What did folks think of Springer on AAR today?

[DancingBear]

I only caught bits of his show, but from what I heard:

1) He seemed knowledgeable on the issues

2) He was not afraid to take a stand

3) He allowed conservative callers way too much time to make their points (filibustering)

4) He did not call them on what were obvious false statements, and allowed them unlimited use of their "talking points"

Granted, I am not in a position to make a judgment on the program in its entirety, but only upon the brief (10-15 minute) segments I was able to hear.

Anyone else?

(excuse if dupe - I didn't see it on the first 3 pages of GD, so I took a shot...)

[Stephanie]

1. I didn't listen but he has no credibility to me

I think he's a very poor choice. His credibility is shattered by that heinous tv show.

[SaveElmer]

4. Yeah I agree with that

He has become a millionaire by expoliting the problems of others!

[ladjf]

17. Although I wasn't a regular viewer of his TV show,

I did see enough to disagree with you about "exploiting" people. I believe that his show gave people a chance to be heard, albeit a very public forum. In a wild sort of way, it was an effective piece of group therapy.

Further, he is one of the most articulate people we have on our side. And one of his talents is listening to the other side. I suggest that he be viewed with open mind.

ladjf, MSW Tulane University.

[FreedomAngel82]

37. You should give people a chance

Just because of one tv show you shouldn't base another show specifically on a previous one. I do listen to the Springer radio show on days I have to be up early for class and I enjoy it pretty well. I think he's a little too nice to the republicans who call in but I guess that's just because I'm used to people really pounding into rightwingers like how Mr. Malloy does. Other than that I enjoy his show and he is informative on issues and he does give people a chance to be heard on both sides. We should talk with people but if someone is just being idiotic I wouldn't let them stay on very long personally.

[MODemocrat]

98. I agree with that wholeheartedly, Maury Povich does it too

Jerry Springer just doesn't come off as "polished" as Maury, but it's about the same thing, IMHO. :+ :+ :rofl:
It does seem wrong to exploit people as they both do, for their own personal gain.

[andyhappy]

7. lowest common denominators

Yeah...he gives liberals a bad name.

I know he was a senator and is a smart guy, but come on, the name Jerry Springer brings all sorts of pathetic images to mind...

bad choice! terrible choice!

I hope I am wrong, but this doesn't look good!

[Stephanie]

9. I think he was a mayor

and considered running for Senate, but he was not a senator. Unless you mean state senator, and then I'm not sure.

[andyhappy]

18. oops

thats right...my bad!

I hope he does good though!

I have my fingers crossed!

don't make fools of us JERRY!

[slor]

26. Mayor of Cincinnati...

and he was/is very progressive and intelligent.

[Cooley Hurd]

91. Didn't he get arrested for solicitation of a prostitute...

...while mayor of Cincinnati?:shrug:

[NYCGirl]

93. Not arrested, but it did affect his political career for a little while:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Springer


In 1970, Springer ran for a seat in the United States House of Representatives, but failed to unseat incumbent Republican Donald D. Clancy. Springer was elected to the Cincinnati city council in 1971, at the age of 27. He resigned in 1974 after it was discovered that he had paid a prostitute with a personal check that had been found when police raided a massage parlor. A few days later he made a public announcement about and apology for this affair; the next year he was reelected to the city council (though he had to run as an independent). A few years later, in 1977, he ran as a Democrat in a successful bid to be mayor of Cincinnati; he was 33.

[bunkerbuster1]

105. Paid for sex with a personal check?

Not too bright.

Well, it's been 30+ years, maybe I can let that slide.

[iconoclastNYC]

19. He's not the offical spokesman of the DNC

Come on people. If the mouth breathers who liked his show give him a chance and he opens them up to our point of view then he's a hero in my book.

The show is over. He did it for the money. Whatever. What does he have to say and who can he bring to our side? That's what matters.

[FreedomAngel82]

39. I agree

He is very well known and people could possibly tune in. Who knows what could happen. He might convert some people. :) That's hoping too much but ya never know.

[K-W]

22. No, he doesnt give liberals a bad name, what is your problem?

Cant you Springer haters see that you are overreacting? That you are clearly making an emotional judgement not a rational one? That hating a man and hoping his career fails because you didnt like his tv show isnt a particularly liberal approach to things.

[andyhappy]

33. whoa wait a minute!

I didn't say that I hate the man and want him to fail! I am 100% behind AAR!

I did say that I hope he does better than I think he will.

Seriously, there is no denying the fact that the name Jerry Springer is synonymous with white trash idiots who will do anything to get on TV ...and his show was really the worst of the worst!

You cannot deny that he has a big hurdle to get over with his past reputation!

I don't hate the guy!

[K-W]

123. the thing is, only a small number of people see his reputation that way

I dont see the big hurdle, because I think most people didnt have a big moral problem with the show.

and I wasnt referring specifically to you about hating him, he is just being villianized by a handful of DUrs and it is unproductive and unfair

[Stephanie]

140. Some images from the show

The last is of a man who likes to wear diapers. To each his own, but on daytime TV?

[ScreamingMeemie]

14. Give him a chance. I thought the same thing when our local progressive

station picked him up weeks ago. But I think he has done really well. He gets Republicans to agree with him. He's done an excellent job. :hi:

[FreedomAngel82]

41. Now whoever does that

is in my book. :) If he can get a republican to agree maybe he can get them to think about things and maybe they'd wake up.

[K-W]

21. Its amazing how many people on DU hold a grudge

because they found a tv show tasteless.

