Full Version: Randi Rhodes suspended from Air America
Air America talk radio personality Randi Rhodes has been suspending for calling Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro a really mean name. You can see a similar story here about Randi Rhodes and the really mean name.
Questions for debate:
1.)Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
Questions for debate:
1.)Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
1.)Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
Sure. Like Don Imus learned, even free speech has consequences.
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
The line that is hard for me to find here is whether Randi was at an Air America sponsored event or whether she was speaking on behalf of Air America. To me, that distinction is important. Randi has her first amendment rights like the rest of us. But Air America is well within their rights (and some may argue responsibility) to discipline her for calling Clinton and Ferraro the names she did. To fail to do so in this context would be fairly hypocritical.
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
I think we may be too sensitive, but not in this context. Randi crossed a line, and now she's paying the price. Such is life.
Sure. Like Don Imus learned, even free speech has consequences.
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
The line that is hard for me to find here is whether Randi was at an Air America sponsored event or whether she was speaking on behalf of Air America. To me, that distinction is important. Randi has her first amendment rights like the rest of us. But Air America is well within their rights (and some may argue responsibility) to discipline her for calling Clinton and Ferraro the names she did. To fail to do so in this context would be fairly hypocritical.
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
I think we may be too sensitive, but not in this context. Randi crossed a line, and now she's paying the price. Such is life.
Yes, she should have been "suspended" although that is subject to some definition. I am critical of Clinton but these remarks were demeaning and uncalled for.
It's not just a matter of "level of discourse." Air America is a struggling alternative voice for progressives. It needs both Obama and Clinton supporters as listeners and callers. Furthermore, the event was sponsored by one of their affiliate station and the incident reflected badly on them. Some acts of discipline are necessary business decisions.
Yes, our public dialog is too coarse but that has little to do with this issue.
A simple Yes or No response to your poll would have been more suitable. I just about refused to answer it and I'm sure there are many who won't!
It's not just a matter of "level of discourse." Air America is a struggling alternative voice for progressives. It needs both Obama and Clinton supporters as listeners and callers. Furthermore, the event was sponsored by one of their affiliate station and the incident reflected badly on them. Some acts of discipline are necessary business decisions.
Yes, our public dialog is too coarse but that has little to do with this issue.
A simple Yes or No response to your poll would have been more suitable. I just about refused to answer it and I'm sure there are many who won't!
1.)Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
Yes, sure. While she's entitled to her opinion and has the right to free speech, such speech does not necessarily mean you get to keep working if you express it on the company time and dime. She was representing the station at the event.
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
I guess that depends on the level of their contract with the station.
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
It may be a bit of both. Rev. Wright is considered un-American for saying what he said about America, but the same sentiment was expressed by another black preacher that we celebrate with a federal and state holiday. The words may be a bit coarser, the message is the same.
I think we are getting a bit sensitive to the coarseness.
Yes, sure. While she's entitled to her opinion and has the right to free speech, such speech does not necessarily mean you get to keep working if you express it on the company time and dime. She was representing the station at the event.
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
I guess that depends on the level of their contract with the station.
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
It may be a bit of both. Rev. Wright is considered un-American for saying what he said about America, but the same sentiment was expressed by another black preacher that we celebrate with a federal and state holiday. The words may be a bit coarser, the message is the same.
I think we are getting a bit sensitive to the coarseness.
I live in the Bay area, where the event in question was held. Although did not attend the event, I listened to a "listener venting hour" put on by the Air America affiliate who hosted the event. The affiliate, Green 960, made it clear that they did not want Randi Rhodes suspended and that Air America was taking this action out of its own volition. Randi Rhodes was not representing Air America at this event, but was representing Green 960.
1.)Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
Maybe. Yes she was on her own time (or rather Green 960's time and dime) but, as was said on the call in hour today, when she gets noticed for something by the media, it's always Air America talk show host, Randi Rhodes. She bears some responsibility to them because she is their star personality.
What she said was distasteful and I am not a fan of hers. But I think suspension might go a little far. I have to wonder who was asking for her suspension since the show's viewers who called/emailed in were largely supportive of her right to say what she wanted at the event.
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
I don't know the details of her work contract and what level of "censorship" she agreed to. I think having her make an apology and stop with all of the name calling would be sufficient. But if her contract is 'at will,' then the station has every right to do what it wants to regarding her employment.
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
Both. That we getting our collective panties in a wad every time something 'offends' us makes it difficult to have honest discourse in this country. I find that troubling. But one has to consider the message and how it was delivered. I am not a fan of Ms.Rhodes and I find her crude ramblings to be less than entertaining and not useful discourse. But if she has a following who likes what she has to say, more power to her.
1.)Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
Maybe. Yes she was on her own time (or rather Green 960's time and dime) but, as was said on the call in hour today, when she gets noticed for something by the media, it's always Air America talk show host, Randi Rhodes. She bears some responsibility to them because she is their star personality.
What she said was distasteful and I am not a fan of hers. But I think suspension might go a little far. I have to wonder who was asking for her suspension since the show's viewers who called/emailed in were largely supportive of her right to say what she wanted at the event.
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
I don't know the details of her work contract and what level of "censorship" she agreed to. I think having her make an apology and stop with all of the name calling would be sufficient. But if her contract is 'at will,' then the station has every right to do what it wants to regarding her employment.
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
Both. That we getting our collective panties in a wad every time something 'offends' us makes it difficult to have honest discourse in this country. I find that troubling. But one has to consider the message and how it was delivered. I am not a fan of Ms.Rhodes and I find her crude ramblings to be less than entertaining and not useful discourse. But if she has a following who likes what she has to say, more power to her.
1.) Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
I don't really care either way. Air America can exercise their judgement in whatever way they want. I do hope the suspension is long though.
2.) At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
The motivations of a station are based primarily on maintaining that coveted profit margin. She should be suspended the minute the execs think she becomes more of a detriment than a boon to their business.
3.) Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
Too sensitive? Are you kidding me? Her commentary about Ferraro and Clinton was vile. And it wasn't even funny to boot! If my only two choices were "too sensitive" or "too coarse" I'd pick too sensitive hands down. Her commentary was worse than anything I've heard from Coulter. I guess the repubs don't have a market on insensitivity after all.
I don't really care either way. Air America can exercise their judgement in whatever way they want. I do hope the suspension is long though.
2.) At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
The motivations of a station are based primarily on maintaining that coveted profit margin. She should be suspended the minute the execs think she becomes more of a detriment than a boon to their business.
3.) Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
Too sensitive? Are you kidding me? Her commentary about Ferraro and Clinton was vile. And it wasn't even funny to boot! If my only two choices were "too sensitive" or "too coarse" I'd pick too sensitive hands down. Her commentary was worse than anything I've heard from Coulter. I guess the repubs don't have a market on insensitivity after all.
Sweet. Randi Rhodes is now the liberal equivalent of Ann Coulter. 
I don't think so. There's a market for people like Rhodes calling people whores, and on the other side, the Michael Savage types who tell people to get AIDS and die.
A common belief is that the majority gets the benefits, while the minority opinions are left out.
Free speech isn't always popular. But I think we should use it to either make wrongs right, or to at least allow people to show their true colors.
I don't care for pretty much anything Rhodes has said, or holds dear. But I wouldn't think of silencing her.
When the words cause a physical damage, or in a specific incident, sparks a riot.
I'm very liberal when it comes to free speech. Sticks and stones will break my bones logic applies here. Sorry your feelings are hurt, but I don't believe in silencing someone or making an example of it makes the station look any better. In fact, it suggests that the station managers are the filters of the American Voice.
If you want to host a radio show that berates people, be sure your audience wants to hear the berating. After all, ratings are the ultimate rule. Howard Stern is a prime example of that.
Free speech is better to have.
It reminds me of the smoking in bars debate.
On one hand, you have something that offends non-smokers. They SHOULD have a choice to go to a bar that has a no-smoking policy.
On the other hand, you have something that offends listeners. They SHOULD have a choice on the radio dial that has a no-insult policy.
You don't take it away from everybody when the market (customer) will decide which place (bar or radio station) to be a patron.
And for the first time, I agree with Randy Rhodes. Hillary is a whore. I'm glad she said it. If it was Rush that said the same thing, the EIB Network would be burning as we speak.
That said, this is America. If the station finds you profitable, and profitable for long term, you'll be around forever. Ask Dr. Laura about her nude photos sometime....
/actually...
//no, don't.
///really.
QUOTE
1.) Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
I don't think so. There's a market for people like Rhodes calling people whores, and on the other side, the Michael Savage types who tell people to get AIDS and die.
A common belief is that the majority gets the benefits, while the minority opinions are left out.
Free speech isn't always popular. But I think we should use it to either make wrongs right, or to at least allow people to show their true colors.
I don't care for pretty much anything Rhodes has said, or holds dear. But I wouldn't think of silencing her.
QUOTE
2.) At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
When the words cause a physical damage, or in a specific incident, sparks a riot.
I'm very liberal when it comes to free speech. Sticks and stones will break my bones logic applies here. Sorry your feelings are hurt, but I don't believe in silencing someone or making an example of it makes the station look any better. In fact, it suggests that the station managers are the filters of the American Voice.
If you want to host a radio show that berates people, be sure your audience wants to hear the berating. After all, ratings are the ultimate rule. Howard Stern is a prime example of that.
QUOTE
3.) Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
Free speech is better to have.
It reminds me of the smoking in bars debate.
On one hand, you have something that offends non-smokers. They SHOULD have a choice to go to a bar that has a no-smoking policy.
On the other hand, you have something that offends listeners. They SHOULD have a choice on the radio dial that has a no-insult policy.
You don't take it away from everybody when the market (customer) will decide which place (bar or radio station) to be a patron.
And for the first time, I agree with Randy Rhodes. Hillary is a whore. I'm glad she said it. If it was Rush that said the same thing, the EIB Network would be burning as we speak.
That said, this is America. If the station finds you profitable, and profitable for long term, you'll be around forever. Ask Dr. Laura about her nude photos sometime....
/actually...
//no, don't.
///really.
1.)Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
Yes. That kind of talk is unprofessional and inappropriate.
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
I think they called it right on this one. They do not want to encourage their employees to be foul-mouthed in public.
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
Yes, sometimes we can be too sensitive as you put it when it comes to public dialogue. In this case, it was obviously vulgar. Ann Coulter has said things this bad and worse, but she has had the sense not to use (for the most part) vulgarities such as Randi Rhodes used on the video clip.
