|
Post by kevin on Apr 23, 2007 20:10:55 GMT -5
But I'd also say that your case isn't easily made to a casual listener to the station when they hear the "God and country" tagline. P.S.- was it just me or did they cease using that tagline for a time a month or so back? I knew I wasn't the only one who noticed...and I think it made its way back on almost immediately after TAM left the air. Which is so lame...TAM may not have been Wendy & Ken (talk about a syrupy feel good show, yuck) but they weren't the anti-Christ with 2 heads either.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 23, 2007 20:14:09 GMT -5
They did. I don't think it was a long time though. I would say that the tagline was used while TAM was still there up until the end.
Speaking of the crawford taglines and such....the only commerical that I could point a finger to and say didn't fit was the one High-Def radio commerical. You know, the one that states something to the effect of a guys voice saying, " yada..yada..your like, @#@$bleep over there!" Does anyone know what I am talking about?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 23, 2007 20:17:06 GMT -5
Yikes! As phin pointed out, it's a very, very short step between a rogue nipple and porn.
The question needs to be asked, How is our society made better by totally unregulated media that is allowed to show/broadcast any content at any time of the day?
If that is the principals you'll adhere to when you have kids, my hat's off to you. Too many parents don't even make the half-hearted attempt to monitor what their kids see and hear.
My wife and I do, but what you see on ABC Family now wouldn't have made it past the censors twent years ago, and one would expect a channel called "ABC Family" to be at least somewhat family-friendly.
Here you have a point. I had the show on TiVo and still had to run it three or four times to make sure I was offended....
Actions have- or should have- consequences.
If a network broadcasts a program that some viewers/listeners find offensive, obviously the network can make the free choice to do so.
But aren't the viewers allowed to voice their objections to the offensive programming and hold either the broadcaster, their sponsors or the on-air personalities responsible?
I think we'd both agree that getting government on any level involved through government censorship (the only correct useage of the term by the way) isn't necessary nor desirable. Bad, bad, BAD idea.
But I see a need for government to get involve to (shudder) define obscenity once and for all so that all broadcasters know what the standard is, at least insofar as what standard must be violated in order to get the federal government involved.
You can't have a broadcaster saying that, 'Well San Francisco was not offended by JJ's nipple so I don't know what Birmingham's problem is'. The current rules on obscenity state, so far as I know, that the 'prevailing standards of decency within a given locale' must be violated in order to bring down the wrath of the FCC. It's not fair that the broadcaster in Birmingham is held to one (high) standard while the broadcaster in San Francisco is held to another (low) standard.
No, I'm not totally uncomfortable with such a single standard, but the need for one so that everyone is playing by the same rules and knows what the consequences of violating the standards are outweighs my trepidation.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 23, 2007 20:28:39 GMT -5
Google and Youtube (although I dissagree with it) do what they do for business reasons. That's why I said "regulate on a political level." That's forced by the state. Self regulation isn't. The internet as we know it is largely self-regulating. People who live in societies that were not influenced by Christian traditions know a rather different internet. When in 2005, oppressive regimes sought greater state control of the internet, the Bush admin. resisted. www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101facomment84602/kenneth-neil-cukier/who-will-control-the-internet.html Google was complicit in the Chinese gov't imprisonment of a political dissident. computerworld.com.my/ShowPage.aspx?pagetype=2&articleid=4702&pubid=4&issueid=110A business decision? Sure, but business concerns do not explain all of the actions of the DNC givers. www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2005-02-13-google-give-usat_x.htmThe basis for which people have been censored on Youtube and Google was political. This is demonstrable. www.youtube.com/index?&session=cw4-l859JvOp6uqRkXwi1utosAVKs9T5IT_dccJuD9H3jbIJ9mRFFf-7TmScmqWsj3JzKvRccU9vvPUGSa6D44fFfTkN7feeTmTKW9cnXnvz2YMuRzxpRBxE13lXTtTzi10LVeeO6UbkEukFXb24MI8XMUpGIizDA468-TK4nMMWz6SUicJwcw==www.youtube.com/index?