Why Did KFI Do This?

 

While we develop habits and become set in our ways, radio, including talk radio, has never stayed "the same" for very long.

My latest example is that at the start of this year, KFI AM 640 Los Angeles decided to go back to having another weekday program, after having reduced the number of them it had years ago.

They moved Mo'Kelly, a weekend and fill-in host, to a weekday slot.

To make room for Kelly, the Bill Handel Show was shortened (probably a good thing) so it would end at 9am again instead of 10am. Gary and Shannon got to keep their four hours, they were just shifted to an hour earlier, meaning they were shifted to 9am-1pm.

Great. So put Mo'Kelly on at 1pm to 4pm, and let John and Ken, and Tim Conway Jr. revert back to their old time slots, losing an hour each, 4pm-7pm and 7pm-10pm respectively, right?

Right?

No.

Kelly was given the 7pm-10pm slot.

This means John and Ken are now 1pm-4pm, and Tim Conway Jr is now 4pm-7pm.

The problem with this is that John and Ken have gotten very good at being government watchdogs and analyzing crime and news in general, which plays heavily to the afternoon drive commuters and parents who want to catch up while/after picking their kids up from school, daycare, or whatever and running errands or driving their kids to activities. Putting their show on 1pm-4pm makes little sense. Likewise, Tim Conway Jr. has been very good at being "last show of the day" sort of thing, with a distinctly nighttime flavor. It's much more light-hearted than John and Ken were in the same/similar (depending on the year) time slot.

I have no idea who really wanted this new schedule. I'd imagine Bill Handel, John and Ken, and Tim Conway Jr. were happy to revert back to a "shorter" show. Three hours is long enough for most talk show hosts. But putting the established weekday afternoon/evening shows that much earlier is baffling to me. I can't imagine the hosts themselves wanted that unless there has been a change in their personal lives that makes it more convenient for them. I can see Kelly preferring the later slot, of course. For all we know, this was just what someone in charge at KFI wanted, and that's that or maybe some consultant recommended this.

I don't know for certain who is under contract for however long, and how John and Ken and Tim Conway Jr. feel about all of this, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone bolts for KABC AM 790. I know John and Ken had a bad experience there, but that was a long time ago and the people they clashed with have probably all departed. Yes, the ratings for KABC are terrible. That's the point! KABC needs to do something to improve their ratings, and getting popular L.A. hosts back into their best time slots might be the way to do it.

Of course I have zero inside knowledge about this. Nor have I been reading the newspaper columns on radio lately (if they still exist), What I do know is that terrestrial broadcast radio doesn't have what it had 25-30 years ago. There are seemingly endless other audio content options, and it can't be easy to attract and keep listeners.

Is This Any Way to Treat a Loyal Customer?

I have been a Dr. Laura Schlessinger fan for decades, listening to her radio program and reading many of her books, and interacting with her program's social media. She read at least one essay I posted on my blog on her radio program, approvingly. It was in her defense from attacks directed her way. She's read letters I've written to her on her program.

Her program, which airs live on SiriusXM, is also sold as a paid subscription podcast. I subscribe to that podcast, because I want to be able to listen to every moment of the program; the implication is that the podcast is going to be the program that aired, minus the breaks.

Unfortunately, too often, it isn't.

Sometimes, an hour or all three from weeks or months ago will be uploaded instead of that day's live program. Some other times, the 48-minute long hour will have one segment repeat back-to-back, meaning we are hearing the same 12 minutes we just heard 12 minutes ago. And since the hour isn't extended, that means we are missing 12 minutes of that hour.

This is NOT when she plans to be off and they run "Best of." Or when old calls are dopped into her "live" program to give her a break or make up for a lack of callers (all talk programs are getting fewer callers). This is the person handling the podcast (which isn't her) botching the podcast. Now, we all make mistakes. But a botched podcast can be fixed. And it should be.

Dr. Laura says she reads all her e-mails (just not all on the air). I wonder if that's true, or if she only reads the ones her staff allows her to read? I know she interacts with comments on the program's official Facebook but does NOT interact with the program's Twitter account.

It became clear that Tuesday [not Monday, as I originally wrote], July 19, 2022 podcast's third hour (at least), wasn't (or, substantially wasn't) what aired on the SiriusXM program. There were several ways to know:

• Some people catch parts of the program on SiriusXM, then later listen to the podcast, and some podcast listeners discuss the program with people who listen live. Differences become apparent. "Did you hear the call about....?" Well, no, because it wasn't included in the podcast. Something else must have been, instead.
  