However, a little too much freedom is better than too little any day.
Yes. That kind of talk is unprofessional and inappropriate.
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
I think they called it right on this one. They do not want to encourage their employees to be foul-mouthed in public.
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
Yes, sometimes we can be too sensitive as you put it when it comes to public dialogue. In this case, it was obviously vulgar. Ann Coulter has said things this bad and worse, but she has had the sense not to use (for the most part) vulgarities such as Randi Rhodes used on the video clip.
However, a little too much freedom is better than too little any day.
1.)Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
Probably since she said it about fellow liberals. I wonder if she had said the same thing abuot Laura Bush or Condi Rice what would happened.... Raise maybe?
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
Depends on the station and it's standards. In the case of this Air America station, the standards are obviously pretty low.
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
Not too sensitive I don't think. I'm used to hearing garbage out of the mouths of liberals. It's usually not directed at other liberals and that's probably what got Randi Rhodes in trouble. Maybe she can try out for a slot on The View.
Aquilla
Probably since she said it about fellow liberals. I wonder if she had said the same thing abuot Laura Bush or Condi Rice what would happened.... Raise maybe?
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
Depends on the station and it's standards. In the case of this Air America station, the standards are obviously pretty low.
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
Not too sensitive I don't think. I'm used to hearing garbage out of the mouths of liberals. It's usually not directed at other liberals and that's probably what got Randi Rhodes in trouble. Maybe she can try out for a slot on The View.
Aquilla
I tend to agree with Aquilla. Air America needs every listener they can get and offending 40% of their audience (Clinton supporters) isn't going to cut the mustard. Had she insulted Ann Coulter or some Republican politician with the exact same remarks, she'd have been lauded. However, what she did was bad for Air America's business.
1.)Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
It is in the interest of Air America to do so, so yes. Representing your work, even informally, you are expected to act and speak in a certain way.
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
In the media: first offend none of our six audience members. This was a serious lapse in judgement.
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
Ideally, society would be like
--you are free to disagree, but be polite when you do it. Insulting people and calling them crass names is simply not civil.
Air America is correct in what they said when announcing the suspensions:
"Air America encourages strong opinions about public affairs but does not condone such abusive, ad hominem language by our Hosts," said chair Charlie Kireker.
1.)Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
It is in the interest of Air America to do so, so yes. Representing your work, even informally, you are expected to act and speak in a certain way.
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
In the media: first offend none of our six audience members. This was a serious lapse in judgement.
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
Ideally, society would be like
--you are free to disagree, but be polite when you do it. Insulting people and calling them crass names is simply not civil.Air America is correct in what they said when announcing the suspensions:
"Air America encourages strong opinions about public affairs but does not condone such abusive, ad hominem language by our Hosts," said chair Charlie Kireker.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Apr 3 2008, 06:09 PM) 
1.)Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
1.) Yes. She's boring. She's certainly not funny. She's never been mugged.
2.) At the level they're uncomfortable.
3.) Everyone needs to toughen up a bit. Get back a little towards the day when a show like All In The family could be aired without someone throwing their forearm up to their forehead and screeching "Won't someone think of the children."
Of course one could say that about the profanity filter here.
1.)Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
It's hard to tell if it was the W word or the F word that did it, or maybe the hyperbole of BFW. Maybe it was the bad standup comic act. I personally would not have been on the side of suspension but I wouldn't have given the act a very good review.
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
It's getting pretty tiresome. Suspend them all and enforce the Seven-Words-You-Can't-Say-On-TV principle. Heh, the buildup to this made me expect that she had used the C word.
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
Actually, I'm bored with it. The bit about Hillary being a line-cutter had potential. The thing about the $4300 whore was a clunker. Isn't using F with W redundant? Besides, Slut says it all, passes the profanity filter and speaks more to the younger generations. BFW sounds plain old stupid.
So Big F* Yawn.
Hillary is a line-cutter. Work on that. There's a good joke in there somewhere that doesn't need trite shock-jock phrasing.
As problems go, this one is negligable. I would like to see more class in the acts. Might even pay good money for it.
It's hard to tell if it was the W word or the F word that did it, or maybe the hyperbole of BFW. Maybe it was the bad standup comic act. I personally would not have been on the side of suspension but I wouldn't have given the act a very good review.
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
It's getting pretty tiresome. Suspend them all and enforce the Seven-Words-You-Can't-Say-On-TV principle. Heh, the buildup to this made me expect that she had used the C word.
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
Actually, I'm bored with it. The bit about Hillary being a line-cutter had potential. The thing about the $4300 whore was a clunker. Isn't using F with W redundant? Besides, Slut says it all, passes the profanity filter and speaks more to the younger generations. BFW sounds plain old stupid.
So Big F* Yawn.
Hillary is a line-cutter. Work on that. There's a good joke in there somewhere that doesn't need trite shock-jock phrasing.
As problems go, this one is negligable. I would like to see more class in the acts. Might even pay good money for it.
1.)Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
Randi Rhodes should be forced to sit with Hillary Clinton and present her argument (including evidence of the accusation she made). Maybe she meant Bill?
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
I guess when it creates enough public outrage?
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
Yes, we are too sensitive. But I must take issue with women in America. Why are we so evil to each other? It happens on all levels. Women criticizing and condemning other women. Maybe we should be a little more supportive of our female "sisters" out there and stop treating each other like the enemy.
Randi Rhodes should be forced to sit with Hillary Clinton and present her argument (including evidence of the accusation she made). Maybe she meant Bill?
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
I guess when it creates enough public outrage?
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
Yes, we are too sensitive. But I must take issue with women in America. Why are we so evil to each other? It happens on all levels. Women criticizing and condemning other women. Maybe we should be a little more supportive of our female "sisters" out there and stop treating each other like the enemy.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Apr 3 2008, 06:09 PM)
Air America talk radio personality Randi Rhodes has been suspending for calling Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro a really mean name. You can see a similar story here about Randi Rhodes and the really mean name.
Questions for debate:
1.)Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
Questions for debate:
1.)Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
Calling two respected female politicians "whores" in this context adds nothing to the public discourse. It is degrading, cheap, and adds nothing that cannot be expressed in more civil terms. A suspension is in order.
Also, is this woman's real name "Randi Rhodes," or did she steal her name from the late, great guitar player with Ozzy, "Randy Rhoads." If she stole that name, she should remain suspended, IMHO, for that reason alone.
QUOTE(quick @ Apr 4 2008, 10:33 AM)
Also, is this woman's real name "Randi Rhodes," or did she steal her name from the late, great guitar player with Ozzy, "Randy Rhodes." If she stole that name, she should remain suspended, IMHO, for that reason alone.
It wouldn't have taken much digging to answer this, quick.
Her real first name is "Randi," but she chose Rhodes as her stage name in honor of Ozbourne's late guitar player.
http://www.popstarsplus.com/celebrities_randirhodes.htm
Why should she be further suspended for paying tribute to him?
QUOTE(BoF @ Apr 4 2008, 11:44 AM)
[She] should she be further suspended for paying tribute to him?
Unless she can pick up a Kramer gitfiddle and play the lead break in "Crazy Train" note-for-note, I think we have to consider this option....
1.)Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
It is their perogative to do so, mostly likely due to her contract terms. She may have a morals clause and this may violate it.
Simpler explanation - She is highly overpaid by talk radio standards, and her show budget is nearly a million dollars, which is ridiculous for the product they turn out nightly. This on a network that is starved for cash. Not to mention her tantrums and hissy fits, her refusal to schmooze with advertisers, her demanding that the network carry her on WLIB last year (before they went Gospel and Randi/AAR moved to WWRL), demanding a car and driver, etc.
Maybe they are looking for reasons to fire her. These comments are nothing compared to her jabs at Republicans.
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
At the level where it hurts their bottom line, in this case by alienating Hillary supporters. MSNBC is crossing this line as well, with the new "Edward R Murrow" and his insane rantings.
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
I have Sirius radio, so listen to their talk channels as well as some syndicated and national radio. The contrast between left and right is a bright one. I put on Sirius Left for a while yesterday and heard more profanity there than I sometimes hear on Howard Stern. I suppose left-wing radio fans find me to be a prude or snooty, but really, I don't mind it on entertainment programming at all. I just think that, if you can't discuss politics without dropping the F Bomb, you maybe aren't smart enough to be talking politics.
To more directly answer, I'm not too *sensitive* and the discourse isn't too *course* as a whole. There is just a place and time for everything, and the more libertine "progressive" side of things has been dealing at this level for a while. I would rather have their hatred out in the sunshine where everyone can see it.
On edit - forget what I said about the morals clause, as their Executive VP just got caught up in a prostitution ring. However, Tom Athans, in a way, illustrates the problems of the network. Unlike a certain NY governor, the air america exec got a Lewinsky for only $150. To be fair, the lady lookskinda hot , but that won't please Tom's wife, Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow (D).
It is their perogative to do so, mostly likely due to her contract terms. She may have a morals clause and this may violate it.
Simpler explanation - She is highly overpaid by talk radio standards, and her show budget is nearly a million dollars, which is ridiculous for the product they turn out nightly. This on a network that is starved for cash. Not to mention her tantrums and hissy fits, her refusal to schmooze with advertisers, her demanding that the network carry her on WLIB last year (before they went Gospel and Randi/AAR moved to WWRL), demanding a car and driver, etc.
Maybe they are looking for reasons to fire her. These comments are nothing compared to her jabs at Republicans.
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
At the level where it hurts their bottom line, in this case by alienating Hillary supporters. MSNBC is crossing this line as well, with the new "Edward R Murrow" and his insane rantings.
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
I have Sirius radio, so listen to their talk channels as well as some syndicated and national radio. The contrast between left and right is a bright one. I put on Sirius Left for a while yesterday and heard more profanity there than I sometimes hear on Howard Stern. I suppose left-wing radio fans find me to be a prude or snooty, but really, I don't mind it on entertainment programming at all. I just think that, if you can't discuss politics without dropping the F Bomb, you maybe aren't smart enough to be talking politics.
To more directly answer, I'm not too *sensitive* and the discourse isn't too *course* as a whole. There is just a place and time for everything, and the more libertine "progressive" side of things has been dealing at this level for a while. I would rather have their hatred out in the sunshine where everyone can see it.
