Not a Talk Show Host

[SonicAl]

my post about it did make it on that board and a few people called me out about it... my comment:

just a bit of constructive criticism--Jeff needs to cut back on the "train
talk." It's becoming tiresome. There are so many other issues to talk about
right now. I hate to say it but I shut it off today and put on Bill Press on the
'net.

and one of the responses:

Regarding talk about trains, I disagree... right now is when the stimulus money
for mass transit is being allocated. You can't fault Jeff for wanting to
positively influence important policy when possible. This is an issue of great
interest to Gov. Dukakis, who helped us considerably. There are plenty of other
issues being covered on his show. If you have suggestions, call them in to
617-237-1203, or email them to jeffsantosshow [at] gmail.com


I might do that... but Gov. Dukakis? What year is this? 1988? Also someone suggested teaming up Jeff w/Marjorie Clapprood... again... what year is this? Hope they post your stuff Dan. I don't want to turn this into a "take it outside" deal but maybe a good topic would be whether stimulus money will help schools, fire, police etc... after all, if teachers, cops and firefighters get laid off, they won't have to worry about taking the train, bus or subway to get to work, anyway 

[lmf67]

Nothing has changed.

     Santos is a Fraud

 I'm starting to think if all Leftist Radio is this way and only give you one side of the story, then right wing radio isn't so bad. Atleast they invite the opposition's view and have opposing democrat and independent views as much as they may disagree with them.

 Santos is nothing more than CUMB BY YA Radio.

[raccoonradio]

I'm sure polarized talk radio, either left or right, will have its share of "shockers" (whether it's what Severin said,
or Mike Malloy's recent wish said right on air that he hoped Glenn Beck would commit suicide); or they will deal
with politicians of the past (so, where are the hot new faces?) or people can find fault with the hosts for
various reasons. But what's interesting is what talk radio could be like had the FCC not rolled out a decision
22 years ago yesterday, repealing the Fairness Doctrine.

Thus, a certain talk host who used to be top 40 DJ "Jeff Christie" at stations in McKeesport and Pittsburgh, PA,
was able to go nationwide with his conservative talk...Rush (who just lost about 79 pounds somehow: less of
him to love, or hate, as the case may be! Suddenly one part of the title of (Sen.) Franken's book no longer applies...
debatable about the rest of the title, but the fact he's on over 600 stations with a long-running show means
he may not necessarily be an idiot. Perhaps his opinions show that to some, but he HAS found great success.

Thankfully government-enforced "fairness" hasn't come back*...yet. For me it would be as backward as the days of talk radio that Jerry Williams used to talk about, where callers' voices could not be relayed on air so the host
had to repeat what they said. OK, so you say you're having trouble growing tomatoes this year? Uh huh. Uh huh.
If the FD ever does come back, and stations curtail political talk for fear of being force-fed alleged "fairness",
we may as well go back to the days of talk hosts relaying what the caller said!

Long live freedom of speech--without the government stepping in to ensure it's "...fair..." And shows and
hosts can succeed or fail depending on their talents and the demand. The Left gave us a messianic leader
as President who charmed a majority of voters (at the time; we shall see if he shall coast to re-election). Surely they can find interesting, talented talk show hosts, too...

*--it's debatable as to whether or not the government stepped in during the days of the FD, though the threat of
government action was certainly there--and it has been said that controversial issues during the Kennedy
administration were kept off radio by governmental pressure but it was during the days I was an infant or
toddler and I don't recall exactly what... still, do we need a watchdog for basic free speech?

[WLYNgm]

The so-called "Fairness Doctrine" meant well, but, like rent control,
it was a bad law. We are well rid of it. All this law effectively did
was to dumb down BOTH SIDES, so nothing controversial would ever be
a topic for discussion. Both the Left and the Right trash the opposition -
that is their reason for existence. Like any institution, the first thing
they must do is to perpetuate themselves. One man's "revolutionary" is
another man's "freedom fighter". The only difference is which side he
happens to be on...

[Don Juan]

The so-called "Fairness Doctrine" meant well, but, like rent control,
it was a bad law. We are well rid of it. All this law effectively did
was to dumb down BOTH SIDES, so nothing controversial would ever be
a topic for discussion.

Please don't tell me that Benzaquin, Jerry Williams, Gene Burns, Guy Maneilla ort Pat Whitley  never talked about controversial topics.

I appreciate what you bring to this board as a GM...but when did you arrive in Boston?

