Are you sure it wasn't Tom Gegax?

As in this idiot:

"Tom Gegax (founder of Tires Plus), and dozens of other business leaders from across Minnesota, is to promote Paul's (Wellstone) record of achievement in the areas of workforce development and small business growth."

No self respecting "business leader" would have helped Wellstone.

Almost as entertaining as a bunch of middle age guys reading through the laundry list of G8 bands to the tune of "I'd see 'em" and "nope, not me".

Thrilling radio.

Who you calling old, sonny?

And...like a fish to water or a liberal to a welfare program...Mitch SLAMS Pink Floyd again last Saturday. Is this a weekly ritual now? They kill Kenny every week on South Park...do we get Mitchie-the-Kid to sneak in a slam on Pink Floyd?

Csponge, you seem to comment and blog a lot about the radio show. Why aren't you on the air?

You know what was worse about the little game of "Would you go see this group?" game....they started out by heckling the line-up of bands....then...when they went through the list....THEY SAID THEY'D GO TO SEE ALMOST ALL OF THEM!!!

But, even listening to the NARN guys from my boat with a cold beer....they were 100 times more entertaining than anything I've ever heard on ErrAmerika.

I used to be at one point. College Rock AM and at Osan, AB's radio station. Lots o' music, very little talk. I don't think I could do political talk radio. I like to do prepared material when I perform. A 3 hour talk program has too many opportunties to fill up the emptiness with boobery...therefore, you are bound to say something stupid.

Dave- the funniest thing of all was when they said that the g8 performers were just a bunch of washed up artists. You know, like Beyonce.

Hey, I like the show. I really do. I think it falls prey to all the trappings of 3 hours of talk radio (see empty air comment above), but compared to other local talk shows...I place it below the KFAN grouping of Barrero (sp) and Cole and above the Air America grouping of Coleman and what's her face.

Coleman's voice is way to nasaly and he really hasn't found his radio personality yet. He obviously doesn't have the Vin Scully ability to do it solo and he isn't really good at banter with a sidekick.

At the very least, NARN has characters and modest chemistry. You guys know eachother and this helps make it listenable. Not very agreeable (to me), but listenable.

I actually like you a whole lot more than Hugh Hewitt these days (whom I have had to cut back on due to the fact that it gets a little old hearing about how "the left" is behind everything). You have done Papa Hugh proud.

Sponge:

I think the NARN guys are at least as good (or better) than Barriero, based on homework and prep alone. Barriero might know a little bit about sports, but he has BIG holes in that knowledge from time-to-time. The NARN guys don't have those level of holes.

Dan Cole as an utter idiot. Unlistenable. 2 hours of cliches and pointless thoughts with no prep work. Heck, I think he even prides himself on not knowing what he's talking about.

Radio doesn't always have to be about content. As long as you can fill the air with personality (Cole) or good banter (Barrerio and Fun) you are good to go. Those guys have to fill hours of dead air a day. You can't expect too much information. Barrerio usually has good guests and he tries his darndest to play it straight without feeling like he needs to "balance" his thoughts with anti-thoughts in order to do so. I like that. You don't need balance to play it straight.

Dan Cole is a personality. His main goal is to get a rise out of people. He may be an idiot but he is listenable.

Sponge:

It's personal taste, I guess. Cole is lame, but we all have our opinions. I'd love to know what is ratings are...probably not great.

Sad to say, but I believe that the Common Man actually does surprisingly well in the ratings. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I'm sure someone can either confirm or deny that. I find his shtick unlistenable. To each his own I guess.

My problem with Barrerio is his need to artificially play to the middle not matter what the issue. My cohort Saint Paul described it as setting up straw men on the left and the right, knocking them down, and then congratulating yourself for being a moderate. There is no underlying value structure or belief system, just a desire to always be viewed a centrist.

