enjoyed the show!

Mike

I have to agree with lordhelmet that so far the idea of radio is greater in theory than in actual execution.

Technical glitches aside, I listened in last night and found the show meandering and unfocused. The banter between Mike and Jaime seemed natural, but the callers were allowed to ramble without getting to a point. It felt more like listening into a phone conversation, not a radio program.

There was a "making this up as we go along" feel to the program. Improvisation works well in jazz, but doesn't make for compelling listening. A set topic works if in invokes a response from listeners. There is a radio program on my local NPR station that I listen to which covers both topics and opens the phone lines to the public. It can be a feast or famine situation, but when it works, it makes for compelling radio.

So far AD radio is not compelling. But it's too early to make any snap judgment as to whether it will be a success or failure. I've appeared on radio programs where I had to field hostile questions from both the host and the callers in response to an article I had written. It's not always the most comfortable to be on the hot seat, but it is kind of fun and fun is what this should be when all is said and done.

A suggestion I would make is to take a popular thread, find out which two or three contributors have made the most credible and well-reasoned posts and invite them to "debate" their positions on the program with Mike and Jaime serving as moderator and guiding the conversation. I don't think it's enough just to wait for listeners to pick up the phone. You have to give them the reason to do so.

I think what we need to recognize is that we're a very small operation whose wings are just taking dream.

It would be nice to provide a solid focus for the show, but come on-- we've got a maximum of 30 listeners. That means we have a hard limit on a maximum of 30 callers. We're not talking about the biggest pool of listeners here (yet).

We are averaging that about 50% of our listeners call-in. Imagine a "real" talk show getting half of their audience to call.

People are calling because they know they can get their opinion out without having to argue. On most talk shows, the callers serve one purpose: to reinforce why the host is right, and everyone else is wrong. Some hosts, like Hannity, occasionally even abuse their callers!

Our listeners know that we're not going to do that to them. They know that, when they call, we will give them the time they need to say what they want to say, regardless of whether or not it is in agreement with our positions.

There's got to be something compelling about that.

The problem with setting a specific topic is that, if the topic is not what the pool of 15 or so callers wants to discuss, then we have no calls. The show would quickly turn into a lame monologue show similar to Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and all of the other shows that are more about inflammatory name calling and egos than actual substance (even if those egos may be 'compelling,' in the long run it becomes annoying).

Our budget to this point has been whatever we can divert from AD.com's meager budget. Everything you see-- from the chat room to the forum to the radio show-- is done on a budget so small that most people would say it would be impossible. We try to get advertisers, but have had no success to this point. So, we compensate by putting as much time and effort into AD that we can, and we've overcome the small budget through hard work and dedication.

This is Internet radio here. We're not an AM station. We've got about $1,000 tied up in our studio setup-- a very significant portion of our annual revenues. We don't have call screening because we can't afford the equipment. We use VoIP phones because we can't afford phone lines, or the equipment to connect them. We max out at 30 listeners because the $13 it would take for the next upgrade or the $100 a month for a dedicated streaming server just isn't in the budget. If we had real financial backing, there would be much more potential for the show to be a lot different.

But, we don't, so we make the best of what we've got, and keep a precise focus on improving.

Give us a call screener, and a Telos phone system, and we would be able to keep the show on a straighter track. But until then, we're going to do the best we can.

Everyone should take a few moments to check out some other podcasts. There are podcasts out there with 100 of times the listeners that we have, but 1/10th the quality and fun. They cover a lot of topics, often with a lot less focus then us (we at least focus on 'current politics').

In the podcast genre-- which let's face it, we're closer to a podcast show than a radio show just because of the max listener cap-- we differ in that we create our podcast live, and allow people to call in to be part of the show. Most podcasts are a host or two talking about whatever they feel, and the occasional interview. Our relatively unique format makes the show compelling as a podcast.

A lot of other podcasts have advertisers, and the advertisers pay for the show. If we had a revenue stream, we would put it toward improving, there is no doubt about that.

The other benefit these other shows have is time. They've been around since the podcast fad began. We're new, less than a month in. Give us time, and we will mature. Give us time, and we'll eek every dollar out of the budget to reduce the technical limitations that, more or less, guide the format of the show.

Thanks for the comments, Nighttimer.

Mike

I thought personally that each week each show has been focused, somewhat anyways, on current events. Like last night was mostly all about the port thing.
Before it was NSA, before that I forget....Bush SOTU?
If you guys get all serious and businessy I am so going to call you sell -outs and boycott you or something.

Last nights show , iI just listened today, was much better because this time Jaime and Mike did a lot of chatting and discussion themselves before Mike was a lot less involved.

Was AM lord drunk?

I like the debate idea tho. but I would hope that you would still focus on callers. Maybe callers could ask one of the debaters a question ?

I would like to say thanks for the kind mention of my engagement in last nights broadcast. Sorry I missed the live show but the podcast is downloaded and being burned as I type to CD so I can listen to all of it on the way home

No, but it's on my to-do list.

I managed to listen to MOST of the archive of this episode. (Technical difficulties on my side.) Another fine job. I have no criticisms to make about the format. And curses to the server provider who shut you off without warning!

I was glad to get another lesson in pronunciation. I'll try to keep it in mind that turnea should be said as "tur-NEE-uh."

And apologies for my terribly harsh speaking voice.