&session=YEUL-Nsm128P0iHoSaxOEwTyYTA4sXi_QkEtnRmtWSaRpYsBsHkN_6Vu2FfmWOEaM0FHYzn7Oc87bycoNYEGQxFnb2-egYMfGXw1j8lUezy5KlLnoI7kBELIG6fQt9P4sJCW_U3P0ITPEGf9HLOtj_yNye8y3uAvGKBtGFgDL1geX1lxJQVUvA==thestudyofrevenge.blogspot.com/2006/02/content-warning.htmlWhile this is as you suggest self-censorship, it does indicate a greater willingness and desire to limit the free speech of political opponents than do complaints about nipples on broadcast television. This is why I think you are confused between the definitions of libertinsm and libertarianism. Libertarians should be much more concerned about the willful censorship of political speech than the censorship of breasts on broadcast television. It is much more important for you to be able to say that you like boobies than it is for you and a million other unsuspecting viewers to be shown them. I made a prediction about the future of the internet. You dissagree, and that's fine. Let's just sit back and see who is right. In the meantime, DNC members of a DNC controlled congress openly discuss the "Fairness Doctrine." There is no need to "sit back and see who is right." It may well be the case that religiously motivated activists...... oh yeah I almost forgot about HR 288 "To the extent it mentions the Quran and Islam specifically, that is obviously to respond to those who believe our nation would tolerate disrespect of that religion or its holy book. Clearly we should not, at least in my opinion." www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25448Anyway, as I was saying, it may well be the case that politically minded Christians may eventually get around to trying to limit free speech. Why do you suppose that they forgot to do that so many years ago when Christians founded this nation? Could it be because Christ never showed any political motivation?
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 23, 2007 20:32:54 GMT -5
;D
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 23, 2007 20:47:06 GMT -5
Back to Christianity...part of being a good Christian is to spread the Word and work to convert. True enough. When that fails, I've found that the next steps are smiting and judging and then banning together to force change. Where did you find that? In the Bible? In the actions of Christ? Or did some mean thumper hurt your feelings? Ask anyone else working in a public arena and you will find that the loudest voice of dissent comes from one specific group: Christians. Dissent? Can't have that. That would be counter-productive to Chris Hobbs telling everyone who is and isn't a good Christian. Are Christians the loudest dissenters or the unseen hand? I do wish you would decide which demon that those you wish to demonize are. When something is said or done that they do not agree with, they call for boycotts, for removal, for laws banning, etc. It is a shame that such nominal Christians do exist. Christ never lobbied the Roman Senate. What exactly are your "libertarian" reasons for ridiculing the exercise of free speech and free commerce of Christians? Despite all the conspiracy theories popping up on this forum surrounding our sudden exit from The Source, I need not point very far to proove my point. Do you think that you could be off the air because of your unwarranted swagger. They didn't call you the cuddle machine for nothing. Langford and Kincaid proved that neither of you were doing your homework. You are all bluff and bluster. You prided yourself for bringing new ideas, that many of us have heard before. Some of us even know what the words that you constantly misuse do actually mean.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hobbs on Apr 23, 2007 20:51:21 GMT -5
We were told many times by those in the building that 101.1FM was indeed a secular station. From a programming standpoint (and I have been a Program Director of a talk radio station before) I feel the "God and Country" branding, coupled with the Crawford Stand each day at 7:40am and 5:40pm is a bad move for a secular station because it does confuse the listening audience. Some come because they think they are getting the secular talk. Others come because they think they will be preached to from a religious station. It was the later who sent angry and outright false emails to corporate and King Crawford. I read some of them myself and saw with my own eyes the outrageous claims of us using swear words.
Now put all that together.
King Carawford, who NEVER heard a single minute of the show receives emails and hand written letters saying that we are going on air swearing. There were also complaints coming from inside the building (not from management, mind you). One email even said that we were the mouthpiece of the devil who "tricked" Crawford into hiring us. So you have a 70 year old, Christian man, responsible to the FCC if any REAL swear words were to get out over the air, reading email after email explaining that we are swearing and anti-Christian and how there isn't "enough God in the morning show."