For the record Cleversponge, the Live 8 bands bit came in the last segment of the show and lasted all of four minutes. It probably would have been a little more interesting had we devoted more time to it so that we could comment more thoroughly on each band. As it was, we had to blow through the list in hurry just to squeeze it in.

I do appreciate your feedback on the show though. If you have any suggestions on what we could do to make it better, don't hesitate to drop us a note. I'm quite serious. It's really hard to know what works and what doesn't when you're in the middle of the action. Most of the feedback we get is either "I love your show" or "you guys suck." Neither is all that constructive.

Agreed, he is an acquired taste. I think I read he was 4th in the time slot last time around.

You guys suck.

No, seriously, the problem is the fact that no one really wants to listen to what you guys think, but to what people think of what you guys think.

The live 8 was bad. I was only listening through the end because you had promised to take calls and I like you more when you are off the cuff. Then you only took on quick caller and had to cut him off.

But having a chick on was a nice change. I liked that.

(smartie made me listen, I should not be held responsible for my words or deeds)

The only constructive criticism I have at the moment would be to shorten the show by a couple hours and add a lot of music.

Sorry, bad joke. I would stop using the following terms:

"the left"
"leftists"
"lefties"

Using these terms is just plain lazy.

I also think it would help to develop segments. For instance, the greatest radio program in the world (Le Show) has the weekly "Apologies of the Week" and the "Los Angeles Dog Trainer Corrections".

Political talk shows are a dime a dozen, you need a niche. You don't really have one. This is bad. This is doubly bad because you all tend to take predictable positions on most issues. We know what you will say in nearly every situation. Therefore, the situation should be the focal point. It think that you can be more creative and varied with the situation than you can with your opinions.

Controling the situation will allow for greater preparation/planning and (hopefully) less chatter simply for the sake of chattering over dead air.

You guys also tend to get caught in the opinion/fact vortex that has downed many a good man...most recently Mark Yost.

Facts are usually boring to find and they don't take up a lot of air time. This leaves a lot of time to opine about...well, the facts. A lot of your show is done in what I like to call target audience short-hand. You say things like "leftists" or "MSM" and you used these terms to justfity opinions that are otherwise left unguarded.

This is why I could never do a political talk radio show. There's simply too much time in a 3 hour slot to fill without going back to short hand during the BS sessions.

Another thing that hurts is that you come on right after Strom and he pretty much covers everything that you cover. It is hard to stick through both his show and yours. He has a niche. He's the tax guy. You guys...not so much.

This is all I gots for now.

OK, no more "lefties".

"Bolsheviks." Me likey.

Actually, csponge, I've listened to shows with hosts disagreeing, and it's not good radio. I've pulled myself out of the studio because I didn't want to turn the 'situation' as you call it into an argument between us. It can work in certain situations, but largely not, imo.

Elder is good on segments.

And we only started coming on right after Strom last week. We'll see whether that influences what we do with the show.

So thanks. But would you please explain "caught in the opinion/fact vortex"?

I know about the recent schedule change. Even with Raebus in the middle it still amounted to a certain amount of overload. I'm not saying that the hosts should have to disagree. By situation, I should have said planned reoccuring segment.

Bolsheviks...hey, whatever gets you going. I still think its lazy.

As for the opinion/fact vortex, it is the netherworld of opinion giving. It is the murky middle where opinion columnists/radio personalities hide when they say something meant to come across as fact that has absolutely no basis in reality.

Take Yost's recent claim about the power supply in Iraq. It is worse this year than last. Yet, he cites this claim (taken via an email from a USMC Colonel) as fact. When called on this point, the debate then switches to 'I was only giving my opinion about something that I generally think is true.'

Another example would be if one was having a discussion about media coverage of Iraq. During the discussion, "liberal bias" comes up as a reason why some article/newsclip should not be believed. When this statement is challenged as having nothing to do with the factual argument at hand, the purveyor of the argument immediately says that liberal bias is nothing more than a meme/opinion...seconds after attempting to weild it as a fact to prove a point.