[Eloriel]

29. Yeah, it is. Sad too

Jerry Springer is one helluvan asset to liberals. He's incredibly articulate, knows what he's talking about and I havne't EVER heard him say anything political I didn't agree with to the max.

And then there's his other life in that horrid TV show -- about which he's the first to say it's trash (and imply that he sells his soul to do it).

I'd have felt about like Stephanie -- or rather did, once upon a time -- until I heard him talk about that show a few times. Think of it as acting. I personally finally got OVER the fact that actors can be wonderful people but play horrible people (Anthony Hopkins, Sean Penn, Robert DeNiro, et. al. Hell, even Carroll O'Connor, if you want to go there). Think of it as a role he plays.

[Stephanie]

66. It may be just a role that he played, but that is his image

And it's not a great one for the Democrats. I don't know if you ever saw The Jerry Springer Show. It was absolutely disgusting, beyond tasteless. He may be right on the issues but he's not who I'd choose as a spokesman, which is what he is on AAR. Just not a smart choice, IMO.

[K-W]

130. You dont seem to realize that you have an extremist opinion here.

Most of America did not find his show disgusting or beyond tastelesness.

It was only a bad choice if alot of people respond the way you do, I just dont seee that.

[Stephanie]

139. Most of America did not find The Jerry Springer Show tasteless?

You can't be serious. Did you ever see that show?

[Snotcicles]

110. Easy prey for freeper brainwashing. n/t

[Snotcicles]

108. I have been listening to him for weeks now he is a great choice

[Snotcicles]

112. Listen first post after.n/t

[libertypirate]

116. Anyone who takes a position as such is an idiot...

you can have your opinion fine. Categorically shunning Jerry Springer because you didn't like his television show only goes to illustrate how narrow minded you are.

I can say this because unlike yourself I have given Mr. Springer a chance; and your assumptions coupled with my experience earn you the label of Idiot. You are categorically wrong and must stop searching for your perfect savior.

I will tell you this although the content of Mr. Springer’s show at times was questionable he not his audience not his panel, he made the show. Why? Simple because he was an outsider looking at a bunch of freaks without first labeling them freaks; which is the opposite of what you are doing to him. Thanks for acting like a bigot, tool!

You treat people as you wish to be treated it's as simple as that.

[Stephanie]

119. In one post you call me "an idiot," "narrow minded," "Idiot," & "a bigot"

Yet you conclude by saying:

"You treat people as you wish to be treated it's as simple as that."

I take it you learned your manners from The Jerry Springer Show. And your hypocrisy from the President.

[libertypirate]

137. A little defensive

Did you dismiss a person for their past? yes

Does that make you a hypocrite? sure does

Does it make me a hypocrite to put labels on you? Moron!

You treat people as you wish to be treated it's as simple as that. I hope you are as honest with me as I was with you... I was harsh but hanging out in a liberal place and then acting like a conservative well your going to get stung.

The write off is a lazy persons way of not dealing with a changing people. It is completely hypocritical, narrow minded, and bigoted; if you don't think that blinding yourself isn't the mark of a idiot there is nothing I can do to enlighten you.

If you allow yourself to believe that the sum of a persons life is as good as you are ever going to get from them you’re a really sorry case.

[Stephanie]

138. You're about as rude as they come but since you've asked me to be honest -

You can't spell and your grammar is horrible. You have either had a poor education or you are just not very bright. You state: "You treat people as you wish to be treated it's as simple as that." Okay, I will treat you as you've treated me. You're a moron!

Jerry Springer's show ended very recently, not long ago in the past. It is still in re-runs. It is my opinion he makes a poor spokesman for progressive causes because his show was exploitative, sexist, and demeaning. He may be a good radio host, but his reputation is permanently tarnished by that show and I don't think it helps us. I use "us" loosely, as I'm not sure whose side you're on.

That is my opinion. And I'm a little surprised to be called so many, many various and rude names, here at DU, for expressing it.

[Rosco T.]

126. His opening statement ripped Shrub, Delay and others a new one..

over the Schiavo mess and the 'Culture of Life'... go check his archives and listen to the 1st 30 minutes of the 1st hour.

[Just Me]

2. Articulate, knowledgeable, focused,...

,...I thought he did very well. I look forward to listening to him in the future.

[SiouxJ]

16. I thought the same thing and I've never seen his TV program

I refused to watch it, just based on the commercials I saw. I was so surprised at how informed he was. His polite approach and likability seem to be an asset as well. I think he will definitely increase AAR's audience and that's a good thing. Those of us who prefer a more sophisticated show, well, we already had those; now there's something for red state listeners. We need to get AAR on in more red states so I think that's what the idea behind Springer is. It will be much easier for them to sell the Springer show than the one they had before, in that market. Sad but true. I think it's a pretty good strategy myself.

[iconoclastNYC]

23. your sensitively phrased point about unfiltered is so true

of all the shows on AAR, unfiltered was doing the most to reinforce the coastal liberal elitist meme. republicans people are just not going to listen to those types of people.

being a white man with a big name, springer will have more people willing to listen to what he has to say. And he's solidly progresive and that helps everyone on the left, including women and lesbians.

I caught his show for about 30 minutes as a was waking up and i was suprised and i was predisposed to hate it based on his tv show.