On edit - forget what I said about the morals clause, as their Executive VP just got caught up in a prostitution ring. However, Tom Athans, in a way, illustrates the problems of the network. Unlike a certain NY governor, the air america exec got a Lewinsky for only $150. To be fair, the lady lookskinda hot , but that won't please Tom's wife, Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow (D).
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Apr 4 2008, 12:04 AM)
1.)Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
Probably since she said it about fellow liberals. I wonder if she had said the same thing abuot Laura Bush or Condi Rice what would happened.... Raise maybe?
Aquilla
Probably since she said it about fellow liberals. I wonder if she had said the same thing abuot Laura Bush or Condi Rice what would happened.... Raise maybe?
Aquilla
I watched the clip of her statements, and it suprises me that nothing has been said about her calling VP Cheney an anti-semite bigot. It seems that Air America is showing it's liberal bias here and getting a mite upset when certain icons of the left are called out for their behavior. Not saying I agree with Randi Rhodes about Ferraro and Clinton, but I've heard less appropriate words attached to them.
QUOTE(quick @ Apr 4 2008, 11:48 AM)
QUOTE(BoF @ Apr 4 2008, 11:44 AM)
[She] should she be further suspended for paying tribute to him?
Unless she can pick up a Kramer gitfiddle and play the lead break in "Crazy Train" note-for-note, I think we have to consider this option....
Hell, I doubt she can hum it. Is it too early to be calling for the death penalty for this blasphemer?
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 4 2008, 12:57 PM)
QUOTE(quick @ Apr 4 2008, 11:48 AM)
QUOTE(BoF @ Apr 4 2008, 11:44 AM)
[She] should she be further suspended for paying tribute to him?
Unless she can pick up a Kramer gitfiddle and play the lead break in "Crazy Train" note-for-note, I think we have to consider this option....
Hell, I doubt she can hum it. Is it too early to be calling for the death penalty for this blasphemer?
Well, this COULD be a bit harsh, but....
I don't listen to Air America or any talk radio. I listened to AA for a while but it became patently clear to me that talk radio shows are geared towards confirming whatever mainstream liberal/conservative beliefs you hold dear. They are prepackaged conversations aimed at the pleasure centers of partisans looking for their daily dose of moral affirmation.
Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended?
Yep.
At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
When they have to resort to derogatory descriptors. Hmm. I wonder if the public would make an exception for a prostitute.
Are we too sensitive or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too coarse? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
Why not both; too sensitive and too coarse?
I think it'd work for Limbaugh.
Third world feminists say there isn't a sisterhood. I'm inclined to agree.
Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended?
Yep.
At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
When they have to resort to derogatory descriptors. Hmm. I wonder if the public would make an exception for a prostitute.
Are we too sensitive or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too coarse? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
Why not both; too sensitive and too coarse?
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Apr 4 2008, 01:04 AM)
I wonder if she had said the same thing about Laura Bush or Condi Rice what would happened. Raise maybe?
I think it'd work for Limbaugh.
QUOTE(doomed_planet @ Apr 4 2008, 09:30 AM)
But I must take issue with women in America. Why are we so evil to each other? It happens on all levels. Women criticizing and condemning other women. Maybe we should be a little more supportive of our female "sisters" out there and stop treating each other like the enemy.
Third world feminists say there isn't a sisterhood. I'm inclined to agree.
I get a kick out of talk radio being popular at all- to me, it just shows how dumb people are- can't be too big in the brains department to listen to any political talk radio IMHO- and even shock jock stuff should have run it's course by now.
The radio owner is a biz- and free to hire and fire those that don't follow the rules- too bad for her I guess.
Never had listened- anymore than I would listen to Rush.
I do think we should be able to tattoo a symbol on those that listen to talk radio all the time that means "rides the short bus, by choice"
at least that way we know who they are.
I am also a bit tired of hearing how the statements are not inaccurate- just inappropriate.
If accurate- then they are appropriate. Deal with the langauge- if Ozzy and family can do alright with the cursing, so should we. 
The radio owner is a biz- and free to hire and fire those that don't follow the rules- too bad for her I guess.
Never had listened- anymore than I would listen to Rush.
I do think we should be able to tattoo a symbol on those that listen to talk radio all the time that means "rides the short bus, by choice"
at least that way we know who they are.
I am also a bit tired of hearing how the statements are not inaccurate- just inappropriate.
If accurate- then they are appropriate. Deal with the langauge- if Ozzy and family can do alright with the cursing, so should we.
Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
That's really the decision of her employers, but I think they made the right decision in suspending her. I can't tell, though, whether it's a temporary suspension or not. Were I in charge, I'd only suspend her - without pay - for a few weeks. She was not, after all, speaking on behalf of Air America or at an official Air America event. I've always found Rhodes irritating and abrasive, but Air America presumably knew what they were getting when they hired her. They should have seen something like this coming.
At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
As others have suggested, when it affects the bottom line or breaches community standards of decency. To me, a public broadcaster referring to a presidential candidate, any presidential, candidate as a "big f-ing whore" crosses the line. I actually think it would have been different if similar language had been used in a more specific context - like saying Sen. Clinton is "a publicity whore" or words to that effect. But to just throw out a derogatory (and sexist) term simply as an exercise in name-calling (demonstrating at the same time an absolute lack of imagination and an extremely limited vocabulary) - especially with a modifier that would get an automatic bleep on network television - goes a bit too far for a "professional" broadcaster.
As for the "bottom line" argument, I suspect it doesn't really figure here. Something tells me that any Clinton supporters who did listen to Air America would have tuned out long ago - it's been clear for some time that, like MSNBC, DailyKos, the New York Times, etc., they've drunk the Obama Kool-Aid.
Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*?
I think our public dialogue has become way too coarse - the key word being "public". I don't care if Randi Rhodes' mouth is as foul as my own when talking to friends or colleagues, but I'd like to think that our public discourse could be a step above the barroom. Not only is it part of catering to the lowest common denominator, which seems to be permeating everything from news broadcasts to the Sunday Times crossword puzzle, it also dilutes the language itself. Someone of Rhodes' experience should be able to come up with a more clever way of name-calling - or even (though I realize this would actually take a bit of thought) criticizing the candidate on the basis of her policies or something. Then again, as the Obama and Clinton platforms are virtually identical, I guess the Obama camp has no artillery whatsoever apart from the cheapest form of personal attack. But does it have to be that cheap? Whatever happened to, say, wit? Why have so many of our pundits descended to the level of the fart joke to score political points?
Now, perhaps I'm being too sensitive, but I really think that this kind of "dialogue" demeans not only Rhodes herself (and her targets), but the entire political process. Rhodes is not just some third-rate stand-up comedian; she's a third-rate commentator with a national and semi-credible platform. Part of the notion behind Air America (originally, anyway), was not only to provide a more progressive voice on talk radio, but also to raise the tone a bit. Maybe, by suspending Rhodes, the Air America management is trying to reestablish that intent.
Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
I don't find either problem "better", but I think the coarsening of our public discourse is a worse problem. I think it reflects not only the poverty of our education in our ever shrinking public vocabulary, but it reflects the coarseness of our relations to each other. I don't think making observations like Sen. Clinton is a "big f-ing whore" or the Rutgers basketball team is made up of "nappy-headed ho's" or "Hillary ain't never been called a nigger" have any place in our public debate. And I'm glad we're "sensitive" enough to still condemn some such language.
Idiocracy may not have been the best film ever made, but it sure as hell was prophetic. In another generation or so, I can see our public vocabulary being reduced to about 500 words, the bulk of them beginning with the letter "F". No wonder we, as a society, have such difficulty grasping complex ideas or understanding subtle thoughts. We are dumbing ourselves down into oblivion.
That's really the decision of her employers, but I think they made the right decision in suspending her. I can't tell, though, whether it's a temporary suspension or not. Were I in charge, I'd only suspend her - without pay - for a few weeks. She was not, after all, speaking on behalf of Air America or at an official Air America event. I've always found Rhodes irritating and abrasive, but Air America presumably knew what they were getting when they hired her. They should have seen something like this coming.
At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
As others have suggested, when it affects the bottom line or breaches community standards of decency. To me, a public broadcaster referring to a presidential candidate, any presidential, candidate as a "big f-ing whore" crosses the line. I actually think it would have been different if similar language had been used in a more specific context - like saying Sen. Clinton is "a publicity whore" or words to that effect. But to just throw out a derogatory (and sexist) term simply as an exercise in name-calling (demonstrating at the same time an absolute lack of imagination and an extremely limited vocabulary) - especially with a modifier that would get an automatic bleep on network television - goes a bit too far for a "professional" broadcaster.
As for the "bottom line" argument, I suspect it doesn't really figure here. Something tells me that any Clinton supporters who did listen to Air America would have tuned out long ago - it's been clear for some time that, like MSNBC, DailyKos, the New York Times, etc., they've drunk the Obama Kool-Aid.
Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*?
I think our public dialogue has become way too coarse - the key word being "public". I don't care if Randi Rhodes' mouth is as foul as my own when talking to friends or colleagues, but I'd like to think that our public discourse could be a step above the barroom. Not only is it part of catering to the lowest common denominator, which seems to be permeating everything from news broadcasts to the Sunday Times crossword puzzle, it also dilutes the language itself. Someone of Rhodes' experience should be able to come up with a more clever way of name-calling - or even (though I realize this would actually take a bit of thought) criticizing the candidate on the basis of her policies or something. Then again, as the Obama and Clinton platforms are virtually identical, I guess the Obama camp has no artillery whatsoever apart from the cheapest form of personal attack. But does it have to be that cheap? Whatever happened to, say, wit? Why have so many of our pundits descended to the level of the fart joke to score political points?
Now, perhaps I'm being too sensitive, but I really think that this kind of "dialogue" demeans not only Rhodes herself (and her targets), but the entire political process. Rhodes is not just some third-rate stand-up comedian; she's a third-rate commentator with a national and semi-credible platform. Part of the notion behind Air America (originally, anyway), was not only to provide a more progressive voice on talk radio, but also to raise the tone a bit. Maybe, by suspending Rhodes, the Air America management is trying to reestablish that intent.
Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
I don't find either problem "better", but I think the coarsening of our public discourse is a worse problem. I think it reflects not only the poverty of our education in our ever shrinking public vocabulary, but it reflects the coarseness of our relations to each other. I don't think making observations like Sen. Clinton is a "big f-ing whore" or the Rutgers basketball team is made up of "nappy-headed ho's" or "Hillary ain't never been called a nigger" have any place in our public debate. And I'm glad we're "sensitive" enough to still condemn some such language.