Granted, you need to have opinions to write columns. This goes without saying. There is nothing wrong with this. I contend that there are certain short-hand opinions out there that are tossed off with little thought to accuracy or truthfulness.

I have read many similar critiques on this website about Nick Coleman. We all do it at one point or another and we should be all challenged because of it.

I know about the recent schedule change. Even with Raebus in the middle it still amounted to a certain amount of overload. I'm not saying that the hosts should have to disagree. By situation, I should have said planned reoccuring segment.

Bolsheviks...hey, whatever gets you going. I still think its lazy.

As for the opinion/fact vortex, it is the netherworld of opinion giving. It is the murky middle where opinion columnists/radio personalities hide when they say something meant to come across as fact that has absolutely no basis in reality.

Take Yost's recent claim about the power supply in Iraq. It is worse this year than last. Yet, he cites this claim (taken via an email from a USMC Colonel) as fact. When called on this point, the debate then switches to 'I was only giving my opinion about something that I generally think is true.'

Another example would be if one was having a discussion about media coverage of Iraq. During the discussion, "liberal bias" comes up as a reason why some article/newsclip should not be believed. When this statement is challenged as having nothing to do with the factual argument at hand, the purveyor of the argument immediately says that liberal bias is nothing more than a meme/opinion...seconds after attempting to weild it as a fact to prove a point.

Granted, you need to have opinions to write columns. This goes without saying. There is nothing wrong with this. I contend that there are certain short-hand opinions out there that are tossed off with little thought to accuracy or truthfulness.

I have read many similar critiques on this website about Nick Coleman. We all do it at one point or another and we should be all challenged because of it.

CS- Thanks for the feedback. Some quick points:

1. To eliminate the use of labels such as "left" "lefties" and "leftist" is well nigh impossible. Such labels and others like "the right" "right-wing" "conservative" "liberal" etc. are used throughout political discussions be it in books, magazines, web sites, newspapers, television, radio. And political minds with far greater intellectual horsepower either than you or I could ever hope to possess, have used such terminology throughout the ages. Would you describe George Orwell and William F. Buckley as lazy? I understand that using such labels exclusively and never citing specific individuals or organizations could be considered lazy. But to stop using them completely is unrealistic. Could you cite one well-known political author, columnist, or talk show host who never uses them?

2. I'm actually not that big a fan of regular segments. They're usually clichéd and repetitive. "News of the Weird" "Today's Stupid Criminal" etc.

Our show is also a bit unique in that this is just a weekend hobby for us. All of us have real jobs as well as families and social lives, to say nothing of our blogs. We almost never have the same hosts in the studio week to week which makes regular segments tough. And to do them right, you need preparation and production. Our prep time is pretty limited and we have no production to speak of. Andy, who we call the producer runs the board and answers the phone for us during the show. Other than that, anything we want to is up to us.

It is good food for thought though.

3. I believe we're one of the few political talk shows that is compromised exclusively of a group of bloggers. That’s actually a pretty unique niche.

4. When you say that we take predictable positions, I would imagine that you mean predictable conservative positions. Not too surprising considering that we're all conservatives and we're broadcasting on a conservative talk radio station. I'm not a big believer in "playing the Devil's advocate." If you're looking for that, Ron Rosenbaum if the champ. I'm going to tell you what I believe. Most of the time, that's going to be a conservative viewpoint.

If you've listened to more than a few shows (which I tend to doubt), you would hear us disagree. We're not going to manufacture it, but it does come out on occasion. The Kelo decision would be the most recent example that I can think.

5. I really have no idea of what you mean by "controlling the situation." Can you site an example of this?

6. Can you site an example of using of us falling into the "fact/opinion vortex"? We usually are pretty good about citing sources. I also don't think that leftist is a term not readily understood by our audience.