[SiouxJ]

114. Exactly

I once (way back in the beginning), wrote to Unfiltered and asked them to tone down the slams on overweight, McDonald's eating, Wal-mart shopping rural people. I told them they were doing exactly what the Right accuses us of doing - acting like elitist snobs. They sounded like a high school clique, making fun of people who were different than themselves. I couldn't imagine winning over any listeners with that tone. I've listened recently and they didn't seem to be quite as heavy with the insults but I still think Springer will do more to gain new listeners. We still have the very far left, bolder hosts, so it's a pretty good mix now. He's certainly better than the right leaning Ed Schultz, :boring: who could have ended up in that spot.

[FreedomAngel82]

44. I think he can definietly help with that

I'd love to have AAR here in my town so I can listen to it in the car or something so maybe with Springer on more people will want to hear because of his show and he's already well known in the entertainment field. Then people could check out other shows on there like Majority Report, Unfiltered, Laura Flanders etc. It could open up doors. :)

[chelsea0011]

3. I wanted to but the AAR steam wasn't working

[FreedomAngel82]

47. If it doesn't work for you

you can also visit his website http://www.springerontheradio.com and there's a link you can click there to listen live.

[redqueen]

5. I only heard around 40 minutes... thought he did great.

Didn't hear him take any callers, though.

I thought his rhetoric was very nice - I was impressed.

[demnan]

6. I found him boring

I just don't think he was as good as Rachel Maddow. She had an edge due to being a lesbian, Was very entertaining as well as informed and I thought was a really cool person to have on the radio.

I'll give Springer a chance and I won't totally trash him - I think he's a sincere moderate liberal - but you do have to have some entertainment value on these shows. He might have to learn a whole new medium.

[Mandate My Ass]

8. ditto

It seems like first they dumped Lizz, now Rachel, and put moderate Jerry Springer in their place. I want the Lizzbians back!

[iconoclastNYC]

30. Lizz abandoned Rachel when she knew what was up with Springer

The writing was on the wall for a long time, Springer went up on a lot of the AAR network before AAR dumped unfilter do to lack of intrest.

So Liz, true to her reputation in the business just left Rachel hanging instead of being a professional and sticking it out.

I feel so sorry for Rachel. A better co-host and a consistent Chuck D might have made the show a sucess. I hope her new show on Sunday does well. And I'm still holding out hope that the rumor about her replacing the aweful Garafolo pans out.

[FreedomAngel82]

50. She's going to have a new show?

Any more information on this? I enjoyed listening to Rachel (and I do like Garafolo too) and just saw on the AAR site no Unfilitered listed. :(

[iconoclastNYC]

55. Yes but VERY early and only for an hour

www.lizzwinstead.com has a link to rachel's site.

[BrklynLiberal]

115. 5-6AM M-F EST, but it will may replayed at later times in different areas

Starting April 11

[FreedomAngel82]

48. They dumped Rachel too?

:( That sucks. I liked her on there. I wish they didn't completely dump them. Too bad they couldn't have been moved to a weekend or something. :(

[NYCGirl]

57. Rachel has a new "hard news" show premiering on AAR April 11th

every day at 5AM (perhaps to be replayed later in some markets).

[DancingBear]

11. "sincere moderate liberal"

I like that - seems to (at least at first blush) describe him and his style quite well.

However, AAR already has Franken for that, so I am guessing this is a definite strategy by the new CEO to pull the Limbaugh listener into the AAR camp (i.e. get him/her to listen without offending him/her).

Don't know if I necessarily agree with using "watered-down liberalism" as a come-on, but time (and ratings) will tell, I reckon.

[Spazito]

10. From what I was able to finally hear...

he was excellent, a great addition to AAR, imo. I despise his TV show so was interested to hear what he had to say on his show.

[Just Me]

15. Although I *hated* his tv show, I believe patrons of that show may,...

,...have been (were likely, actually) Rush listeners who may drop the hate-spewing Rush and opt for Jerry on AAR,...which could be a good thing.

[Kelvin Mace]

36. *sigh*

We do not need these people and we should not want them. Anyone stupid enough to believe Rush and be entertained by Springer is not to be trusted or consorted with.

[Just Me]

43. Ugh! Of course we NEED those people. They are OUR people.

They deserve to be provided the same information and knowledge to which we have been exposed.

Damn. No wonder there are those who view "liberals" as elitist assholes.

[Kelvin Mace]

46. It has nothing to do with being elitist

We do not need people's whose allegiance and attention span is ephemeral. George Bush is the poster boy of Springer watchers.

[Just Me]

53. "whose allegiance and attention span is ephemeral" rings elitist to me.n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

62. So, we should accept

people who will ultimately betray us as long as it serves our short term goals?

This is the kind of thinking that finds the Catholic Church in bed with anti-Catholic hate groups.

[Just Me]

68. Wow. You have no problem acting as prosecutor/judge/jury, huh.

Obviously, you can offer absolutely no proof whatsoever in support of your broad assertion that those who MAY become (former Rush-listening) AAR patrons will ultimately betray us. :eyes:

WHEW! What a stretch and push of a very omninous position. *LOL*

Would you REJECT fellow Americans who MAY be positively influenced by AAR?

Would you SCREEN fellow Americans who COULD be exposed to AAR?

Are you a "liberal" or a "progressive" or something else?

[Kelvin Mace]

86. There are two philosphies being espoused

to support taking money from crooks and pandering to the Springer crowd:

"As long as their money is green" and a variation of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" (In this case we must take our enemy's supporters and turn them into his enemy and then they will be our friend).

Proof? The first is at best prima facia amoral, the second can be disproven by any history book within reach.