Idiocracy may not have been the best film ever made, but it sure as hell was prophetic. In another generation or so, I can see our public vocabulary being reduced to about 500 words, the bulk of them beginning with the letter "F". No wonder we, as a society, have such difficulty grasping complex ideas or understanding subtle thoughts. We are dumbing ourselves down into oblivion.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Apr 4 2008, 03:34 PM)
Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
That's really the decision of her employers, but I think they made the right decision in suspending her. I can't tell, though, whether it's a temporary suspension or not. Were I in charge, I'd only suspend her - without pay - for a few weeks. She was not, after all, speaking on behalf of Air America or at an official Air America event. I've always found Rhodes irritating and abrasive, but Air America presumably knew what they were getting when they hired her. They should have seen something like this coming.
At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
As others have suggested, when it affects the bottom line or breaches community standards of decency. To me, a public broadcaster referring to a presidential candidate, any presidential, candidate as a "big f-ing whore" crosses the line. I actually think it would have been different if similar language had been used in a more specific context - like saying Sen. Clinton is "a publicity whore" or words to that effect. But to just throw out a derogatory (and sexist) term simply as an exercise in name-calling (demonstrating at the same time an absolute lack of imagination and an extremely limited vocabulary) - especially with a modifier that would get an automatic bleep on network television - goes a bit too far for a "professional" broadcaster.
As for the "bottom line" argument, I suspect it doesn't really figure here. Something tells me that any Clinton supporters who did listen to Air America would have tuned out long ago - it's been clear for some time that, like MSNBC, DailyKos, the New York Times, etc., they've drunk the Obama Kool-Aid.
Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*?
I think our public dialogue has become way too coarse - the key word being "public". I don't care if Randi Rhodes' mouth is as foul as my own when talking to friends or colleagues, but I'd like to think that our public discourse could be a step above the barroom. Not only is it part of catering to the lowest common denominator, which seems to be permeating everything from news broadcasts to the Sunday Times crossword puzzle, it also dilutes the language itself. Someone of Rhodes' experience should be able to come up with a more clever way of name-calling - or even (though I realize this would actually take a bit of thought) criticizing the candidate on the basis of her policies or something. Then again, as the Obama and Clinton platforms are virtually identical, I guess the Obama camp has no artillery whatsoever apart from the cheapest form of personal attack. But does it have to be that cheap? Whatever happened to, say, wit? Why have so many of our pundits descended to the level of the fart joke to score political points?
Now, perhaps I'm being too sensitive, but I really think that this kind of "dialogue" demeans not only Rhodes herself (and her targets), but the entire political process. Rhodes is not just some third-rate stand-up comedian; she's a third-rate commentator with a national and semi-credible platform. Part of the notion behind Air America (originally, anyway), was not only to provide a more progressive voice on talk radio, but also to raise the tone a bit. Maybe, by suspending Rhodes, the Air America management is trying to reestablish that intent.
Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
I don't find either problem "better", but I think the coarsening of our public discourse is a worse problem. I think it reflects not only the poverty of our education in our ever shrinking public vocabulary, but it reflects the coarseness of our relations to each other. I don't think making observations like Sen. Clinton is a "big f-ing whore" or the Rutgers basketball team is made up of "nappy-headed ho's" or "Hillary ain't never been called a nigger" have any place in our public debate. And I'm glad we're "sensitive" enough to still condemn some such language.
Idiocracy may not have been the best film ever made, but it sure as hell was prophetic. In another generation or so, I can see our public vocabulary being reduced to about 500 words, the bulk of them beginning with the letter "F". No wonder we, as a society, have such difficulty grasping complex ideas or understanding subtle thoughts. We are dumbing ourselves down into oblivion.
That's really the decision of her employers, but I think they made the right decision in suspending her. I can't tell, though, whether it's a temporary suspension or not. Were I in charge, I'd only suspend her - without pay - for a few weeks. She was not, after all, speaking on behalf of Air America or at an official Air America event. I've always found Rhodes irritating and abrasive, but Air America presumably knew what they were getting when they hired her. They should have seen something like this coming.
At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
As others have suggested, when it affects the bottom line or breaches community standards of decency. To me, a public broadcaster referring to a presidential candidate, any presidential, candidate as a "big f-ing whore" crosses the line. I actually think it would have been different if similar language had been used in a more specific context - like saying Sen. Clinton is "a publicity whore" or words to that effect. But to just throw out a derogatory (and sexist) term simply as an exercise in name-calling (demonstrating at the same time an absolute lack of imagination and an extremely limited vocabulary) - especially with a modifier that would get an automatic bleep on network television - goes a bit too far for a "professional" broadcaster.
As for the "bottom line" argument, I suspect it doesn't really figure here. Something tells me that any Clinton supporters who did listen to Air America would have tuned out long ago - it's been clear for some time that, like MSNBC, DailyKos, the New York Times, etc., they've drunk the Obama Kool-Aid.
Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*?
I think our public dialogue has become way too coarse - the key word being "public". I don't care if Randi Rhodes' mouth is as foul as my own when talking to friends or colleagues, but I'd like to think that our public discourse could be a step above the barroom. Not only is it part of catering to the lowest common denominator, which seems to be permeating everything from news broadcasts to the Sunday Times crossword puzzle, it also dilutes the language itself. Someone of Rhodes' experience should be able to come up with a more clever way of name-calling - or even (though I realize this would actually take a bit of thought) criticizing the candidate on the basis of her policies or something. Then again, as the Obama and Clinton platforms are virtually identical, I guess the Obama camp has no artillery whatsoever apart from the cheapest form of personal attack. But does it have to be that cheap? Whatever happened to, say, wit? Why have so many of our pundits descended to the level of the fart joke to score political points?
Now, perhaps I'm being too sensitive, but I really think that this kind of "dialogue" demeans not only Rhodes herself (and her targets), but the entire political process. Rhodes is not just some third-rate stand-up comedian; she's a third-rate commentator with a national and semi-credible platform. Part of the notion behind Air America (originally, anyway), was not only to provide a more progressive voice on talk radio, but also to raise the tone a bit. Maybe, by suspending Rhodes, the Air America management is trying to reestablish that intent.
Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
I don't find either problem "better", but I think the coarsening of our public discourse is a worse problem. I think it reflects not only the poverty of our education in our ever shrinking public vocabulary, but it reflects the coarseness of our relations to each other. I don't think making observations like Sen. Clinton is a "big f-ing whore" or the Rutgers basketball team is made up of "nappy-headed ho's" or "Hillary ain't never been called a nigger" have any place in our public debate. And I'm glad we're "sensitive" enough to still condemn some such language.
Idiocracy may not have been the best film ever made, but it sure as hell was prophetic. In another generation or so, I can see our public vocabulary being reduced to about 500 words, the bulk of them beginning with the letter "F". No wonder we, as a society, have such difficulty grasping complex ideas or understanding subtle thoughts. We are dumbing ourselves down into oblivion.
I totally agree with all of the above particularly when referring to the poverty of our education! Those who are popular political commentators on radio and television do the thinking for a very large mass of our population here in the USA. The fact that Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity etc. have people hanging on their every word says a lot about the condition in which we find ourselves! Not because they are Republicans, but because many of us don't know what to think or how to think until our "spokesperson" has gone public with his/her opinion. As far as Randi Rhodes is concerned and her unfortunate comments, she is just another indication of how far we have sunk in today's world.
QUOTE
The line that is hard for me to find here is whether Randi was at an Air America sponsored event or whether she was speaking on behalf of Air America. To me, that distinction is important. Randi has her first amendment rights like the rest of us. But Air America is well within their rights (and some may argue responsibility) to discipline her for calling Clinton and Ferraro the names she did. To fail to do so in this context would be fairly hypocritical.
You got me really curious about this, so I did some digging. According to this blog, she was doing a stand up routine in San Francisco for an Air America affiliate, not Air America itself. However, I have also discovered a blog that insists Air America invited her to speak on behalf of the affiliate. Yet another blog points out that the comments were not made on the airwaves, let alone AA's airwaves.
Still thinking this one through....
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Apr 4 2008, 03:38 PM)
I get a kick out of talk radio being popular at all- to me, it just shows how dumb people are- can't be too big in the brains department to listen to any political talk radio IMHO- and even shock jock stuff should have run it's course by now.
...
I do think we should be able to tattoo a symbol on those that listen to talk radio all the time that means "rides the short bus, by choice"
...
I do think we should be able to tattoo a symbol on those that listen to talk radio all the time that means "rides the short bus, by choice"
Wow, CruisingRam, this really surprises me. You are generalizing about 50 million Americans because of your own, limited, short-bus experience. Fantastic. Add in the 'shock jock' stuff and another 50 million Americans are too dumb to converse with you. It sure must be tough, being the only smart person around.
PS - I'm violently agreeing with Wertz, as usual.
QUOTE(ottimista @ Apr 4 2008, 09:54 PM)
I totally agree with all of the above particularly when referring to the poverty of our education! Those who are popular political commentators on radio and television do the thinking for a very large mass of our population here in the USA. The fact that Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity etc. have people hanging on their every word says a lot about the condition in which we find ourselves! Not because they are Republicans, but because many of us don't know what to think or how to think until our "spokesperson" has gone public with his/her opinion. As far as Randi Rhodes is concerned and her unfortunate comments, she is just another indication of how far we have sunk in today's world.
Yeah, I think this is a symptom of our education system to a large degree. Teaching to the test is hardly a new phenomenon, but during the course of my lifetime I've seen an ever steepening decline. A large part of public education used to involve critical thought. So much now is geared toward rote memorization and the meeting of minimum standards. Even reading comprehension is rudimentary, at best. I don't know if the Randis and Rushes are the product of this system or if it's simply easier for them to pander to audiences that are virtually incapable of critical thought. As commentators rather than reporters, they should be either challenging or attempting to persuade their audience. Instead, they shriek to the choir and provide them the lowest fodder as talking points to be parroted with as little thought as went into them in the first place. Anyone can call Sen. Clinton a whore. No one can explain why her health care proposals are worse then Sen. Obama's - at least, no one with access to a microphone.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Apr 4 2008, 11:57 PM)
According to this blog, she was doing a stand up routine in San Francisco for an Air America affiliate, not Air America itself. However, I have also discovered a blog that insists Air America invited her to speak on behalf of the affiliate. Yet another blog points out that the comments were not made on the airwaves, let alone AA's airwaves.