  
• Some close, avid listeners of the podcast recognize old calls from past editions of the program.
  
  
• Dr. Laura reads an "Email of the Day" and that also gets posted on the official program website. The "Email of the Day" read during that podcast hour is NOT a recently posted Email of the Day, and her Facebook posted the Email of the Day for Tuesday (see below) and it wasn't one heard by podcast listeners. 

In addition:

• That hour was labeled on the website as "Jasmine's 7-year-old daughter is holding back her emotions." However, there was no such call during that podcast hour.
  
  
• Dr. Laura does a live promo for her "Marriage 101" course. That was something she was doing promos for months ago. She's currently doing live promos for her book about surviving "Shark Attacks" on land, and indeed, later in the hour there was also one of those.
  
  
• Dr. Laura mentions that she's going to tell story after a break, then never tells the story.

The first one of those three is an indication that the wrong file got uploaded for podcast listeners. The second and third are indications that whatever was uploaded was "spliced together," at least partially from one or more previous programs. The third almost certainly isn't a matter of Dr. Laura forgetting to tell the story. Using old calls isn't the problem here, if they were used during the live program. The problem is that we podcast subscribers aren't getting the program that aired that day.

So what are paying podcast subscribers to do, if they want what aired that day instead of retreads from weeks or months ago?

Well, they can try the customer service tied to the podcast subscription. What if we think Dr. Laura needs to be aware of this recurring problem? We can write her an e-mail about it, and hope she sees it. I tried alerting her through the program's Facebook. This was posted there:



That was precisely the Email of the Day podcast listeners DID NOT get to hear her read. None of her podcast listeners (as of this writing, anyway), got to hear that.

So I was the first to comment:


For that, I was quicky banned from the program's official Facebook (and that comment removed), despite being a longtime "Top Contributor" who behaved respectfully and expressed my appreciation for the program there.

Now here's the question I have, other than "Will that hour of the podcast ever get fixed?":

Was it staff that banned me (I wonder if Dr. Laura even knows how to ban, as she is self-admittedly not that technical), and is Dr. Laura being informed of when her podcast is getting botched, or is that being deliberately kept from her? If she doesn't care, or doesn't want customers talking about it because she doesn't want to discourage people from signing up, that's one thing. If her staff is hiding important information from her, shame on them.

I'd really like to know which it is.

As things are right now, I'm considering ending my subscription, as this isn't the way customers should be treated, and if podcast subscribers aren't going to get what they paid for (especially given there are still ads included, just not the ones during breaks), they shouldn't keep paying. No, my one subscription isn't a big deal, ...but if you lose me, surely you're losing many others.

I'd be happy to do a positive update to this post. If someone needs to reach me, they can contact me through my Facebook or my Twitter.

Do the right thing, indeed.

Tom Leykis Is a Political Idiot - In My Opinion

"Who is Tom Leykis?" you might be asking. And for good reason. He's irrelevant now, but yes, here I am writing about him. Because I can.

Tom became "a thing" because radio station KFI AM 640 in Los Angeles needed a "liberal" to balance the legendary and unmatchable Rush Limbaugh. Leykis benefitted enormously from Limbaugh's coattails (and the Fairness Doctrine, IMO), as Limbaugh had the 9am-Noon slot, and Tommy had afternoon drive. Somewhere along the way, Tommy had the luck to get the same agent as Howard Stern, and, as a result, was paid very good money, which he constantly claims to have invested well. 

Apparently, that, along with prenups at least in his later marriages, and having all of his children that he knows about aborted, has kept him financially comfortable. And hey, except for the multiple babies he's had slaughtered in abortions because he was apparently, in my opinion based on his own words, too much of a wimp to get a vasectomy even though he knew he didn't want kids, good for him.

Did Dennis Prager Advocate Marital Rape?

 NO.

Trolls who attack Dennis Prager online often say he advocates or advocated marital rape. 

There are two basic possibilities here:

1) Their definition of "rape" is ridiculous and not what most people think of when they see the word.

2) They are bearing false witness. They are libeling Dennis Prager and and lying.

Dennis Prager didn't advocate marital rape. He didn't even defend marital rape. 

The allegation comes from a column or a pair of columns published at the end of 2008. From "When a Woman Isn't in the Mood: Part I":

The subject is one of the most common problems that besets marriages: the wife who is “not in the mood” and the consequently frustrated and hurt husband.

Anyone honest about marriage will recognize that this happens a lot.