[Just Me]

96. Would you REJECT fellow Americans who MAY be positively influenced by AAR?

Setting aside your other ethical/philosophical/righteous distractions, would you reject fellow Americans who may be positively influenced by AAR? Would you deny them the opportunity to be exposed to AAR?

[Kelvin Mace]

103. You are missing the point

You are saying we should embrace Jerry Springer because he will bring us a particular audience which *may* help us get our point across. And even though Springer is an ethically questionable person, his popularity can help us add to our ranks, so this is OK.

The ends justify the means.

And for as many of these new recruits you MIGHT get, you lose and equal number of people appaled by Springer who will now shift their support elsewhere because you have chosen to invite an ethically questionable spokesman in.

Would I "reject" someone their opportunity to listen to AAR? I have neither the power, nor the inclination to do so, nor would I if I did.

If a few people listen to Springer's show and see the light, great. Unfortunately, what will probably happen is that his core audience will walk off disgusted once they realize his radio show is nothing like his TV show.

Net gain, ZERO.

I had actually considered advertising my business on AAR. But I do not want to be shoe-horned in between Wendi's hyponosis CDs and someone peddling penis pills.

[Just Me]

109. How many liberals/progressive do you know who are so rigid,...

,...that they would outright reject Springer because of a stupid business decision he's made in the past?

I just don't know that many.

But, anyhoots, no need to continue talking past one another which leads to no real conversation let alone some kind of compromise/agreement/reconciliation. I can accept that you and I have certain irreconcilable differences of opinion/perception and let it go at that.

[Love Bug]

12. Tried to listen but realplayer kept timing out

[ObaMania]

113. Timing out for me too but..

.. the parts I did hear were not very entertaining. Boring actually. At least the callers seemed like they've been listening to him for a while, so there may be something there!

I'll give it another listen next week.

[Philostopher]

13. I have to wonder if it isn't, in part ...

some effect of his 'home station' -- a Clear Channel-owned outlet in Cincinnati. He's only been on air there for a couple of months, and I do wonder if maybe he hasn't been told to keep it down and not piss off the wingnuts too much because they won't sell any local advertising on his show if he pisses off the wingnuts too much. He may have had to agree to certain things just to get the show on the air in Cincinnati, in other words.

That being said, if he wants to make it on Air America's national syndication he'd better get up off his ass. I'm familiar with most of his career up to the carnival of the damned he called a TV show, and other than that it was all pretty good. He's got a long way to go to rebuild any credibility he might have as a media figure with me, and I liked him a lot before he went off the rails -- he's got a hell of a lot farther to climb with folks who aren't familiar with anything but the freak show.

[Nik Jam]

20. It's on 6AM-9AM here when streaming online

So I was asleep. Oh well.

[K-W]

24. I slept through it, but im hoping to catch it next week.

The level of moral purity some of you expect from radio hosts is astounding.

[Kelvin Mace]

35. I just expect my radio hosts

not have presided over circus events on par with the Schiavo Side Show.

Sorry, just because he's a liberal, doesn't make him acceptable.

[steelyboo]

132. you are absolutely correct, we need to go for a more "pure" liberal, and

obivously a patriot such as yourself should define that purity for us. Once we boil this purity to the top, so to speak, should we have them sign loyalty oaths to stay away from the unkept heathen "liberals"?

[K-W]

134. You are exagerating and your opinion is irrational.

Equating the Springer show to Schiavo is rediculous. There is really no parrallel.

I didnt say that he is acceptable because he is a liberal, why on earth would you imply that was my point?

He is acceptable because he is good on the radio, presents fact based news, and seemingly has a chance to reach a large audience with progressive views.

To prove your point you need to prove to me that there is some risk of him doing something wrong in his new job. You havent done so, all youve presented is your bitterness about his tv show.

[DireStrike]

25. I think he should replace Franken.

Franken is so dry and droning. Springer does what Franken does, but he does it better. Plus Jerry's opening rant was fantastic.

I noticed the way he didn't call out the lies, but he did control every single conversation with RWers. He gave them time to talk, and his responses danced the conversation around until he had the high ground, where he smashed their view.

I liked Unfiltered too, though. I think they should give Franken's slot to Springer and bring back Unfiltered, and Lizz.

[Roxy66]

27. I have no respect for the man...he is an opportunist..in my opinion

[K-W]

28. I have no respect for people who judge others so harshly and ignorantly.

Do you know Jerry Springer? Have you ever met the man? Or did you just not like his tv show, and derive from that that you are good and he was bad?

[Kelvin Mace]

32. By this criteria

None of us can criticize Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or any other rightwing scum we do not know personally.

[kittenpants]

84. not really - Coulter and Limbaugh espouse their political views

on political programs. I don't need to know them personally to know I DON'T like them. The Springer show, disgusting as it was, was not about the host's personal philosophy.

[K-W]

124. Please dont put words in my mouth.

You can critisize them for things you know about them.

You can call them liars, because they are liars.

You can discredit thier opinions, because they say them.

I am only speaking of inferring things about peoples charecters based on your judgement, from a distance, of the right or wrongess of thier actions.

IE, this show is offensive and exploitive, Jerry Springer must be a real jerk.

[Auntie Bush]

34. Wow! That was well said!

[Just Me]

38. Hypercriticism and reactive persecution are NOT liberal traits.

IMHO.

It's strange to me to read so much reactionary hypercriticism without any thoughtful analysis of a show on AAR. I listened to the show without imposing past judgments on a man's past decisions.