As I said...the reason is simple. No conspiracies.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 23, 2007 21:01:50 GMT -5
We were told many times by those in the building that 101.1FM was indeed a secular station. From a programming standpoint (and I have been a Program Director of a talk radio station before) I feel the "God and Country" branding, coupled with the Crawford Stand each day at 7:40am and 5:40pm is a bad move for a secular station because it does confuse the listening audience. Some come because they think they are getting the secular talk. Others come because they think they will be preached to from a religious station. It was the later who sent angry and outright false emails to corporate and King Crawford. I read some of them myself and saw with my own eyes the outrageous claims of us using swear words. Now put all that together. King Carawford, who NEVER heard a single minute of the show receives emails and hand written letters saying that we are going on air swearing. There were also complaints coming from inside the building (not from management, mind you). One email even said that we were the mouthpiece of the devil who "tricked" Crawford into hiring us. So you have a 70 year old, Christian man, responsible to the FCC if any REAL swear words were to get out over the air, reading email after email explaining that we are swearing and anti-Christian and how there isn't "enough God in the morning show." As I said...the reason is simple. No conspiracies. Do you think you might have fared better if you had been more openly agnostic on the radio? That would have clued listeners in that it is a secular station. You might have even lived up to the name "The Attack Machine."
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on Apr 23, 2007 22:12:50 GMT -5
I don't think he hid it at all.
|
|
|
Post by Twista on Apr 24, 2007 0:30:55 GMT -5
"Are Christians the loudest dissenters or the unseen hand?"
Having lived in quite a few different parts of the country, I'd say in Alabama the Christians are not the "unseen hand" at all... The level of control they wish to have over others is pretty amazing, and is not something I'd seen when living in some other parts of the US...
I think in the case of many, like Erwin, the idea is to be the "seen hand" to let people know who is in charge of their lives...
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 24, 2007 1:19:10 GMT -5
Twista, please let all of the Christians on this forum in on how to obtain this "control" you speak of, because I would like to be able to get a raise, pay less for food and not have to pay any taxes.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 24, 2007 6:35:57 GMT -5
Perhaps there is a level of truth judging by some of the laws (gourmet beer, sex toys, etc.) , but you ever stop to consider that Alabama is smack dab in the middle of the Bible belt? More Christians per capita means more that go overboard about it. Law of averages...
Don't know about 2 of those, but the government is pursuing a campaign to get the word out that only 60% of the people eligible for food stamps are taking advantage. They want to make the application easier so you don't have put much effort into getting started on sucking from the government teet. So, no, you won't pay less for food, but if your income is low enough and you've plopped out enough offspring, maybe you too could get your well-deserved food stamps!
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 24, 2007 6:50:11 GMT -5
Not to compare the two in terms of content or the like, but...
Anyone happen to see (errr...how to put this...) Howard Stern's "Private Parts" (so to speak)?
In the movie, he's hired to be an on-air personality at WNBC (I think it is) which is owned by NBC as a whole.
Of course, the higher-ups have never heard Stern's show, so they have no idea what they're getting.
Sound familiar?
When the inevitible complaints begin rolling in, they sit down to actually listen to the show and are- gasp!- horrified by the show's content and vow to make a change.
Sound familiar?
No, I wasn't a regular listener to TAM but I enjoyed the show when I was able to listen. I can't say that my Christianity was negatively affected in any way by the experience.
Would that make me a progrtessive conservative? >ponder<
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 24, 2007 7:05:36 GMT -5
Actually, I'd say Hank Erwin's show would have more of a negative effect on level-headed Christians. I never suspected I'd get a strong Christian aspect from TAM, so I took the show for what it was. If more people who take a moment to realize what exactly their getting before they venture into something, they'd come out the other side with their skin intact ;D. If I go into a bar and pick up some drunk gal, the probability of her being a God fearing woman with high moral standards is greatly reduced .
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 24, 2007 7:25:02 GMT -5
I don't think he hid it at all. It is true that I never heard any claim from Chris Hobbs of being a Christian. I also do not recall him saying that Christians, "by their very nature" are oppressive. And billt, they call themselves Christians, because they are. And very good ones at that. Christians by their very nature work to silence those which can't be converted to their belief system.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 24, 2007 7:27:45 GMT -5
"Are Christians the loudest dissenters or the unseen hand?" Having lived in quite a few different parts of the country, I'd say in Alabama the Christians are not the "unseen hand" at all... The level of control they wish to have over others is pretty amazing, and is not something I'd seen when living in some other parts of the US... I think in the case of many, like Erwin, the idea is to be the "seen hand" to let people know who is in charge of their lives... Is this to imply that Christians do not exist in other parts of the country? When did Erwin supplant Jesus in defining what is and is not Christian?