7. I really don't think that you've listened to our show and Strom's that often if you think we cover the same ground. David almost exclusively sticks to local political and taxation stories. We usually cover the national stories that are being discussed in the blogosphere, local media, and culture. His guests are legislators, economists, real policy wonks. Ours are much more varied (Mike Nelson, Mark Stutrud, Jake Sclichter,etc.) I bet in the 16 months we've been doing the show, you could count the number of guests that have appeared on both shows on one hand (today being one case with Brian Anderson).

Rew-

Glad you liked Tamar Jacoby. We'll let you know next time we book a chick. Michele Bachmann maybe?

In the meantime, we'll have Mitch work on his falsetto a little harder.

1. The term "left" is actually quite well defined in the political science sense, per Dr. Thomas Sowell. The "right" is more complex, embracing conservatives, libertarians, and popuplists (Bill O'Reilly, e.g.). The best definition of "right" is "not left".

2. Per Ann Coulter: Dog and cat are very gneral terms but tremendously useful in ordinary conversation. Diito left, right, liberal, conservative, and so on.

"I also think it would help to develop segments. For instance, the greatest radio program in the world (Le Show) has the weekly "Apologies of the Week" and the "Los Angeles Dog Trainer Corrections".

Le Show is a Public Radio production. It's a weekly (IIRC) program with a staff of several people - writers, producers, editors - putting in 40-plus hour weeks on the show; the show's annual budget must be somewhere north of a quarter million dollars (and I'm guessing conservately). NARN is six guys with day jobs, only one of whom knows anything about production. Our annual budget is zero.

Doing a production-heavy show like that takes time (which is, as we know, money).

"Political talk shows are a dime a dozen, you need a niche. You don't really have one."

We most certainly do. We're the first all-blogger show in the biz. We're a purely grass-roots program, yet we have national reach. We are homemade, DIY radio at its finest.

We also do some things that are very rare in talk radio; we do long-form interviews (rarely do talk shows hold guests longer than 20 minutes; we go an hour regularly) that, in my humble opinion, often surpass NPR interviews for their intelligence and depth. That's a niche, or at least a distinguishing characteristic.

"This is doubly bad because you all tend to take predictable positions on most issues. We know what you will say in nearly every situation. Therefore, the situation should be the focal point. It think that you can be more creative and varied with the situation than you can with your opinions."

Not sure what you mean by "the situation". Knowing what we'll say is not a bad thing; it's an overtly conservative station.

"Controling the situation will allow for greater preparation/planning and (hopefully) less chatter simply for the sake of chattering over dead air."

There is NO chattering over dead air on the show. You have 3-4 smart guys talking about things they've been writing about all week. We can go three hours without taking a call, or sometimes a breath.

"You guys also tend to get caught in the opinion/fact vortex that has downed many a good man...most recently Mark Yost."

I'll put our bases in fact, as a general rule, up against any in the business.

"Facts are usually boring to find and they don't take up a lot of air time. This leaves a lot of time to opine about...well, the facts. A lot of your show is done in what I like to call target audience short-hand. You say things like "leftists" or "MSM" and you used these terms to justfity opinions that are otherwise left unguarded."

Actually, that's more a matter of sloppiness than "audience shorthand". I frequently stop people and get them to explain abstruse inside concepts.

"This is why I could never do a political talk radio show. There's simply too much time in a 3 hour slot to fill without going back to short hand during the BS sessions."

It's not a factor on the NARN. Ever.

"Another thing that hurts is that you come on right after Strom and he pretty much covers everything that you cover. It is hard to stick through both his show and yours. He has a niche. He's the tax guy. You guys...not so much."

Our shows very rarely intersect.

You are 100% right. I would no more describe George Orwell and William Buckley as lazy as I would describe you as George Orwell or Willaim Buckley.

I have to admit I used a bit of short-hand here. We do need to use labels everynow and then. Somehow I think that academic categorizing on the level of the men listed above is a bit more focused than labeling that involves Moveon.org, Michael Moore, or Mr. No-Monkey as a proper sampling of "the left".