I thought most if not all liberals/progressives approached matters in such a way.

:shrug:

I thought the show was excellent.

[Kelvin Mace]

45. You cannot divorce the past from the present

I have listened to him during his political campaign and I agree with what he says. Trouble is he is hopelessly tainted by his TV show.

To me it boils down one question:

What kind of ethical person would host a show like Springer did?

The answer is NO ETHICAL person would host a show that traded on people's misery and wallowed in a trailer park version of Panem et circenses.

[Just Me]

52. Maybe, YOU choose to cast the past into the present. I am different.

I am able to look at the past on one hand and judge an event which has no relationship to that past on the other.

I listened to the show. I considered it solid in terms of information, balance and progressive position. That's my opinion to take or leave.

Your opinion, I reject.

[Kelvin Mace]

106. I have heard Springer

talk on politics. He is lucid and engaging.

When he apologizes for his TV show and recognizes that he profited off other people's misery, I'll tune in.

[K-W]

125. Your reasoning is atrocious.

So because Jerry Springer participated in one enterprise which you adjdicated to be unethical, from that you conclude that Jerry Springer has no ethics, and therefore anything he does after that is likely to be uethical.

So I am to assume that as an ethical person, you have never in your life done antyingthat I might find unethical?

Jerry Springer obviously doesnt share your opinion, but regardless, just because you didnt agree with him on the ethicality of his show doesnt mean he is a bad person or that he is suspect in the future. It means he is a person who doesnt agree with you which may or may not mean he disagrees with you on fundemetal issues of ethics. You cant even draw that conclusion and it turns out Springer has a very progressive set of ethics... fancy that. It also doesnt mean that in a random other situation he would make an unethical choice or even a choice you disagree with.

You are just jumping to conlusions and making broad generalizations to unfairly judge Springer.

[Kelvin Mace]

31. I am greatly disappointed in AAR and will not listen to Springer

Unfiltered was more credible. Springer was brought in for ratings, hoping to attract the kind of folks who normaly watch Springer on TV.

This and endless run of fraudulent advertisers AAR is taking money from (Wendy Freisen, J'Accuse!)is destroying their credibility in my eyes and it is sickening.

And before anyone tells me that what Springer did on TV was "an act", I view this the same way I view Limbaugh's claim that we can't take his racist, sexist, homophobic and hate-filled commentary seriously since he is not a political pundit, just an "entertainer".

The advertising issue is VERY disturbing. AAR is taking money from the kinds of people we rail about on this board every day. Lying scumbags who will do anything, say anything and victimize anyone for a buck.

[NYCGirl]

40. And how do YOU suggest they stay on the air?

Fine, if you don't want to listen because they're not "pure" enough for you, turn it off.

[Kelvin Mace]

49. So,

you think it is perfectly fine for them to advertise fraudulent products? You think it is fine for Wendi Friesen to peddle her "hypnosis CDs" that will cure your cancer?

I don't expect people to be pure, just ethical.

[NYCGirl]

54. I generally don't like pop self-help gurus, be they Friesen or Dr. Phil

but I'm not going to judge AAR on their commercials they take to make money to stay on the air. When they get bigger and are able to guarantee a larger audience return on investment, then they can raise their ad rates and Friesen might not be able to afford them anymore.

But like those Springer viewers who you claim are not welcome as part of the Democratic party, we need everyone we can get right now.

[Just Me]

56. So, tune into a different radio station that will fulfill your needs.

I'm sure there's one out there just for you!!! :bounce:

[Kelvin Mace]

60. "Our station, love it or leave it"

Who does that sound like?

Why is it WRONG to criticize them for doing wrong?

[NYCGirl]

63. We're not criticizing you for that.

Some of us here think you're wrong. You can criticize them all you want, and we can say you're full of it all we want.

[Kelvin Mace]

76. Thus, AAR should take money

from *any* advertiser, just as long as it allows us to get our viewpoint across?

This is the strategy that works so well for the DLC. We should move the party to the right because it will get us more support and we'll win more elections. The fact that it corrupts us in the process is irrelevant.

AAR should accept ads from companies no matter how loathsome they are. They should put people on no matter how slimey.

Perhaps to shore up support from black voters, they should give O.J. Simpson his own show?

[NYCGirl]

80. No, your comparison is wrong.

The Democratic party is a political party. Air America Radio is an entertainment entity. An entertainment entity with a point of view, but entertainment nonetheless. No comparison.

OJ Simpson might spike the ratings once, but I don't think he'd do any good in the long run. And that's sort of a slimy thing to say about black voters, IMO.

[Kelvin Mace]

94. OK

The Democratic party is a political party. Air America Radio is an entertainment entity. An entertainment entity with a point of view, but entertainment nonetheless. No comparison.

This is the Rush Limbaugh philosphy. Rush claims to be an "entertainer" and thus he is free to use "satire" and "hyperbole" to make his point.

What's slimey about the O.J. remark. In case you haven't looked, he is considered a "victim" in the African American community and enjoys a fair amount of support.

Of course, this is the result of the exact thing I am talking about. The black community stood behind O.J. because he was black and didn't allow the fact of his guilt to get in the way.

That's the LBJ "He's a bastard, but he's OUR bastard" philosophy.

[MsUnderstood]

90. I find this argument hysterical for another reason

I was listening to OUT Q (the gay/lesbian/friends of feed) one day and they had a commercial for AIR NATION GAURD RECRUITING. Now, you can fire back "straight people listen to OUT Q" but the point is the gay community got money from the military.