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on Apr 24, 2007 8:16:44 GMT -5
It is true that I never heard any claim from Chris Hobbs of being a Christian. I also do not recall him saying that Christians, "by their very nature" are oppressive. I think he made that point during the Imus conversation. He made it inregards to Janet Jackson, Stern and Imus. IMO incorrectly, but he made the point nonethelss.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 24, 2007 9:15:05 GMT -5
It is true that I never heard any claim from Chris Hobbs of being a Christian. I also do not recall him saying that Christians, "by their very nature" are oppressive. I think he made that point during the Imus conversation. He made it inregards to Janet Jackson, Stern and Imus. IMO incorrectly, but he made the point nonethelss. Fair enough. I was not listening during the Imus controversy.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hobbs on Apr 24, 2007 15:13:49 GMT -5
I also made that point during the beer conversation, the FCC conversation, the video game conversation, the sex toy conversation and MULTIPLE times during the gambling conversations. I also recall saying one of my core beliefs that "organized religion taints spirituality." Did I come right out and say I was agnostic, hell no...that would've been suicide. Plus, no one ever asked. (Although it was there in plain English on my personal Myspace page, that many listeners joined) But I believe many of my views on tangible issues spoke clearly of my beliefs. So much so that some people on this forum even said "one of us" sounded agnostic.
And for the record: having a personal belief outside of Christianity doesn't make someone "anti-Christian." Some of the best people I have ever known in life have been strong Christians. That being said, some of the most evil, hatefilled people I have ever known in life have been strong Christians. Organized religion was created by man to use fear and hope to control societies. And because of its political, social and monetary ties, it drowns out the true meaning of what it is to be spiritual.
And that is why I choose not to subscribe to any of them.
Just my take on it. Not bashing anyone. But...as they say on the internet: flame on.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 24, 2007 15:33:10 GMT -5
No flame.
"Organized religion was created by man to use fear and hope to control societies."
Do you have evidence of this or is this just your opinion?
"That being said, some of the most evil, hatefilled people I have ever known in life have been strong Christians."
Could you give us an example of what this strong Christian did to make the list of "most evil, hatefilled people" you have ever known in your life?
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 24, 2007 15:49:55 GMT -5
I also made that point during the beer conversation, the FCC conversation, the video game conversation, the sex toy conversation and MULTIPLE times during the gambling conversations. The same gambling conversations where a self described libertarian voiced favor for essentially a gov’t monopoly of lotteries? I also recall saying one of my core beliefs that "organized religion taints spirituality." Well, what do you know, I know a few Christians that have a similar view. Did I come right out and say I was agnostic, hell no...that would've been suicide. And so this comes more directly to the matter that I raised. Why do you think it would have been suicide? “The Attack Machine” would have better lived up to its name and that constant drumbeat of bringing new opinions to “you guys” if you’d taken this issue head on. You prevaricated. And now on this thread you claimed to know who are and who aren’t the “good” Christians. Plus, no one ever asked. (Although it was there in plain English on my personal Myspace page, that many listeners joined) Might that indicate that many listeners didn’t care? But I believe many of my views on tangible issues spoke clearly of my beliefs. So much so that some people on this forum even said "one of us" sounded agnostic. True. And often enough you sounded quite rational. Which makes the statements that you have written in this thread even more disappointing. And for the record: having a personal belief outside of Christianity doesn't make someone "anti-Christian." Of course not, but stating that the “very nature” of Christians is to censor others, when this is in clear contrast to long standing tradition, the model of Christ, and the observable conduct of members of this forum, does show you to be anti-Christian. Some of the best people I have ever known in life have been strong Christians. That being said, some of the most evil, hatefilled people I have ever known in life have been strong Christians. How do you know? “Most evil” and “hatefilled” are neither attributes of Christ nor anywhere celebrated by Christian tradition. Organized religion was created by man to control societies. So why do atheists organize? Organization is a natural tendency. Some people have joined and created religious organizations to control themselves rather than others. Many Christians practice such introspective faith. And because of its political, social and monetary ties, it drowns out the true meaning of what it is to be a spiritual. True. And that is why I choose not to subscribe to any of them. ‘k Just my take on it. Not bashing anyone. But...as they say on the internet: flame on. That’s a rather funny statement. “Not bashing anyone.” Just your take that the “nature” of Christians is to censor others? And then the challenge, “flame on?” Bring the heat, skippy.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hobbs on Apr 24, 2007 15:53:32 GMT -5
You know, I almost put "In my opinion..." in front of that statement, but I believe it to be true after my studies on religion in societies and the sociology of organized religion.