Yes, there seem to be a variety of stories floating about. According to the NYTimes, the event was sponsored by KKGN, the Air America affiliate in San Francisco, though they don't say whether Air America itself was involved (I hadn't seen the "Air America invited her to speak" bit anywhere before this). Regardless, though, her show has pretty much become their flagship since Al Franken left and she is clearly identified with the network. So I feel it is their prerogative to take disciplinary action if they feel her comments would reflect badly on the brand (or if their failure to take disciplinary action would reflect badly, assuming it would be read as tacit approval). The comments were not made on air, though I read somewhere else that the show was being taped for broadcast (presumably by KKGN - again, not necessarily through Air America itself). The Times also mentions that her suspension is "indefinite". Details, presumably, to follow...
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Apr 5 2008, 12:52 AM)
PS - I'm violently agreeing with Wertz, as usual.
Not too violently, I trust.
And has it become that usual? I need to pay more attention. 
QUOTE(Wertz @ Apr 4 2008, 06:34 PM)
Something tells me that any Clinton supporters who did listen to Air America would have tuned out long ago - it's been clear for some time that, like MSNBC, DailyKos, the New York Times, etc., they've drunk the Obama Kool-Aid.
As opposed to CNN, Clinton contributor Rupert Murdoch's FOX News, MSNBC's Craig Crawford, Air America's Bill Press and the Washington Post being totally in the bag for Hillary?
QUOTE(wertz)
Then again, as the Obama and Clinton platforms are virtually identical, I guess the Obama camp has no artillery whatsoever apart from the cheapest form of personal attack. But does it have to be that cheap?
It's an extremely cheap shot on your part Wertz to attempt to make a connection between the ravings of an idiot shock jock with the Obama campaign where you know none exists. Not until the 23rd post in this thread had anyone suggested there was any linkage between Rhodes and the Obama campaign.
Why? BECAUSE. THERE. IS. NONE.
You decry the coarseness of the Democratic campaign on one hand, but on the other you engage in an act of mendacity and duplicity that totally undermines the sincerity of your argument. You can't reproach the lack of wit by others while engaging in deliberate acts of deceitfulness yourself.
Randi Rhodes is not a spokesperson for Barack Obama. But you know that already. She is a employee of Mark Green's Air America network and since Green is a Clinton supporter, if I were Rhodes I'd be extremely nervous about my future employment prospects.
As far a cheap personal attacks go, you've made it quite clear that you have little regard for Obama and none at all for his supporters, but in trying to associate
Rhodes with his campaign, you've shredded your objectivity in your zeal to fling mud at Obama.
QUOTE(wertz)
Now, perhaps I'm being too sensitive, b No wonder we, as a society, have such difficulty grasping complex ideas or understanding subtle thoughts. We are dumbing ourselves down into oblivion.
Your hand-wringing gesture of concern for the inability of society to grasp complex ideas and understand subtle thoughts might not ring so hollow if you were not trying to slip into your discourse a surreptitious and fraudulent ambush on the Obama campaign with Rhodes serving as the pretext.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Apr 5 2008, 02:47 AM)
As opposed to CNN, Clinton contributor Rupert Murdoch's FOX News, MSNBC's Craig Crawford, Air America's Bill Press and the Washington Post being totally in the bag for Hillary?
Gee, how could you resist leaving out the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review?
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Apr 5 2008, 02:47 AM)
Your hand-wringing gesture of concern for the inability of society to grasp complex ideas and understand subtle thoughts might not ring so hollow if you were not trying to slip into your discourse a surreptitious and fraudulent ambush on the Obama campaign with Rhodes serving as the pretext.
To be unsubtle for a moment, I referred to the "Obama camp", not the "Obama campaign". If Randi Rhodes is in the Clinton camp, she has a strange way of demonstrating it. I've been using "camp" pretty consistently for months in distinguishing unofficial advocates from members of the actual campaign itself. I would similarly describe Craig Crawford as being in the Clinton camp. I hate to disappoint you, but I seriously intended no "connection" between Randi Rhodes and Obama For America™. For the sake of the Obama-sensitive, I'll try to make less subtle distinctions in the future.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Apr 5 2008, 03:14 AM)
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Apr 5 2008, 02:47 AM)
As opposed to CNN, Clinton contributor Rupert Murdoch's FOX News, MSNBC's Craig Crawford, Air America's Bill Press and the Washington Post being totally in the bag for Hillary?
Gee, how could you resist leaving out the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review?
I was trying to limit it to legitimate journalistic organizations and while I don't consider FOX News to be one I know many others here do.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Apr 5 2008, 02:47 AM)
Your hand-wringing gesture of concern for the inability of society to grasp complex ideas and understand subtle thoughts might not ring so hollow if you were not trying to slip into your discourse a surreptitious and fraudulent ambush on the Obama campaign with Rhodes serving as the pretext.
QUOTE(wertz)
To be unsubtle for a moment, I referred to the "Obama camp", not the "Obama campaign". If Randi Rhodes is in the Clinton camp, she has a strange way of demonstrating it. I've been using "camp" pretty consistently for months in distinguishing unofficial advocates from members of the actual campaign itself. I would similarly describe Craig Crawford as being in the Clinton camp. I hate to disappoint you, but I seriously intended no "connection" between Randi Rhodes and Obama For America™. For the sake of the Obama-sensitive, I'll try to make less subtle distinctions in the future.
The difference between "The Obama Camp" and "The Obama Campaign" isn't distinct enough not to believe you were suggesting there is a tie that binds the infantile rants of Randi Rhodes to the candidate she obviously supports.
I've sort of given up being disappointed by you Wertz for the duration when it comes to all things Barack Obama related. I've decided to park any disappointment with Clinton supporters until the Democrats finally have their nominee. If it's not Clinton, should you decide to vote for John McCain over Obama or not vote at all, that is when I'll be disappointed.
As regards the issue of what Rhodes actually said, She was completely out of line. About Hillary, that is. Geraldine Ferraro? Not so much.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 4 2008, 07:30 AM)
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Apr 3 2008, 06:09 PM)
1.)Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
1.) Yes. She's boring. She's certainly not funny. She's never been mugged.
2.) At the level they're uncomfortable.
3.) Everyone needs to toughen up a bit. Get back a little towards the day when a show like All In The family could be aired without someone throwing their forearm up to their forehead and screeching "Won't someone think of the children."
Of course one could say that about the profanity filter here.
To answer question number one, you say that "yes," she should've been suspended. In question three, you said we need to toughen up a bit.
So which is it? I would think that if a person responded that we should toughen up or that we are too *sensitive,* that Rhodes should not have been suspended and that Hillary supporters should have their turn to fillet her on the air. If Air America let that happen, they could've even got higher ratings out of it potentially.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Apr 4 2008, 08:52 PM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Apr 4 2008, 03:38 PM)
I get a kick out of talk radio being popular at all- to me, it just shows how dumb people are- can't be too big in the brains department to listen to any political talk radio IMHO- and even shock jock stuff should have run it's course by now.
...
I do think we should be able to tattoo a symbol on those that listen to talk radio all the time that means "rides the short bus, by choice"
...
I do think we should be able to tattoo a symbol on those that listen to talk radio all the time that means "rides the short bus, by choice"
Wow, CruisingRam, this really surprises me. You are generalizing about 50 million Americans because of your own, limited, short-bus experience. Fantastic. Add in the 'shock jock' stuff and another 50 million Americans are too dumb to converse with you. It sure must be tough, being the only smart person around.
PS - I'm violently agreeing with Wertz, as usual.
You know- so what if it is a generalization? If it fits- wear it my man- there are also about 50 million people or so that care what britney is doing or watch American idol- I will generalize them as short bus candidates- stupid by choice rather than birth.
I have to laugh when a generalization fits so well, but some get thier noses bent out of shape over it.
Anyone that voted for Bush TWICE is a flippin' moron. No other way to defend it, no other way to put it- you are stupid by choice, period.
Yep, if someone tries to converse with me over Rush- I turn my back to them, possibly right before calling them a flippin' moron or something like it- unless it is a research project that they are doing or something along those lines- you listen to Rush, Britney or American Idol, ya, you are really feedin' the brain there!
There actually may be an intelligent dialogue of a 30 second span jam packed into a 4 hour show- but you can find that elsewhere, if not too lazy or stupid to go look for it.
Here is another generlization- those that read and believe in Tabloids are stupid by choice as well. I don't care if I am calling 50 million people morons for thier moronic behavior, same as I don't care if Bushbots feel a bit abused when I laugh at thier stupidity and make fun of them and thier decision making skills.
Maybe the REAL issue of "politicaly correct run amok" is our inability to call moronic behavior moronic and stupid.
Some shame SHOULD be heaped upon those that voted for Bush twice, that listen to every news report on Britney, that listen religiously to talk radio.
Perhaps the nation would be a much better place if about 250 million Americans pointed, laughed, made fun of and shamed those that listen to talk radio, or voted for bush TWICE.
It is the same level of stupid as hitting your thumb with a hammer, then hitting again just for good measure.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Apr 5 2008, 11:10 AM)
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 4 2008, 07:30 AM)
1.) Yes. She's boring. She's certainly not funny. She's never been mugged.
To answer question number one, you say that "yes," she should've been suspended. In question three, you said we need to toughen up a bit.
So which is it? I would think that if a person responded that we should toughen up or that we are too *sensitive,* that Rhodes should not have been suspended and that Hillary supporters should have their turn to fillet her on the air. If Air America let that happen, they could've even got higher ratings out of it potentially.*sigh* You're one of those people that require maximum verbosity:
1.) Yes Randi Rhodes should be suspended from her job because she's boring. She's certainly not that funny. She's never been mugged as reported by her own radio station. She should be suspended from her job because she's not entertaining.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 5 2008, 07:47 AM)
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Apr 5 2008, 11:10 AM)
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 4 2008, 07:30 AM)
1.) Yes. She's boring. She's certainly not funny. She's never been mugged.
To answer question number one, you say that "yes," she should've been suspended. In question three, you said we need to toughen up a bit.
So which is it? I would think that if a person responded that we should toughen up or that we are too *sensitive,* that Rhodes should not have been suspended and that Hillary supporters should have their turn to fillet her on the air. If Air America let that happen, they could've even got higher ratings out of it potentially.*sigh* You're one of those people that require maximum verbosity:
1.) Yes Randi Rhodes should be suspended from her job because she's boring. She's certainly not that funny. She's never been mugged as reported by her own radio station. She should be suspended from her job because she's not entertaining.