A woman who often deprives her husband of her body is guaranteed to injure him and to injure the marriage — no matter what her female friends say, no matter what a sympathetic therapist says, and no matter what her man says.

Emphasis mine.

The Left's Reaction To the Passing of Successful Republicans or Conservatives

I am posting this the day after the passing of Rush Limbaugh, but it has applied so many other times and will apply again.

The way many on the Left publicly react to the death of successful Republicans and conservatives is more evidence as to why they should be denied the power over others they so desperately seek.

What did Rush Limbaugh do that was bad? He said some mean things? Said a few incorrect things? Engaged in some distasteful humor? 

Who hasn't?

Really, who hasn't?

Limbaugh was on radio for three hours per day, five days per week, for decades. (He also wrote books and had a television show for a while, and engaged in public speaking.) Of course he said things he shouldn't have or got a few things wrong. So what??? For some of the things, he apologized. I've seen the lists of supposed sins of Limbaugh circulated by the Left. Many items on the list aren't even a problem, especially when taken in context. It's just that Leftists don't like them. 

There's the real "problem." Limbaugh very effectively articulated a conservative, America-loving message, and defended and promoted Republicans, and what's worse to Leftists is that he did it to tens of millions of people because he was so entertaining while doing it. What's even more, he paved the way for so many other conservatives in talk radio and other media, so that people were exposed to something other than the Leftism-Democrat Narrative they were getting from media, academia, etc. Leftism can't abide dissent. Facts, logic, and true history, discussed openly, obliterate Leftist narratives. That's why Limbaugh, and those he inspired, are hated by the Left. 

They hate him because he was successful. And they hate you just the same. These people want you to shut up, they want to control you, and they want you dead. They have provided the evidence themselves. 

This is why Leftists should never have any control over anyone other than themselves.

Abdicating Your Vote to Teenagers

Some marriage neutering advocates proclaim inevitability because of fauxmentum based on poll dancing and talking with teenagers. For example, one morning I was listening to Los Angeles-based talk radio host Bill Handel who was citing that younger generations don’t see what the issue is – why wouldn’t a man be able to get a state marriage license with another man? He used his own westside-of-LA-raised teenaged daughters as an example. There is probably some truth to that – teenagers haven’t matured enough and experienced enough life to understand the implications of the differences between the sexes and what marriage is and isn’t, and what it means and how it has an impact on individuals, families, and the community.

However, we don’t determine public policy based on the feelings and inexperienced, uninformed opinions of teenagers. Otherwise, we might replace Algebra, Biology, and History classes with porn screenings (they have to wait for university for that), eliminate curfews, lower the drinking, smoking, and driving age to 13 along with the age of consent for sex, and excuse stealing, lying, and cheating as long as it was for a teen’s short-term gain. Your child might not understand why you say “no” to a sleepover – it doesn’t mean you relent. Children do tend to grow up, and grow more socially conservative as they get older, marry, and have children of their own. (Having children of both sexes does much to educate many people on the differences between the sexes, if marriage hasn't already. Many boys are drugged essentially because they are not girls.) Some children need more help in understanding the realities of life than others, and it is up to their parents, first and foremost, to teach them.

Hank Hanegraaff on Neutering Marriage and Hit & Run Bible Mockers

Hank Hanegraaff, culture warrior, is a longtime husband and father of 12 children. If understand correctly, nine of those children are biological (one of which miscarried) and three are adopted. So, he has a lot of perspective on marriage, family, and parenting. He has a new blog that appears to be intentionally distinct from the ministry he leads. Two recent entries are relevant to the issue of neutering marriage.

The first is "What Are the Inherent Liabilities of [Neutering] Marriage?"

Furthermore, we should underscore the biological reality of sexual reproduction. Every organ in the human body is self-sufficient to perform its intended function except for one. Natural reproduction always, always, always requires a coupling of male and female. As Dr. Jay Richards has well written in the Christian Research Journal, “Marriage protects, reflects, and reinforces this powerful complementary, reproductive part of our natures.” As such, marriage “is a comprehensive union of body, mind, emotion, and soul, a proper end of which is children.”

One need not even cite reproduction. It is a biological fact that men and women are different. All one must do is note that men and women are different and thus the uniting of both sexes is different from other kinds of associations. States are allowed to treat different kinds of associations differently. This is not a religious argument, it is an argument based on basic biological reality that most people understand and live by, with perhaps the exception of a very, very few people, most of whom required many years of brainwashing to arrive at their stated opinion. and unless they are neuterally bisexual, they are hypocrites.