[raccoonradio]

It is true they did present controversial topics but listen to what Rush's brother, a conservative commentator,
says:

http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2007/01/new_column_the_15.html

"The Fairness Doctrine, an FCC regulation in force from 1949 to 1987, required broadcasters to present "both sides" of controversial issues. During that time, liberals had a virtual monopoly on the media. Since the rule was repealed, conservative talk radio has exploded -- Rush Limbaugh launched his syndicated radio show in 1988 -- and other media outlets multiplied:..."

...and it goes on to say that there are many media sources now so there's no need for radio to be regulated to
ensure "fairness".
(So, I guess Jerry, Paul, Pat et al made sure on their own to have people available to debate both sides, be they
callers or guests--WITHOUT government stepping in...!)

[WLYNgm]

I am a Boston-area boy, through and through! Trust me on this one!     
I was raised on Hoodsies and Fluffernutters. I made my TV debut as
a guest on the Big Brother Bob Emery Show, back in the day.

My point: the "Fairness Doctrine" - NOBODY WINS.
It was a bad law, albeit with the best of intentions...
The Fairness Doctrine is superfluous in this age of 24-hour news, the
internet, and a gazillion bloggers out there - every one of whom has an opinion.
All viewpoints are out there, somewhere - no matter how crackpot
or unpopular they may be...

[HHH]

My own opinion is that the repeal of the FD has caused an explosion of what I call "affirmation talk radio".  That is to say, a host who is unabashedly right or left, fielding mostly callers and hosting mostly guests who agree with him/her.  Some may have opposing viewpoints presented but--too often--they are the usual flower child or ill-prepared lightweight caller on the Hannity Show, or some Hispanic-hating wingnut caller on the Ed Shultz show.  Rush rarely has any guest, so we get three hours of one-sided monologue with mostly fawning callers.  I would like to see more authoritative guests of the opposite persuasion on these shows, but it does not fit the model, which is to demonize your opposition as being either naive or stupid.  When the articulate opposition starts to push back with actual points and facts, the host can not so easily control the characterization of the opponent.  Some of these talk people would literally be blown out of the water if they had to really face a real opponent, although some would probably do well.  Dennis Prager is probably the closest network guy (albeit without big ratings) who gives measured arguments and does not seem to be afraid to face an articulate opponent.
I know that Jerry Williams would never be afraid to challenge anybody in a debate.

I don't believe in repealing the FD, but the personal attack rules are a different story.  Many of these male-bozo morning shows have
ruined a lot of innocent people.  One morning show (I forget where) made fun of a middle eastern guy who ran a market in the neighborhood of the station.  They hinted that he was "probably a terrorist".  The next day, his front window was smashed.  He eventually moved.  The guy was a US citizen and a Catholic!  I understand that he tried to sue but the station owners told the morning show goons "don't worry, we'll run him out of money".  He demanded to go on and explain that he was a US citizen and a Catholic and not a Muslim terrorist.  The exact quote from the GM was "screw him.  let him buy time".  Is this right?  Is it?

[MRBIboredop]

I appreciate what you bring to this board as a GM...but when did you arrive in Boston?

WLYNGM has been in the business so long, that his resume has WBZ FM on it, and we're not talking on 98.5, we're talking 106.7

[Don Juan]

My point: the "Fairness Doctrine" - NOBODY WINS.
It was a bad law, albeit with the best of intentions...
The Fairness Doctrine is superfluous in this age of 24-hour news, the
internet, and a gazillion bloggers out there - every one of whom has an opinion.
All viewpoints are out there, somewhere - no matter how crackpot
or unpopular they may be...

You can be for it or against it, but the rationale that it squelched controversial topics from the airwaves is incorrect.

One thing the "Fairness Doctrine" did is bring some sense of civility to the airwaves.

When the fairness doctrine was in effect, we didn't have hosts calling people "towelheads" or calling Mexicans the biggest importer of VD and women with mustaches.

And, hosts made an attempt to present issues fairly.  At least they made an attempt.  Now they don't even try.  It was more of a discussion.  Now it's more of hosts ranting both on the Right and Left.  The level of noise has increased.  The level of civility has decreased.  And, again, please don't tell me stations/hosts did not do controversial topics.

When one company owns the majority of radio stations in the country....and four companies control all of Boston radio....saying that "all the points of view" are out there doesn't wash.

It doesn't matter if you are Left or Right.  The fairness doctrine was meant to deal with scituations like this:

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lion_Broadcasting_Co._v._FCC