And, to put a cap on that, and for consistancies sake- NOT only is she boring, unentertaining and drops the F-bomb WHILE BEING unfunny- you have to be a moron to sit around and listen to that crap- or, chronically unemployed.
Not on the chronic though- people on weed are too discriminatin' of tastes to listen to talk radio while puffing a blunt- they will listen to QUALITY entertainment like "Cheech and Chong" or "how high" or "half baked"- all much more cereberal and full of good facts and info.
QUOTE
*sigh* You're one of those people that require maximum verbosity:
1.) Yes Randi Rhodes should be suspended from her job because she's boring. She's certainly not that funny. She's never been mugged as reported by her own radio station. She should be suspended from her job because she's not entertaining.
1.) Yes Randi Rhodes should be suspended from her job because she's boring. She's certainly not that funny. She's never been mugged as reported by her own radio station. She should be suspended from her job because she's not entertaining.
Ahhhhh, I see-you went off the reservation on a beside the point tangent.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Apr 4 2008, 02:38 PM)
I am also a bit tired of hearing how the statements are not inaccurate- just inappropriate.
If accurate- then they are appropriate. Deal with the langauge- if Ozzy and family can do alright with the cursing, so should we.
If accurate- then they are appropriate. Deal with the langauge- if Ozzy and family can do alright with the cursing, so should we.
I am inclined to disagree. Cursing is not appropriate in every venue. And the use of cursing, over more sophisticated and creative language that could make the point more cleverly, while less offensively, is a sure sign of ignorance and/or lack of imagination and facility with the english language.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Apr 4 2008, 03:34 PM)
I think our public dialogue has become way too coarse - the key word being "public". I don't care if Randi Rhodes' mouth is as foul as my own when talking to friends or colleagues, but I'd like to think that our public discourse could be a step above the barroom. Not only is it part of catering to the lowest common denominator, which seems to be permeating everything from news broadcasts to the Sunday Times crossword puzzle, it also dilutes the language itself. Someone of Rhodes' experience should be able to come up with a more clever way of name-calling - or even (though I realize this would actually take a bit of thought) criticizing the candidate on the basis of her policies or something. Then again, as the Obama and Clinton platforms are virtually identical, I guess the Obama camp has no artillery whatsoever apart from the cheapest form of personal attack. But does it have to be that cheap? Whatever happened to, say, wit? Why have so many of our pundits descended to the level of the fart joke to score political points?
Indeed. I would add that it seems that such characters, as Randi Rhodes, rely too heavily on "shocking" the public into listening. If the only way she can generate publicity for herself is by behaving like a pestiferous, prevaricating misanthropist, then she belongs nowhere near a microphone.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Apr 5 2008, 12:06 PM)
QUOTE
*sigh* You're one of those people that require maximum verbosity:
1.) Yes Randi Rhodes should be suspended from her job because she's boring. She's certainly not that funny. She's never been mugged as reported by her own radio station. She should be suspended from her job because she's not entertaining.
1.) Yes Randi Rhodes should be suspended from her job because she's boring. She's certainly not that funny. She's never been mugged as reported by her own radio station. She should be suspended from her job because she's not entertaining.
Ahhhhh, I see-you went off the reservation on a beside the point tangent.
Spend less time adding color tags to your questions and more time forming them to frame your debate. That'll happen less if you do.
How about some constructive debate folks?
TOPICS:
1.)Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
TOPICS:
1.)Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
I guess I am cranky because this subject has been getting beat to death over the last year or so- at first, I thought Don Imus had it coming- he had a clear record of racist language, and all kinds of bad things. So the company finally fired him, which they had a right to do, and probably should have done earlier. At some point, he was going to cost the company money.
I have changed my mind on that- simply because, well, it has gotten out of hand- what is next- porn is too offensive to download or something?
1.)Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
Okay- this gets back to my argument- who listens to this crap? Do we care? A valid argument I think- perhaps if more people shamed those that DO listen to talk radio- for being stupid by choice- Randi Rhoades would not be on the air- and would have to work on her stand up act, perhaps even learning how to be funny- a win-win for all of us. Rush would be another failed sportscaster. Imus would be a drunk in the gutter- a step up for him, perhaps not in status, but certainly in personality.
"Should have been suspended"- well, "should have been on the air" is the real issue- what we have is untalented people using outrage to make money and become famous. Here is a generalization for you - there are no talented conservative comedians or artists. There are some actors that are conservative, but acting is not art- it is deceit with flair- a huge difference.
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
when they lose money- period. A strictly business decision made by a business. Air America- has it been hugely proffitable lately, did I miss something?
Al Franken is funny. he needs to stick with that. Bill Maher is just plain great- funny as all get out. Penn and Teller are funny, accurate, talented and consistant in thier libertarian views. Perhaps talent and ability to entertain might be a good start for Air America? Al Franken just needs to tune up his act, instead of just "being political"- I have found that conservative types that listen to talk radio are easily entertained by recycled Clinton jokes from the 80s- you don't really need much talent on conservative radio.
Liberals, on the other hand- really do like a heavy dose of talent when entertainment is at issue. They want more than made up facts- they want made up facts with some fun or entertainment of some type.
So sucking is what Air America has been doing, from what little I have listened to it ( I turn it off as soon as I find there is little to no entertainment value, with a message I could have much more intelligently found elsewhere)- and it is why they had been? losing money.
You can't suck like Rush or any of those conservative talking heads, and just keep bloviating and expect liberal types to tune in and spend money on your advertisers.
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
Hmmm, I am not sure on this one. The english language is a big furry mutt, that no one really knows where it comes from- a bit of french, a bit of Anglo-Saxon, a bit of german- not to mention the "great vowel shift" a 1000 years ago.
I have studied "bad language" in languages in general. Most languages use animal or religious imagery to get you into a fistfight, linking one of your relatives to either.
American "bad language" is interesting- it has little to do with being heathen, or related to a goat- it is much more scat and sex oriented- much like our 12 year old bully culture we live in today.
I guess when we grow up, as a society- we will start calling them "goats" and "heathens" ?
I have changed my mind on that- simply because, well, it has gotten out of hand- what is next- porn is too offensive to download or something?
1.)Should Randi Rhodes have been suspended? Why or why not?
Okay- this gets back to my argument- who listens to this crap? Do we care? A valid argument I think- perhaps if more people shamed those that DO listen to talk radio- for being stupid by choice- Randi Rhoades would not be on the air- and would have to work on her stand up act, perhaps even learning how to be funny- a win-win for all of us. Rush would be another failed sportscaster. Imus would be a drunk in the gutter- a step up for him, perhaps not in status, but certainly in personality.
"Should have been suspended"- well, "should have been on the air" is the real issue- what we have is untalented people using outrage to make money and become famous. Here is a generalization for you - there are no talented conservative comedians or artists. There are some actors that are conservative, but acting is not art- it is deceit with flair- a huge difference.
2.)At what level of discourse should a station choose to suspend someone or not to suspend someone?
when they lose money- period. A strictly business decision made by a business. Air America- has it been hugely proffitable lately, did I miss something?
Al Franken is funny. he needs to stick with that. Bill Maher is just plain great- funny as all get out. Penn and Teller are funny, accurate, talented and consistant in thier libertarian views. Perhaps talent and ability to entertain might be a good start for Air America? Al Franken just needs to tune up his act, instead of just "being political"- I have found that conservative types that listen to talk radio are easily entertained by recycled Clinton jokes from the 80s- you don't really need much talent on conservative radio.
Liberals, on the other hand- really do like a heavy dose of talent when entertainment is at issue. They want more than made up facts- they want made up facts with some fun or entertainment of some type.
So sucking is what Air America has been doing, from what little I have listened to it ( I turn it off as soon as I find there is little to no entertainment value, with a message I could have much more intelligently found elsewhere)- and it is why they had been? losing money.
You can't suck like Rush or any of those conservative talking heads, and just keep bloviating and expect liberal types to tune in and spend money on your advertisers.
3.)Are we too *sensitive* or are we getting to the point where the public dialogue is too *coarse*? Which is the better problem to have in society as a whole?
Hmmm, I am not sure on this one. The english language is a big furry mutt, that no one really knows where it comes from- a bit of french, a bit of Anglo-Saxon, a bit of german- not to mention the "great vowel shift" a 1000 years ago.
I have studied "bad language" in languages in general. Most languages use animal or religious imagery to get you into a fistfight, linking one of your relatives to either.
American "bad language" is interesting- it has little to do with being heathen, or related to a goat- it is much more scat and sex oriented- much like our 12 year old bully culture we live in today.
I guess when we grow up, as a society- we will start calling them "goats" and "heathens" ?
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 5 2008, 10:47 AM)
1.) Yes Randi Rhodes should be suspended from her job because she's boring. She's certainly not that funny. She's never been mugged as reported by her own radio station. She should be suspended from her job because she's not entertaining.
I don't know BA. I don't listen to Air America. How much have you listened?
I do see Al Franken and Rachel Maddow on other venues. I don't think either of them are boring.
If Randi Rhodes is as you describe her, shouldn't we be talking about termination, not suspension? Does Air America, her employer, see her the same way you do?
QUOTE(BoF @ Apr 5 2008, 09:32 AM)
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 5 2008, 10:47 AM)
1.) Yes Randi Rhodes should be suspended from her job because she's boring. She's certainly not that funny. She's never been mugged as reported by her own radio station. She should be suspended from her job because she's not entertaining.
I don't know BA. I don't listen to Air America. How much have you listened?
I do see Al Franken and Rachel Maddow on other venues. I don't think either of them are boring.
If Randi Rhodes is as you describe her, shouldn't we be talking about termination, not suspension? Does Air America, her employer, see her the same way you do?
A fair point BOF- one I have been making- does she generate a profit? One of the "liberal talking points" against the other side has been thier hypocrisy and getting away wtih "bad" speech directed at minorities etc.
I would say- NOT terminating or suspending her would be, well, viewed as hypocritcal behavior by the majority of the liberal ( I assume libera?
) listener- thereby threatening the (already small, IIRC) revenue stream? If Air America pushes for, oh, Don Imus or Rush's resignation- do they have crediibility with thier fan base anymore if they don't act on the same bad behavior?
I would say- considering this argument- she should be terminated, with predjudice.