I don't really care what advertisements play on the show--to me it is all about keeping the place afloat. To rail against the advertisements sends a hidden message that the person listening to the show is too stupid to sepereate the message from the advertiser.

And your last comment about them putting OJ on shows that you are confusing the advertiser with the message.

Jerry Springer had a television personality, much like an actor. Rather than comparing him to a real life unconvicted murder, try a beter anology like VINCE McMAHON (who plays a wacko wrestling CEO on TV).

[Kelvin Mace]

97. They aren't sending "hidden messages"

They are flat out lying. Someone is buying their products or they wouldn't spend the money.

Again, this entire argument is predicated on the amoral philosophy of "as long as their money is green". Once you start down that road you become corrupted.

Again, if AAR will accept money from Wendi Freisen, why not $cientology? Why not Benny Hinn? Why not Halliburton? Why not the RNC?

Once you decide to take the money from a small time crook, it just a matter of justification. The ends justifies the means. The Catholic Church took mob money because they could "do good" with it. Trouble is, no amount of "good" would ever wash the blood off the money.

[Just Me]

72. Nope. You have the freedom to go to another station that makes you,...

,...happy. Besides, you already stated that you weren't going to listen anyway. If that's true, why waste so much of your time and energy complaining about something you've already adjudged not valuable to you?

BTW: the "love it or leave it" thingy as it pertains to our country hardly compares to the freedom to patronize a new radio progressive radio station,...doncha' think *LOL*

[Kelvin Mace]

79. Because I was under the mistaken

impression that fellow liberals would be appalled at taking money from crooks and ratings for the sake of ratings.

AAR is not a year old and already it is compromising its principles. It took NPR two decades to sell out and shill for Archer-Daniel Midlands. And taking money from them and big Pharm abd Big Oil hasn't affected NPR's objectivity, has it?

[NYCGirl]

82. That's because it's PUBLIC radio and it was SUBSIDIZED.

A luxury Air America doesn't have.

[Kelvin Mace]

107. AAR can choose who to accept money from

There are pleanty of people with products and services that do not involve defrauding people. Their money spends just as well.

[DancingBear]

59. Is there now a litmus test for advertising?

I suggest you do a little advertising homework - you'll find the same products cross-advertised on both sides of the political aisle. This, as you may know, is the "long as their money is green" theory that any marketer worth his/her salt ascribes to.

We as consumers can do the research and find out what comapnies we wish to give our dollars to (many of us here are VERY knowledgeable as to what comapnies tend blue vs. red), but if an advertiser wants to try and sell The Limbaugh Letter on AAR then I think we should take their money, buy a liberal radio staion or two, and make Rush go to the Denny's parking lot in person next time. :)

[Kelvin Mace]

67. I am aware of the philosphy

I suggest you do a little advertising homework - you'll find the same products cross-advertised on both sides of the political aisle. This, as you may know, is the "long as their money is green" theory that any marketer worth his/her salt ascribes to.

It is a theory that is totaly self-destructive and always has been.

It is a theory that is also completely amoral and always has been.

[Just Me]

78. Sounds like a "tag" used by hard-core opponents of AAR.

Sounds like it.

[Kelvin Mace]

81. Really, and that would mean?

Is this going to be a "freeper" accusation?

[Just Me]

87. If you're not a hard-core opponent of AAR, it doesn't address you. n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

92. I think AAR is great

I really enjoyed the shows even though Randi Rhodes can grate on occasion. But now we bring in Springer, replacing good people for hype. At the same time, we destroy our credibility by hawking fraudulent products.

Then when I point this out, I get the same kind of hair-splitting justification that I see slammed every day when neocons engage in it.

Once you adopt the tactics of your enemy, you become your enemy. Why is this hard to see?

The thinking that led AAR to hire Springer because he will help ratings is the same thinking that MSNBC used to hire Michael "Savage". He'll be good for ratings and we'll get more people watching our shows.

[Just Me]

99. Okay. I simply believe such standards are too rigid to allow success.

Springer hardly compares to Savage or Rush or O'Reilly in spite of his stupid choice to make a living hosting a stupid tv show. His character certainly has a more intelligent, progressive and thoughtful side compared to those perpetually hateful assholes.

With respect to your complaint about advertising, have you compiled a list of noble companies you would like to see advertise on AAR? If so, maybe that list can be shared with AAR and they can solicit for those companies' commercial support. Just a thought.

[Kelvin Mace]

104. I agree

Springer is simply unethical (IMHO), whereas Rush and O'Reily are EVIL.

I would eat at a table with Springer, I wouldn't piss on Rush if he were on fire.

(OK, I would, but only because it would be my Christian duty and his screams were upsetting my cat).

[Just Me]

111. *LOL*

[iconoclastNYC]

42. Let's see.

What do you deem a good advertising? All advertising is basically manipulating people into creating unnecesary wants. I don't know why a commerical for a Lexus is any less upsetting then Wendy Freisen peddling hypnosis tapes.

How credible was unfiltered when they did the pizza taste test, or all the segments on making cocktails, or the talk of Lizz's dog pooping troubles?

Springer = Controversy = Ratings = Exposure for our point of view

And that's a good thing.

[Kelvin Mace]

51. It is one thing to sell

a book, a car, a computer or any reasonable product.

It is something else to defraud people with products that do not work or are dangerous.

These kinds of companies are part of the problem we complain about every day.