It is my understanding that Christianity is about loving, tolerance, peace and understanding. I get that from my very Christian family and my upbringing. That being said, it always confused me to hear Christians speak so hatefully about gays and pro-abortionists, even different races and religions. You can be against it and disagree with it, fine. But to wish another person dead because they are different? That is a thought process that I do not understand. And you need not look any further than they 100K watts of that radio station for prime examples. There are people out there who have said , to me, on my show, they they want to rid the world of Muslims and gays through means of violence and war. Then these same people championed the teachings of Christ and the scripture.
To me, that thought process is hypocritical, evil and hatefilled.
Maccuss: The "Flame on" comment was a joke. Relax. Any time on any forum religion is brought up, it turns into a flame war. You know this. It was tongue in cheek.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Apr 24, 2007 15:56:30 GMT -5
You know, I almost put "In my opinion..." in front of that statement, but I believe it to be true after my studies on religion in societies and the sociology of organized religion. It is my understanding that Christianity is about loving, tolerance, peace and understanding. I get that from my very Christian family and my upbringing. That being said, it always confused me to hear Christians speak so hatefully about gays and pro-abortionists, even different races and religions. You can be against it and disagree with it, fine. But to wish another person dead because they are different? That is a thought process that I do not understand. And you need not look any further than they 100K watts of that radio station for prime examples. There are people out there who have said , to me, on my show, they they want to rid the world of Muslims and gays through means of violence and war. Then these same people championed the teachings of Christ and the scripture. To me, that thought process is hypocritical, evil and hatefilled. Hypocritical, evil, hatefilled, and unChristian.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 24, 2007 16:06:16 GMT -5
Still waiting for this:
Could you give us an example of what this strong Christian did to make the list of "most evil, hatefilled people" you have ever known in your life?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hobbs on Apr 24, 2007 16:11:34 GMT -5
I thought I just did.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 24, 2007 16:18:59 GMT -5
If you are referring to the generic statement, "But to wish another person dead because they are different?" I would counter that is not the behaviour of a "Strong Christian" nor most people. If you are basing the measuring stick on Westboro Baptist members, then I can see where you would be confused.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 24, 2007 16:40:17 GMT -5
Alabamy will turn the most laid back live-and-let-live Agnostic into rabid anti-Christian Atheist.
The Xtians brought in on themselves by setting the mood.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 24, 2007 16:48:19 GMT -5
I guess the same could be said about New York City.
I know I am not Sanjaya....but here goes.
There is a car...that I can get into....it has gas....and tires too....I can hop in it....and go anywhere I choose to....and never come back....and never come back.
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on Apr 24, 2007 17:18:06 GMT -5
I knew I wasn't the only one who noticed...and I think it made its way back on almost immediately after TAM left the air. Can't believe I missed this. The "God and Country" liner was taken out because we were trying to get away from that branding and the brainwashing it was doing. We were told when we were hired it was a "secular talk station." Say what ya will about the Crawdaddy, he knows branding and that God and Country garbage, that is what it is garbage that makes you tune out, it has been effective, at getting in people's head and being used against the station. (Crawford Stand, Arizona is the boring state, America: Love it or leave it) When it came back, along with the bible verses, I knew we were in trouble.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 24, 2007 17:54:51 GMT -5
I am confused here. You two keep speaking as if the "station" is not controlled by Crawford Broadcasting. Why would Crawdaddy use the "garbage" you speak of to make people tune out of his own station?
I have also pointed this out before, other than the Hank Erwin show, there are no other OVERT Christian shows on 101.1 so how is it that you guys are affected by the "God and Country blip and the Crawford Stand, along with it's Bible verses? Why isn't the Murphy Show, Lee Davis show or even Burt and Kurt being cancelled, if this were the case?
There is almost ZERO output of Christian "vibes" from these shows other than what some callers interject and the show hosts minimally respond....which was no different from TAM.
|
|