The one thing that concerns me, greatly even, is if this WAS a "private" comedy show ( in other words, a small comedy show, where there was no expectation of general consumption) then, well, I don't like it one bit.
Unlike Michael Richards, who "went racial"- Randi Rhoades "went blue"- which is what happens at a small club show, most often.
I have this bit, where I ask the ( almost alway drinking establishment) audience "you wanna hear a dirty joke or clean joke"- well, guess what, the audience always picks "dirty"-
BTW- Jay Leno curses plenty when in a small comedy house, just like any other comic working that venue- trying out new material.
The one twist is I would be sympathetic to her "pass" being given if this was indeed that kind of venue- you are working on new material, pushing the edge, not for mass media consumption, just a small, friendly audience-
that would bother me, as this does kind of get into a quasi-censorship, by the left wing no less- and it will most certainly bite them in the butt- just as it has done with the original Imus flap
when you get subscriber radio such as XM, being afraid of "shock jock" radio, that people pay to hear- that is a problem IMHO- even if I do think those that listen to Opus and Andy or whatever as morons as well ( oh gosh, I offended those morons too?
) - the lack of subscription should be the issue. I have some VERY "politically uncorrect" vids of me and my act- and, if I became a talk radio personality (oh kill me now
) - I would most likely lose my job if they were to be aired, as being "mean"- ya, I tend to be mean to stupid-people-by-choice. As Carlos Mencia would say "you are a retard DEe de Dee"
This ALL goes back to Lenny Bruce in the end, BTW- he was arrested many times for "obscene" language- and he, and George Carlin and Richard Pryor after him, used to communicate new concepts in comedy ( this signaled the end of the "Henny Youngman" style Catskills humor) - but also in political, linguistic and public awareness of issues as well- and who was able to publically discuss such things.
They used bad language, coarse language, that completely changed the entire nation- for reals! Though, Richard Pryor DID express great regret for the use of the word "Nigger"- it totally backfired on him, and he acknowledged this to many folks-
course langauge, well, it is a double edged sword I suppose?
Bof- have you ever watched "the Iceman confessions"- one thing I noticed- he had very clean, very appropriate speech- I don't think he used course language, even once. Near to classy as somebody with a 6th grade education from New Jersey can expect to have.
He may have killed alot of people- but he didn't curse.
Kinda get where I am going with this?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Apr 5 2008, 10:21 AM)
Bill Maher is just plain great- funny as all get out.
Having met Bill Maher in person at a PR shoot for which he was being paid, it doesn't surprise me in the least that you find him "just plain great". He is an offensive boor, rude, crude and completely ignorant. When questioned on one of his political stances he erupts in a tirade not unlike some of the trollish posts made here. Living and working in LA for the past 30 years, I have met a lot of oafish people, and Bill Maher is definitely in the top 10. He's even ahead of Mel Gibson.
Aquilla
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Apr 5 2008, 03:27 AM)
The difference between "The Obama Camp" and "The Obama Campaign" isn't distinct enough not to believe you were suggesting there is a tie that binds the infantile rants of Randi Rhodes to the candidate she obviously supports.
Nope - and my apologies for any misapprehension. As I said, I'll try to be eminently clear in the future. I'd thought that the context of discussing Rhodes' use of name-calling in the previous sentence and the level of discourse of "our pundits" in the following sentence would have indicated what was meant by "camp".
It is true, though, that there have been members of both campaigns, however low-level, that have resorted to making inflammatory statements that are little more than name-calling - Samantha Power, for example. In this thread, though, I thought we were only discussing commentators in general and Randi Rhodes in particular. Again, it was not my intention to expand the debate to the official campaigns. The name-calling has primarily been within the punditocracy and blogosphere - and it's good to see a bit of self-policing going on.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Apr 5 2008, 03:27 AM)
If it's not Clinton, should you decide to vote for John McCain over Obama or not vote at all, that is when I'll be disappointed.
No worries, then. I'll definitely be voting. I'm not yet sure who I'll be voting for, but it won't be John McCain. My political compass may be off (or not), but I haven't taken total leave of my senses. I've already stated that if it looks like a close race, I'll be voting for the most viable alternative to McCain, most likely Obama or Clinton. If it looks like a landslide one way or another, I may actually vote my conscience this time.
It's possibly also worth mentioning that a lot of my apparent antipathy to Citizen Obama is actually misdirected venting at the Obama camp (by which I mean supporters and media advocates in no way associated with the official campaign and whose comments should not to be construed as reflecting the views of Sen. Obama himself, Obama For America™, or any representatives thereof). I do, however, stand by any of my direct criticisms of the candidate. And that has nothing to do with Randi Rhodes.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
And, CruisingRam, I don't think the issue here is obscenity of itself. I think it has more to do with obscenity used to describe a presidential candidate by a person closely associated with Air America at an event sponsored by one of their affiliates. Were Rhodes simply reprising Carlin's "Seven Words" routine in a hole-in-the-corner comedy club, I don't think Air America would have any grounds at all for disciplinary action.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Apr 5 2008, 10:21 AM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Apr 5 2008, 10:21 AM)
Bill Maher is just plain great- funny as all get out.
Having met Bill Maher in person at a PR shoot for which he was being paid, it doesn't surprise me in the least that you find him "just plain great". He is an offensive boor, rude, crude and completely ignorant. When questioned on one of his political stances he erupts in a tirade not unlike some of the trollish posts made here. Living and working in LA for the past 30 years, I have met a lot of oafish people, and Bill Maher is definitely in the top 10. He's even ahead of Mel Gibson.
Aquilla
Well, no one has ever accused a conservative of having a sense of humour- so that makes sense to me
That being said- having met a few "celebrity" folks myself- what you see on TV isn't always what you meet in person- some folks who's acts I found "boorish" or whatever, sometimes they were the same in private, sometimes very different. Bobcat Goldthwait comes to mind- man, is his stage persona ever different than "real life". One of the nicest, calmest guys I have ever been around when they were at thier "Zenith".
Rodney Dangerfield DID get respect, and was a helluva nice guy to boot, a real classy guy- very much unlike his stage persona- except for the partying and stuff, that was all true.
I have met some not so nice folks -not too many in comedy- actors and musicians seem to fill the bill in this area- it is rare that a good comic and a big ego go hand in hand- unless it is something they make fun of in the act itself- I have never met Mel Gibson, or Bill Maher, and haven't got to watch his HBO stuff, except pieces here and there on youtube- as I don't have TV at all anymore- but his "politically incorrect" show, was very funny, for a very long time. Well written, and even if I frequently didn't agree, it was well done.
Haven't seen the tirade- but, I am sure, if it didn't agree with you, it was "trollish" or "boorish"- kinda like how "liberal" means "everybody against bush" nowadays.
I tend to rate the act, well, on the act- not neccesarily the political message attempting to be spewed out- for instance, I have seen small portions of Randi Rhoades act, and I may agree with a part or two- but frankly- her act sucks.
Whether or not she is a bad person in private, well, I don't care and I don't know- but I do know her act sucks. Just like Michael Richards act sucked.
Bill Maher is a good comedian, when he has done straight stand up routines. Jay Mohr was not a nice guy when I met him- not bad to me, but he was pretty lame in person, but very funny on stage as well.
Brad Garret is the most funny person I have ever met- on stage or off. He is exactly the same on stage is he is off stage. It never stops with that guy.
Perhaps I have not seen Bill Maher's "new" full act- maybe, in fact, he is boorish and rude and all that- just like Bill O'rielly, Rush limbaugh and Ann Coltier- and if his act has deginerated to the level of those hacks- then I agree with you.
Most likely though- it is simply because you don't agree with him, so it puts you off.
Like I said, very few conservatives out there with a decent sense of humour, at least one that is "marketable"- Unless you count racist jokes and recycled clinton jokes as "funny".
So on CRs off topic but slightly more interesting than this thread's topic, uh, topic:
I was in the they have no talent camp. However, to be fair I actually listened.
Here's the thing. Most really have no talent. Rush and Sean are actually quite good at their craft. They really are. I mean look, they're not Howard Stern or anything... but for what it is they do they are very talented. Well, let me hedge that by saying COMPARATIVE to the rest of their "class" they're talented.
So when they launched Air America I was moderately interested after being completely uninterested in what Rush, Sean et al were doing. Air America is a total car wreck. The only reason to listen is to hear what's going to go wrong or fall flat. Jennean Garafolo (or what ever he name is) was a moderately amusing stand up and I thought: She might might be OK. Al Franken was my least favorite person on SNL but then I realized how much of that show he wrote and I had a different view of him. However, THEY SUCK on the radio. They SUCK bad. They are UNLISTENABLE. Not for their viewpoints but because they are simply not suited for radio. They don't understand it. They don't deliver it properly.
If all anyone wanted to hear from shock jocks was dick jokes there'd be a million Howard Sterns and there aren't. There's one (well there was one - now he's somewhat less interesting - fortunately his new sidekick has a heroin addiction to keep things lively.) Being on the radio is a very specific, very disciplined talent. Randi Rhodes does not possess that talent - I assume she's cheap on payroll, thus keeping her job.
I was in the they have no talent camp. However, to be fair I actually listened.
Here's the thing. Most really have no talent. Rush and Sean are actually quite good at their craft. They really are. I mean look, they're not Howard Stern or anything... but for what it is they do they are very talented. Well, let me hedge that by saying COMPARATIVE to the rest of their "class" they're talented.
So when they launched Air America I was moderately interested after being completely uninterested in what Rush, Sean et al were doing. Air America is a total car wreck. The only reason to listen is to hear what's going to go wrong or fall flat. Jennean Garafolo (or what ever he name is) was a moderately amusing stand up and I thought: She might might be OK. Al Franken was my least favorite person on SNL but then I realized how much of that show he wrote and I had a different view of him. However, THEY SUCK on the radio. They SUCK bad. They are UNLISTENABLE. Not for their viewpoints but because they are simply not suited for radio. They don't understand it. They don't deliver it properly.
If all anyone wanted to hear from shock jocks was dick jokes there'd be a million Howard Sterns and there aren't. There's one (well there was one - now he's somewhat less interesting - fortunately his new sidekick has a heroin addiction to keep things lively.) Being on the radio is a very specific, very disciplined talent. Randi Rhodes does not possess that talent - I assume she's cheap on payroll, thus keeping her job.
I have to agree BA- Al Franken is a better writer than "performer"- though, I still disagree that Rush and Sean are "talents"- in the idea that a snake oil salesman had no real talent except for the con. Like I said- to decieve with flair.