But now you are saying we should look the other way, because they are supporting us?

By this logic, we should take money from ANYONE as long as it helps us, no matter how reprehensible they me be or how vile their product.

[ldf]

75. talk about fraudulent

every single car ad that has the car sliding sideways across the tv screen is nothing but pure fraud. but that is ok, because it's "cool" and sells.

they are selling their wares by showing them doing things they aren't made to do, and if the purchaser did that they would be fined and/or arrested, not to mention putting their life in danger.

i think everyone should go in for a test drive and immediately slam the accelerator to the floor, go careening off the lot and at least try to bring the car back in three pieces or less.

afterall, they only want to recreat the exhilaration inspired by the ad, right?

so, the car costs 30,000 to 50,000.

the items on AAR are a lot cheaper, and may work for some.

like all those diet ads that say in small print at the bottom of the screen "these results not typical".

well, they worked for anna. she certainly looks hot! so what if she had a personal trainer.

and i don't believe anyone is saying that a cd will cure cancer.

[Kelvin Mace]

88. *sigh*

"every single car ad that has the car sliding sideways across the tv screen is nothing but pure fraud. but that is ok, because it's "cool" and sells."

I am not talking about TV, I am talking about AAR and was making a broad distinction. While car advertisers may engage in hype, they don't claim their product cures cancer.

Wendi Friesen and her ilk are absolute frauds and their claims flat out lies.

If you buy a car because you think it will make you cool, that's your error. If you buy a CD because you think it will cure your cancer, the error is much more dire.

[ldf]

95. i understand your concern

and would prefer that AAR not to have to rely on those ads.

but they are legal, and they help to keep AAR on the air.

i will forgive a lot to allow our voice to continue to be heard. whether "their claims are outright lies", i don't know. some do seem pretty farfetched. but there ARE many natural cures out there that the drug companies don't want us to know about.

i am certainly not saying any of them will cure cancer, and i doubt they are making those claims. the results may be inferred, and many listeners may make a connection. that is allowable by technicality, but we can't control how people "infer" things.

it is also my understanding that most of the talk shows air these types of ads. i can't say from experience because i refuse to listen to hate radio. but i've read that rush, hannity, savage, all air these types of ads.

that is no excuse, but it is apparently what will allow the shows to stay on the air. if AAR has to use them until some big advertisers wake up and see the light, then so be it.

[Kelvin Mace]

58. Al Franken just commented

that AAR will not accept ads from Wal-Mart because of their business practices but WILL accept ads from people peddling "sex" enhancement crap like "Proton Extreme".

The only difference between these advertisers is a matter of scale. Wal-Mart screws a lot more people than Wendi Friesen.

This is NEOCON thinking. You can kill and torture your people as long as you don't kill and torture too many and as long as you support the US. If you kill too many people so that you become an embarrassment, or you question US policy, or you interfere with our corporate profits, you're history.

Thus, on AAR, we'll take your money as long as don't defraud too many people.

[CarolNYC]

61. I didn't hear the show....

....but I love Jerry and hope he does well. I do detest that horror of a TV show of his, though.

Listen to this radio piece on Jerry if you get the chance...
http://207.70.82.73/pages/descriptions/04/258.html

And, boy, there are some very judgmental around here. :(

[in_cog_ni_to]

64. What time is Springer on? I missed him, but would like to catch his show

sometime. He USE to be a great TV talk show host when his Chicago program FIRST went on the air. It was a serious, thought-provoking show and I watched it often. Then, for the ratings, I assume, he went with the sleaze shows. He's a very smart guy. I hope his show does well on Air America.

If he gives too much air time to freepers, maybe we should bombard him with emails and suggest he change that. ;)

[NYCGirl]

65. 9AM to Noon. NT

[in_cog_ni_to]

71. Thank you. That's Eastern Time zone, I presume?

:hi:

[NYCGirl]

73. Yes it is. NT

[Rosco T.]

129. His shows are also archived at www.springerontheradio.com n/m

[K-W]

131. where is the link to the archives?

I cant find it on the page.

[Blue_In_AK]

69. I used to watch Jerry Springer's show sometimes

just for a laugh, but I remember that he always had something pretty wise to say at the end of each episode. I think he's a good progressive and shouldn't be judged by the whack jobs who appeared on his show. Their antics were their OWN shame, not his.

[NYCGirl]

77. BTW, you know that many, if not most, of the people who appeared on that

show in the later years — when it got really sleazy — were paid and given the "stories" to be told. They often hired indy wrestlers and strippers. And the "real people" were given a storyline and were told to improvise.

[Blue_In_AK]

83. Well, that explains it...

Pure entertainment. It did seem hard to believe that those people were REAL. They were pretty funny though. I liked Steve the bouncer. What a great job. :rofl:

[FreedomAngel82]

101. Yep

It was fun to watch. I was always amused. And agree with you on the thoughtful points at the end. :) I alwyas liked Steve too. ;)

[underpants]

70. From what I heard it was definitely and improvement in the time slot

I was never a huge fan of the old show. It was okay but nothing great.

Springer is very good at what he does. His experience shows.

[LSK]

74. i thought he was ok, his name will help AAR grow nt

[tblue37]

85. Springer is a very reasonable, intelligent,

progressive Democrat who has a really disgusting TV show and some embarrasssing sexual proclivities of his own. Because of the show and his own sex scandals, he is not taken seriously, but in fact, he is a heck of a smart man and in purely social terms a decent one.