In sum, marriage cannot be reduced to politically correct rhetoric or political whims. It is a matter of natural law. Says Richards, “Rights come from our nature, and our nature comes from God. If you deny that, then you deny the basis of all our other rights.” In the end, redefining marriage strikes a mortal blow to the foundation of a free society.

This is no small matter. because of the flouting of so much other "traditional morality" in having sex and raising children out of wedlock, shacking up, adultery, what I would call elective divorces, and elective abortions, too many people think it won't feel any different if marriage is neutered, and so there is no harm in it. However, the arguments driving the neutering of marriage undermine the very foundation of our rights, making them nothing more than things doled out by whomever is currently in office. In gaining the "right" to get a state license without a bride or without a groom (which is not just limited to homosexual people - anyone can access this "right" just as homosexual individuals can access bride+groom licenses), all rights are being weakend.

Hanegraaff's entry offers:

See also Jay W. Richards, “To Defend Marriage, We Should Learn a Lesson from Apologetics,” Christian Research Journal, vol. 35, no. 4, 2012.

Bible Answer Man interview with Jay W. Richards, “What is marriage?”
http://www.equip.org/audio/hank-hanegraaff-with-special-guest-jay-w-richards/

The second entry is "Can Christians Only 'Thump the Bible' On the Issue of [Neutering] Marriage Legislation?"

When the Bible is being denigrated, mocked, disdained, as sarcasm drip from the lips of political pundits and public personalities, we must take a stand, because the lives of multiplied millions literally hang in the balance.

He takes Bill O’Reilly and Lawrence O'Donnell to task.

In reality, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell is himself a “thumper;” a “thumper” who has taken the Bible out of context and used it as a pretext for his own idiosyncratic brand of fundamentalism. To anachronistically rip a narrative out of its Ancient Near Eastern context and then use it as a demonstration of the superiority of modern pluralist assumptions, I think is at best misguided. And to read anachronistic modern meanings into an Ancient Near Eastern context is hardly enlightened. Instead of reading anachronistic prejudices into the text of the Bible, O’Donnell would have been well-served to read the Bible synergistically. One can no more read New World realities into Ancient Near Eastern legalities than read Torah legalities into New Covenant realities. He cannot comprehend the Bible as a whole without comprehending its individual passages. And He cannot comprehend its individual passages apart from, well, comprehending the Bible as a whole.

Lawrence O’Donnell’s bigotry has done a grave injustice to the majesty of the most significant book in the history of Western civilization. If indeed, O’Donnell had an adequate understanding of the rich tradition of biblical Judaism, he would not have been so cavalier in his diatribe against Old Testament Jewish jurisprudence. Because complex codes regarding the propriety of human relationships are hardly reducible to superficial sound bites like those emanating from his mouth.

That's just a taste of the two entries.

Is Your News Source Lying To You?

Whether is it supposed to be an objective news article or report, or whether is commentary or analysis, if the person you are reading, listening to, or watching is discussing the public debate and court arguments about neutering marriage, the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or California's Proposition 8 says any of the following, they are are most likely lying to you, whether out of appallingly unprofessional ignorance or dishonest advocacy:

"ban on gay marriage"
"ban on gay unions"
"illegal" in reference to homosexual relationships
"equal rights" or "civil rights" in regards to homosexual people
"The only arguments against gay/same-sex marriage are religious."
"The only arguments defending Proposition 8 or DOMA are religious."
"Their argument is that marriage is only about having children/reproduction/procreation."

Again, if you hear/read any of those, or their equivalents, the person is lying to you.

Here's the truth:

The California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8, and similar legislation in other states, did not ban any marriages, unions, ceremonies, or relationships. It did not make any of those things illegal.

As it was before Proposition 8 or any of those other laws passed, a homosexual person has equal - the exact same - rights and access as a heterosexual person.

There are nonreligious arguments defending the Constitutionality, practicality, and importance of the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing.

The argument is not that marriage is only about having children. Read this very slowly if you have to: The argument is that since man+woman pairing is the only kind of pairing that can naturally (and "accidentally") create new citizens who do not consent to the situation in which they are placed, that kind of voluntary association is distinguishable from man+man pairing or woman+woman pairing and the state has more interest in man+woman pairings.

Whether someone wants to have children or not, plans to have children or not, has all of their reproductive system functioning or not are all private matters. However, because of science (don't be anti-science!) and thousands of years of experience the state knows a man+man or woman+woman union will never naturally or accidentally produce children, so they can be ruled out of this level of interest. One may ask, as Justice Kagan did, about a couple of 55-year-olds, but 1) the law doesn't know when any given couple will become jointly infertile, and 2) they are still the same kind of pairing that is reproductive. Checking a birth certificate or other official government documents to see if the sex-integration requirement (bride+groom) is met is simple and non-intrusive. Asking about plans/desires to have children or personal infertility is unnecessary and a violation of privacy.