Jeanene Garafolo is only good when she is making fun of herself (see, half baked- that was one of her funniest performances, ever) - and that kind of sums up why Randi Rhoades is in hot water, and Air America is tanking- funny is really good when it is pointed at the powerful or at yourself. Pointing it at the powerful is much harder, quite frankly, than pointing it at yourself. When Jeanene Garafalo makes fun of her over-serious goth gen x wanna be politician- it is very, very funny, but when she really tries to carry it over to a Rush type show- it tanks- it just doesn't work.
I guess this thread DOES lend itself to "why Air America Sucks" because this thing with Randi Rhoades highlights itself too well. The reason it is so funny to make fun of conservatives is
1) They take themselves so seriously
2) They actually believe in everything they say, to the point of ridiculous .
3) They are in power, and have been for a long time
So what happens is you get Randi and Jeanene sounding as bad and self important as Rush and Sean- and that doesn't sell well to THIER core audience.
If I were to be asked to "save" Air America (hey- anyone have a hot red poker I could borrow? ) - I would say, make it fall back to sketch comedy- radio style from the 30s and 40s.
Al Franken can write dammit- let him write, and do something funny, some good lampooning- when they try to take right wing radio and make it liberal- it just sucks- because that format is anti-funny. There is not the least bit of humor in ANY right wing talk radio (though, they may do it by accident once in a while, not on purpose those )- and really, not the least bit of entertainment.
Right wing radio comes from the angry white male- or as I call it- the totally myopic humourless and angry about nothing white male. They don't want to be entertained, they want someone to rant and copy what they think in a forum that won't get thier butts kicked by a large black man or something.
All Sean and Bill and Rush do is tap into and regurgitate what those dudes are thinking- no real creativity, no humour, no entertainment. "bout as entertaining as Jon Ashcroft's music.
For "left wing" radio to work- it needs to focus on the success of every other entertainment that is succesful and left-wingish- in other words, sitcom/sketch/make fun of the man in a not so serious way type format.
If you have Randi Rhoades saying Hillary is a "f-ing"wh're"- it is basically the equivilent of Rush saying Reagan is a douchebag- maybe accurate, but not appropriate to that forum, and CERTAINLY not considering your target audience.
Jeanene Garafolo is only good when she is making fun of herself (see, half baked- that was one of her funniest performances, ever) - and that kind of sums up why Randi Rhoades is in hot water, and Air America is tanking- funny is really good when it is pointed at the powerful or at yourself. Pointing it at the powerful is much harder, quite frankly, than pointing it at yourself. When Jeanene Garafalo makes fun of her over-serious goth gen x wanna be politician- it is very, very funny, but when she really tries to carry it over to a Rush type show- it tanks- it just doesn't work.
I guess this thread DOES lend itself to "why Air America Sucks" because this thing with Randi Rhoades highlights itself too well. The reason it is so funny to make fun of conservatives is
1) They take themselves so seriously
2) They actually believe in everything they say, to the point of ridiculous .
3) They are in power, and have been for a long time
So what happens is you get Randi and Jeanene sounding as bad and self important as Rush and Sean- and that doesn't sell well to THIER core audience.
If I were to be asked to "save" Air America (hey- anyone have a hot red poker I could borrow?
) - I would say, make it fall back to sketch comedy- radio style from the 30s and 40s. Al Franken can write dammit- let him write, and do something funny, some good lampooning- when they try to take right wing radio and make it liberal- it just sucks- because that format is anti-funny. There is not the least bit of humor in ANY right wing talk radio (though, they may do it by accident once in a while, not on purpose those
)- and really, not the least bit of entertainment.Right wing radio comes from the angry white male- or as I call it- the totally myopic humourless and angry about nothing white male. They don't want to be entertained, they want someone to rant and copy what they think in a forum that won't get thier butts kicked by a large black man or something.
All Sean and Bill and Rush do is tap into and regurgitate what those dudes are thinking- no real creativity, no humour, no entertainment. "bout as entertaining as Jon Ashcroft's music.
For "left wing" radio to work- it needs to focus on the success of every other entertainment that is succesful and left-wingish- in other words, sitcom/sketch/make fun of the man in a not so serious way type format.
If you have Randi Rhoades saying Hillary is a "f-ing"wh're"- it is basically the equivilent of Rush saying Reagan is a douchebag- maybe accurate, but not appropriate to that forum, and CERTAINLY not considering your target audience.
Part of the problem for Randi Rhodes specifically and Air America in general is they are merely a hollow imitation of what conservative talk radio has done first and better. Of course they sound lamer than right-wing radio hosts. To use a phrase Wertz brought up, they are "dumbing it down" instead of raising the bar.
Air America was on the radio here, disappeared when the station changed to a right-wing format and now it's back again. The best part of the "liberal" programming now is Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz--neither of which is part of Air America. Miller is funny (most of the time) and Schultz actually does interviews with politicians and other movers and shakers. It isn't just three or four hours of "Gee, George Bush sure is dumb" or "Gee, John McCain sure is old." That gets real boring, real quick. I'd rather turn it to some sports talk or NPR if that's all I'm going to get in counter-programming.
There should be an alternative to the Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Bill O' Reilly, Dennis Miller, Glen Beck, Michael Savage, and Rush Limbaugh axis of evil. I just don't know if doing the exact same thing from a left/liberal perspective is any better. It just seems like more of the same babble, but only coming into the left side of my brain than my right.
To Aquilla's point about Bill Maher: It doesn't surprise me a bit that he comes off privately as a stiff rhymes-with-trick. You're not the first person I've heard that from. Before he left the FM airwaves, Howard Stern had a big falling-out with Maher and his big-as-all-outdoors ego. Celebrities are often insecure morons outside of the spotlight. I interviewed George Benson once and he was as phony as a three dollar bill. I've always preferred talking with celebrities who haven't forgotten they're still just human beings.
Air America was on the radio here, disappeared when the station changed to a right-wing format and now it's back again. The best part of the "liberal" programming now is Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz--neither of which is part of Air America. Miller is funny (most of the time) and Schultz actually does interviews with politicians and other movers and shakers. It isn't just three or four hours of "Gee, George Bush sure is dumb" or "Gee, John McCain sure is old." That gets real boring, real quick. I'd rather turn it to some sports talk or NPR if that's all I'm going to get in counter-programming.
There should be an alternative to the Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Bill O' Reilly, Dennis Miller, Glen Beck, Michael Savage, and Rush Limbaugh axis of evil. I just don't know if doing the exact same thing from a left/liberal perspective is any better. It just seems like more of the same babble, but only coming into the left side of my brain than my right.
To Aquilla's point about Bill Maher: It doesn't surprise me a bit that he comes off privately as a stiff rhymes-with-trick. You're not the first person I've heard that from. Before he left the FM airwaves, Howard Stern had a big falling-out with Maher and his big-as-all-outdoors ego. Celebrities are often insecure morons outside of the spotlight. I interviewed George Benson once and he was as phony as a three dollar bill. I've always preferred talking with celebrities who haven't forgotten they're still just human beings.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 5 2008, 03:14 PM)
If all anyone wanted to hear from shock jocks was dick jokes there'd be a million Howard Sterns and there aren't. There's one (well there was one - now he's somewhat less interesting - fortunately his new sidekick has a heroin addiction to keep things lively.) Being on the radio is a very specific, very disciplined talent. Randi Rhodes does not possess that talent - I assume she's cheap on payroll, thus keeping her job.
I agree with you on Howard Stern, but you are dead wrong on Randi Rhodes and payroll (a point I made earlier). I'm telling you, she is so overpaid it's not funny. And the show budget is absolutely ridiculous and larded with perks that usually only big stars get. Other shows too - Al Franken made millions in radio at AAR, where hosts with his audience are only worth and only usually paid earn thousands. A local talk radio station in Chicago with an audience the size of Franken's would only have to pay a couple hundred grand to its host - Franken made nearly $2 million! And his show was awful - it didn't have any of the funny he is capable of.
This network set itself up completely differently from the rest of radio, because the founders knew nothing about radio. They failed miserably, and were smug and self-important about it, and they still claim to have all the right ideas for running our country? It takes some pretty big stones to fail that big and claim that you are smarter than those "stupid republicans" with millions of listeners and paid advertising.
- Radio 101 - learn the craft, build an audience, grow the show, syndicate to other markets. Those markets pay you to run your show and sell local ads to pay for it. The Howard Stern/Rush Limbaugh model.
- Air America - complain that radio is dying to hear liberal ideas, hire overpaid celebrities who can't do radio, give them everything they want, buy airtime on stations to run your product (as one would buy a commercial), and basically sound like public access radio. The Al Franken/Jeanene Garofolo model.
I can't stress that last point enough. Virtually every radio network sells its product to stations, except AAR. They have a product that no one wants, so they buy time and try to sell ads themselves.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Apr 5 2008, 03:59 PM)
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Apr 5 2008, 03:14 PM)
If all anyone wanted to hear from shock jocks was dick jokes there'd be a million Howard Sterns and there aren't. There's one (well there was one - now he's somewhat less interesting - fortunately his new sidekick has a heroin addiction to keep things lively.) Being on the radio is a very specific, very disciplined talent. Randi Rhodes does not possess that talent - I assume she's cheap on payroll, thus keeping her job.
I agree with you on Howard Stern, but you are dead wrong on Randi Rhodes and payroll (a point I made earlier). I'm telling you, she is so overpaid it's not funny. And the show budget is absolutely ridiculous and larded with perks that usually only big stars get. Other shows too - Al Franken made millions in radio at AAR, where hosts with his audience are only worth and only usually paid earn thousands. A local talk radio station in Chicago with an audience the size of Franken's would only have to pay a couple hundred grand to its host - Franken made nearly $2 million! And his show was awful - it didn't have any of the funny he is capable of.
This network set itself up completely differently from the rest of radio, because the founders knew nothing about radio. They failed miserably, and were smug and self-important about it, and they still claim to have all the right ideas for running our country? It takes some pretty big stones to fail that big and claim that you are smarter than those "stupid republicans" with millions of listeners and paid advertising.
- Radio 101 - learn the craft, build an audience, grow the show, syndicate to other markets. Those markets pay you to run your show and sell local ads to pay for it. The Howard Stern/Rush Limbaugh model.
- Air America - complain that radio is dying to hear liberal ideas, hire overpaid celeb