Clawmaster wrote:
Warren Newson wrote:
Clawmaster wrote:
Warren Newson wrote:
Clawmaster wrote:
I know a lot of people that post here are terrified of open debate and people that have the audacity to have unique thoughts...
Come on now, you know that's not an accurate statement.
Hmm...have you ever read some of the comments? Some people hate it when the hosts or callers actually disagree, not sure how you do sports talk radio when everyone always agrees on everything?
I can't recall anyone ever posting that they don't like it when there's disagreement between the hosts or between the hosts and the callers. However, I can recall many people posting that 9 out of 10 calls tend to suck and they aren't interested in hearing more of them.
Interesting take, but let's unpack this a bit.
So your saying that 4 hours of Bernstein and Holmes droning on and on and on about Tony LaRussa is preferable to a 10% chance on thirty seconds of entertaining radio.
Not to mention the fact that it is highly likely that a vast majority of the supportive texts read on air are simply a modernization of the Murphian "Kenny Owens Concept", so your basically getting only the thoughts of 2-3 people for four hours, again, hearing another voice for 30 seconds seems preferable.
Find it interesting that Mike Murphy is still mocked on the station, yes he was an odd duck, but he did do some oddly unique stuff and was actually able to produce enough content to fill a show unlike Larry Holmes who struggled mightily to do a two hour solo show.
Not sure if I buy your thesis statement, seem there are numerous variables you did not consider.
Your first statement- "I know a lot of people that post here are terrified of open debate and people that have the audacity to have unique thoughts..." I point out that this statement is nonsense. In reply, you don't bother to defend the statement, and move on to your second statement.
Your second statement- "Hmm...have you ever read some of the comments? Some people hate it when the hosts or callers actually disagree." I point out that I've never seen anyone on this board state that they don't like it when the hosts disagree with one another or with callers, but there are plenty of people who don't like callers. You don't try and defend this point, but instead move on to your third point.
Your third point- to summarize, callers are good and you want more of them. I don't agree with your point, but at least it's defensible. I don't want to wade through caller after caller either regurgitating the hosts' point or being unable to defend themselves after the hosts take a shot at them, to get to that one call where someone can both articulate and defend an original thought. The odds are just too low. Give me a random guest over a random caller any day of the week.