You are also right about segments. Certainly there is nothing repetitive about MOB bloggers rehashing their weekly posts for 3 hours on the weekend. There's also nothing cliched about the content that can be heard on any other AM1280 show 24-7.

"We almost never have the same hosts in the studio week to week which makes regular segments tough. And to do them right, you need preparation and production. Our prep time is pretty limited and we have no production to speak of. "

-so does this mean we'll never have to listen to Mitch complain about public access radio?

As for the predictable stuff, it's not that it's a conservative position. There's nothing wrong with that and you are wrong to assume so. This is why I listen to you guys. I don't want to listen to a show where I agree with everything; what the hell fun is that? It's predictable in that I just listened to a week's worth of Bill, Laura, Dennis, Michael, Hugh, and Michael say it in the exact same way. By the time we roll around to your show on the weekend, its not predictable because of ideology, but because of...well, you're on the weekend and you say the exact same things. This is why I really like it when you have local guests. It breaks it up a little. I think you guys are most effective when you keep it local.

I've listened to you guys for quite a while. I even record the shows on the good ol' Radio Shark. I think I know your show as much as you assume that I don't.

Situation...see comment in previous post about "planned segment".

As for the niche stuff...occupation/hobby on radio means nothing if you can't do a proper job of filling up the dead air. Content, familiarity, and personality are what create niches in talk radio.

Do Click and Clack fill a niche because NPR has a secret constituency of wrench-head mechanics...or is it because they fill the crazy call-in, laugh-a-lot niche.

Look at your own station. Prager=moralist niche. Medved=cultural niche/disagreeable caller niche. Savage= drunken uncle niche.

Look at it like a car. AM 1280 style radio is like a Toyota. Papa Hugh is a Camry, Medved is a Corolla, Savage...well, he would never be a Toyota. You need to find your model. Right now, I think you guys are just a make.

I think your ready-made niche is local, local, local. You guys have a huge blog farm team and you don't use it like Papa Hugh uses his. Yes, they pop up everyonce and a while, but you guys have a club and it doesn't come out as much as it should on the radio. Your local stuff is interesting and while it is politically disagreeable to me, I listen because I hear about local things that I wouldn't otherwise have heard about. This is also why I had big hopes for Katherine Kersten. Her column about the gentleman in Bloomington with the Chesterson society let me know about something I had never known about before simply because it was confined to mostly conservative circles. Instead, she mostly just writes things from phone calls with Pawlenty and talking point lists from the Center for American whatever. This is kind of rambling, but your local stuff is your best material. Especially the beer guy.

I think you're right about Strom and your show. I don't catch his show all that often. I'll take your word on it. If I do catch his show it is near the end and it has been national issues. Strom runs up against Bluegrass Saturday Morning. He gets kicked to the curb by some good flatpickin'.

Fact/Opinion vortex: Hinderaker's whole theory on the evolving nature of newsgathering. His argument was that the old "liberal" media has become more partisan in the face of the new media and Fox News. This completely unsupported opinion then became and accepted part of the debate.

It was later used as "proof" of the increasing popularity of new media. This is a data-free, opinion loaded ball of goo.

More Mike Nelson. CP fully endorses MST3K. Esp Torgo.

""This is why I could never do a political talk radio show. There's simply too much time in a 3 hour slot to fill without going back to short hand during the BS sessions."

It's not a factor on the NARN. Ever."

Pink Floyd?
Nope
Yep
Nope
Yep

Coldplay?
Nope
Nope
Yes
No

Cover-the-dead-air-BS?
Yep
Roger that
check
10-4

Nah.

Not every bit we do clicks (certainly not for every listener), but in 16 months I can't recall ever once wondering "what are we going to fill this show with", or anyone going "crap, one minute til we're back and we got nothing. Quick, troll someone's blog and come up with something - HEY, let's talk about bands!".

There's a difference, y'know.

"so does this mean we'll never have to listen to Mitch complain about public access radio?"

Er...huh?