We have repeatedly demonstrated the bias of certain news media personnel and organizations in these matters. I give my feedback to them. You should, too.

Previously:

Neutered Marriage Means Marriage Can't Be About Children

Neutering Marriage: Where We Are and What It Means

Manipulation & Misreporting of Polls to Advocate Marriage Neutering

Marriage Neutering and Newspeak

It's Not a "Ban on Gay Marriage"

Two comprehensive offerings:
Reviewing the Basics
Handy Dandy Marriage Neutering Plea Repellant

Marriage Neutering is the Topic of Day

There's much activity over at The Opine Editorials. Here is my latest contribution.

Adam Carolla Tells It Like It Is Re: Occupy

Someone Claiming to Be Glen Starkey Can't Argue

On July 15, 2010, I wrote on the previous version of this blog this post:

I Believe Glen Starkey Libeled Dr. Laura

Point by point, I carefully pointed out how Starkey was wrong.

Now, this comment, which demonstrates a common Leftist inability to argue, showed up over there, from "Glen":

I believe you're a idiot!
In what way have I libeled Dr. Laura? Your blog is a bunch of uninformed, mean-spirited nonsense, and I believe you're a big fat idiot.

Reading comprehension not your strong suit, Glen?

You... called... her... a... gay... basher. She... isn't.

Go ahead, Glen, you can let your lips move when you read that. Sound it out if you have to.

Oh, and Glen - How much charity for troops have you done lately, hmmm?

Greg Koukl Effectively Defends Marriage

For a while now, I've been meaning to call attention to the podcast of the July 3, 2011 "Stand to Reason" program, hosted by Greg Koukl. The podcast is nearly three hours long. Towards the end of the first hour, the issue of neutering marriage comes up, and much of the rest of the program deals with that, per the callers.

Koukl's commentaries are:
Are Christianity and Patriotic Expressions Compatible?
Is America a Christian Nation?
Atheists: Freedom from Religion

The caller topics are:

What is the difference between objective and situational ethics?
How can we move the public debate on same-sex marriage to the merits of the argument instead of slogans?
Same-sex marriage is fair.
Does the Bible teach relativism?
In favor of same-sex marriage
The definition of marriage has changed and should continue to change.
Why do Christians not observe the Sabbath on Saturday?
Americans shouldn't be forced to accept same-sex marriage.
Will same-sex marriage lead to polygamy?
How can we know what the Holy Spirit is teaching us?

Here's the MP3.

Here is a larger file version, the Enhanced Podcast (AAC format - chapters and higher-res audio).

Here is the M3U format.

Koukl is fond of using sound reasoning and logic, and does so effectively in the defense of marriage.

It's Been Over a Year, Is Everyone OK?

The One Year Anniversary of Dr. Laura Schlessinger Using the "N" Word On the Air has come and gone, with not a little fanfare. And, of course, that prompted another round of sniping, including ever so much ignorance about who Schlessinger is and what she says on her show and in her writings. So many of her critics don't have a clue - not the slightest clue - and they take the vomit puked out by others. put it into their own mouths, and in turn spit it out all over again.

I respect honest, principled disagreements.

I don't respect libelous character assassination, especially when it is mindless parroting of something some other ignorant person said.

So with that, I bring you something I originally published on January 19 of this year...

Where's the civility For Dr. Laura?

So much for toning down the rhetoric and refraining from spewing vitriol. Dr. Laura Schlessinger has a new book out, which means she's promoting that book. And that means shrill, shrieking, and demonstrably false attacks on Dr. Laura by the logically-impaired couch potatoes, neglectful "mothers", and feminized guys out there who are upset that she's appearing on their usually Lefty-feminist televisions.


Dr. Laura does fifteen hours of radio a week. She's written many books. She blogs. She's written many columns. What she actually has said isn't hard to find or document. And yet so many people get it so wrong. Some are misrepresenting Dr. Laura's teachings and statements deliberately, usually for their own fundraising or ideological purposes. Others are relying on these dubious sources.

Dennis Prager's Top 10 Ways Liberalism Makes America Worse

You don't have to watch - listening is enough. If you can listen for 40 minutes, do so.

How to Call Talk Radio

My humble suggestions are now here on this page.