Unfortuntely, I don't think it does the Dems any good to be associated with him precisely because of those other issues and guilt by association, but if people could get past that and listen to what he actually says, they would find him to be a voice for social decency.

[FreedomAngel82]

102. Why?

If you listen to the radio show you might think other wise. That's like saying democrats shouldn't be associated with Michael Moore and his movie simply because of people on the right.

[tblue37]

122. No, I think it is very different.

Michael Moore is a rabble-rouser, but he does not showcase sexual or social deviance.

Also, even liberals can be a bit taken aback by the carelessness with which Springer indulges himself sexually, so that his escapades are media fodder. Most of us were disturbed that Clinton couldn't control his sexual impulses--not as governor, and not as president. No matter what else you think of Clinton, you must acknowledge that he did our side some harm in terms of the way ordinary Americans looked at Democrats and liberals.

When you are a public figure, you simply need to be a bit careful, unless you really don't care about your reputation or about whether your reputation might negatively impact causes you care about.

There is also the IOKIYAR (It's OK if You Are a Republican) thing. Dems are blasted for behavior that high profile Republicans sometimes get away with. That being the case, until we can get some share of power or control some segment of the media market, we have to think about how we play to the public. We shouldn't compromise our principles, but we also shouldn't gratuitously and excessively violate norms of social behavior.

[NYCGirl]

127. He's a single, heterosexual adult, and you're talking about Springer's

sexual indulgences? May I remind you he's a private citizen, not the POTUS.

[tblue37]

135. I am not saying he doesn't have a right to choose his own sexual

activities. I am saying that publicity about them can hurt causes he cares about, so it is in his interest and in the interest of said causes for him to be a bit careful rather than careless.

He can do whatever he likes. The fact is, I have always admired Springer as a social and political activist. I am just saying that his reputation doesn't help the Dem party's reputation.

I also believe, however that with some time and effort he could "rehabilitate" his reputation if he wanted to become a serious political player. I'm just not sure he is willing to pay that price for political influence. And without such rehabilitation, I don't think he is ever going to be taken seriously as a political player. I am not saying I think that's a good thing--just that I think it is a reality. I am not saying I wouldn't take hime seriously as a political figure--but that most Americans won't.

Soem comments on this thread remind me of when my son wore a 7-inch mohawk, a pair of 1 1/2-inch trihawks, and full punk-rocker regalia, and then complained that people had no right to stare at him or judge him because of the way he looked.

I didn't tell him he couldn't dress that way, but I did insist that he face the reality that if he did look that way, a lot of people were going to form very predictable opinions about him, whether he thought they had a right to do so or not. He could continue to dress that way and accept the reality of it, or he could change his look. His choice. I wasn't making his choices for him--but I also wasn't making the choice for other people who were judging him according to the way he looked. I was just pointing out the fact that the sun rose in the east.

[Cleita]

120. Here we go again, letting the moral police from the OTHER SIDE,

define who is good enough to be a member of our side. I don't care who or what they like. They need to stop cleaning our house and start working on theirs. There's an awful stink coming from there, not to mention all the visible trash on the lawn.

[Fenris]

89. I'm going to try to catch it monday

Unlike some, I have no problem with what Springer's television show represents. It's over-the-top, it's stupid, it's crude. So what? Does that bar him from having an opinion on things?

[Guaranteed]

100. Jerry Springer has a lot of history as a Democrat, folks.

You guys aren't giving him nearly enough credit. He's a good man.

[Snotcicles]

118. He has alot of future also, Just watch what happens

He's is even turning around some repubs when they call in.
He gives them a chance to state there case then points out the flaws in there logic.

[Cleita]

117. I caught the last hour.

I thought comparing the Bay of Pigs invasion to Iraq was a good touch for people who weren't around or too young at that time. As far as taking callers, and letting them filibuster him, he'll learn.

[BrklynLiberal]

121. I am VERY disappointed that Unfiltered was dumped..but listened to Jerry

Springer today, and was pleasantly surprised. He is articulate, intelligent and on occasion, passionate. He does give a bit too much time to the Repukes, but Franken does that too.
There is a lot to be said for the concept of attracting people who would not otherwise listen. There is nothing to be gained by preaching only to the choir at this point. Hopefully sometime in the future, the "choir" will be the majority and it will be enough of an audience to sustain the station. At this point, the need is for a growing audience. This is true not just for commercial reasons, but because "converts" are needed at the polls as well. Hopefully people like Jerry Springer can show people who voted for Bush why it was a mistake to think that the Republicans are the ones who will be looking out for their interests.
I think there is real potential there.
I am saddened by the loss of Rachel, but am glad that it was not as bad as it could have been. She will still be around, just very early in the AM.
Springer is no where near the worst they could have done as a replacement for her.
I think he will turn out to be a real asset to AAR.

[retread]

128. I like strong, knowledgeable women. They are given so little voice.

I was disappointed a "progressive" radio network chose to lessen the number.

Springer was better than I expected. I liked his take on LBJ's decision not to run again. Springer was a Robert Kennedy supporter and said it showed Democrats put moral principle above party loyalty.

[Swamp Rat]

133. "I like strong, knowledgeable women" - Me too!

:thumbsup:

TOGETHER, we shall overcome this fascist regime!

[tilsammans]

136. I was pleasantly surprised

I couldn't hear all of Jerry's show, but I like what I heard. I was extremely skeptical at first.

His name recognition could bring in more red staters. I'm hoping people will listen to him out of curiosity, and find themselves becoming interested in the message.