First - I've not only supported "public access radio" (and by this term, I assume you mean small community-supported stations like KFAI and KMOJ, as opposed to public-funding monopolies like MPR), but even done news at KFAI. I regularly castigate Bill Kling for his obstruction of low-power FM radio licesnsing.

I've been a cable access (TV) producer and technical director.

I was doing DIY media before it was cool.

What exactly are you aiming at, here? If it's a riff on show prep - strike two. Plenty of prep goes into the show - in terms of the ambient prep you get by writing about stuff all the time. When it comes to formal prep, like cutting sound and putting together high-production value segments - not so much. Given a choice between fixing the kids breakfast and mashing audio on a Saturday morning, I'll take breakfast...

Wow, I never had you pegged for an indie DIY snob. ;)

I'm just trying to offer constructive criticism about certain things I see in your show. I was asked to not just say "it sucks".

The comment about public access radio was aimed at your amateur radio comments about Air America. As much as you may disagree with the content, your production ain't exactly miles ahead of AM950. Er...Mr. Kettle meet Mr. Pot.

PS, can I please claim the term "ambient prep" as my own?

"Wow, I never had you pegged for an indie DIY snob. ;)"

I am!

"I'm just trying to offer constructive criticism about certain things I see in your show. I was asked to not just say "it sucks".

No offense taken. Just replying with a few observations of my own.

"The comment about public access radio was aimed at your amateur radio comments about Air America. As much as you may disagree with the content, your production ain't exactly miles ahead of AM950. Er...Mr. Kettle meet Mr. Pot."

Hold the kettle, Sponge. AM950 employs full-time staff devoted to nothing *but* putting on talk shows. If I (not to mention the rest of the guys) devoted full-time (or even 4-6 hours a week each) to the show, things would be VERY different. The fact that AM950, with its fulltime staff, isn't miles ahead of US, and indeed sounds like a glorified college operation, should be something that shames them to no end.

"PS, can I please claim the term "ambient prep" as my own? "

Copyright 2005, Mitch Berg.

It IS the next step up from Radio K.

I'm still going to steal "ambient prep". The next time I'm watching football with a beer in hand and my wife asks me when I'm going to mow the lawn..."Honey, I'm engaged in ambient prep at the moment. I can smell the grass. I need 110% concentration. Please do not disturb me."

Hell, it may even make its way into a song.

"It IS the next step up from Radio K."

Nah. Several up from there. And a step or two up from the local Frankennet shows, and probably a fair chunk of KSTP's weekend lineup as well.

There's things we need to tune up, but all in all it's not half bad, natterings of the envious aside.

CS-

You make a couple of good points about more local content and the first hour "week in review" too often being a rehash of the what was already discussed in other places. To some extent, I tend to agree with both points.

We've heard the same suggestion from other people about more local talk. The problem is that it is a group show and not everyone is as focused on local issues. Ed and John especially tend to follow the big national stories and thus want to talk about them during the show.

Whenever possible, we try to stick closer to home during the third hour topics. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

As to the suggestion that we make better use of local bloggers a la Hewitt, I think that if we were doing the show full time, we no doubt would do just that. But the way things are now, we're go three hours a week to split between six people. That doesn't leave you with much wiggle room when it comes to air time. (Which is why the idea that we add anyone else to the show is a nonstarter. At least for now.) By comparison, Hugh has fifteen hours a week to himself.

We're also constantly trying to walk a line with how tied in the show is with blogging. We're all bloggers so obviously we're going to talk about what we write about and what's going on in the 'sphere. But we also don't want to be so inside blogball that those listeners who aren't blog readers are turned off by it. This likely leads to some of the problems that you pointed out as well.

What kind of Toyota are we? That's easy. A Prius of course. We're some kind of hybrid all right.

Chicken Recipes - If you need chicken recipes go here http://www.quickchickenrecipe.com

Chicken Recipes - If you need chicken recipes go here http://www.quickchickenrecipe.com