The hosts of a morning radio show in Atlanta were fired yesterday after they made fun of former Saints player Steve Gleason, who is suffering from ALS – Lou Gehrig's disease.
Even if the name of the show, "Mayhem in the AM," offers a slight warning that you might hear almost anything, listeners reacted immediately to the radio hosts attempting comedy with a fake conversation with Steve Gleason. Since ALS has robbed Gleason of speech, the bit used a computer-enhanced voice that was supposed to be his.
Nick Cellini, Steak Shapiro and Chris DiMino make up the "Mayhem In The AM" show on 790 The Zone and they were talking about Steve Gleason on the show when a computer-generated voice pretending to be Steve Gleason called in the show with a 'knock-knock' joke. One of the hosts said that they only do "knock-knock" jokes on Thursday and then the voice, who was supposed to be Gleason said "I may not be here on Thursday." The voice said, "I blame Gregg Williams, smother me, do me a favor." At the end of the bit the voice said, "I'm going to Hell." (Full audio here)
Cellini sent out this apology on Twitter: "My apologies to everyone. It was a stupid attempt at humor that backfired. Emphasis on stupid." Rick Mack, General Manager of 790 AM, issued a statement saying the station and its sponsors "deeply regret the comments made by Mayhem in the AM" and said they in no way "endorse or support the unfortunate and offensive commentary concerning Mr. Gleason."
Immediately following the airing of the segment, listeners took to social media to express their outrage, but there were a few comments supporting the segment like the one that read, "What's the point of living if you can't laugh at yourself?" But the majority of comments, even from Falcons fans, condemned the morning show hosts for their crude and insensitive attempt at comedy.
One Falcons fan wrote on social media, "As a Falcons fan, I am totally disgusted. What sort of person makes light of a gravely ill man?" The answer to that question is simple – radio personalities desperate to say or do something shocking in order to get attention and ratings. This is not the first time and it will certainly not be the last time that radio personalities say something stupid and shocking in an effort to get publicity. They are getting publicity, but they have also been fired for their mean-spirited humor. They lost their jobs – and maybe their careers – over their inability to see the line they should not have crossed.
Throughout my career I have been a strong supporter of humor pushes boundaries…even crude, but there is a line that is not to be crossed, and if a radio host does not understand what to say and what not to say – he doesn't deserve a job in radio.
It's sad when I cannot defend those who work in my industry, but making fun of a person who is suffering a completely debilitating disease is absolutely inexcusable. And these radio hosts from Atlanta should have realized that by making fun of a former player of their team's top rival would make the comic stab even more personal and more hurtful.
We all have the responsibility to use good judgment in our jobs and in every aspect of our lives. Failure to do so can lead to serious consequences. I enjoy the people I work with at WWL, but I have never been a fan of the general population of disc jockeys and radio talk show hosts, whether in New Orleans or in the other major markets I have worked. Here is a generalization of radio personalities: most are not very intelligent – most are driven by their egos rather than a desire to do a good job – most are willing to say and do anything for attention.
Tolerating opposing opinions is different from tolerating insensitive comments or comedy that hurt the great majority of this country that shares a common bond with all of humanity.
Comments quickly defined as "offensive" simply because there is ideological disagreement do not compare to "offensive" comments when it applies to targeting a helpless human for the sole purpose of getting ratings.
I may not share the income level of many talk show hosts who thrive on shocking and insensitive comments and comedy, but I'd like to think that we all benefit from the application of human ethics in our jobs.
The depth of a concert experience is determined not just by the hits you wanted to hear, but also by an artist's ability to personalize a show for an audience.
Gino Vannelli captured the mostly Baby Boomer audience with a crisp, pure vocal talent that was never as obvious in his pop hit songs and he was backed by a talented band that displayed uncompromising commitment to musical perfection.
Gino Vannelli returned to New Orleans, a city that fell in love with him at the very beginning of his career, to celebrate his 60th birthday! It was as if Gino Vannelli had come "home" and his appreciation for the city that helped launch his career was part of his show. At one point, Gino said, "Over the years you have been through a lot – but look at you now!" The crowd applauded Gino and themselves.
The two shows, Friday and Saturday night, at the newly renovated Joy Theater on Canal provided an exhilarating flashback for everyone. But the concert was more than a flashback to a past everyone was excited to remember – Gino Vannelli also gave the audience permission to enjoy who he, and they, have become through the years. His ability to reflect on his early concerts in New Orleans and relate to who he is today made the concert more than just a musical event. The music in his show was spliced with reflective commentary that was inspiring and philosophical and he spoke of a personal spirituality that added meaning to his songs.
Wearing a black leather jacket partially unzipped with black pants and boots, Gino Vannelli looks great today and though matured, still projected an image we all remember. Musically and physically, Gino Vannelli reassured the audience that maturating does not mean getting old – it means reinventing the same person you have always loved.
The audience's appreciation of Gino made the concert interactive as people, mostly females, shouted things at him in between songs. I heard shouts of "I love you" to "welcome home" to an unexpectedly crude request to have a physical relationship! I also noticed something you don't often see at concerts today – a number or couples had their arms around each other. That was comforting, because the music of Gino Vannelli always inspired emotion and I imagined some of those same couples were in love years ago when Gino's hits were on the radio and he was playing his early concerts in New Orleans.
I was very impressed by Gino's continuing commitment to his vision of his music. The promoter of the concert, who I have known for many years, said, "Scoot, I just can't figure out why this guy wasn't even bigger." I told him I thought Gino Vannelli is too vocally and musically talented for a mass pop audience. Throughout his career, he was more dedicated to the music in his soul than a goal of creating a pop radio hit. Vannelli definitely possesses an esoteric side and he is so diverse that it's difficult to define his music into a convenient genre.
When Gino Vannelli was a young artist attracting a massive crowd in New Orleans, I was a young disc jockey playing those early hits like "I Just Want to Stop," "Powerful People" and "People Gotta Move." Seeing him on stage and then having a brief moment with him after the show brought back wonderful memories for me, but more importantly, it reminded me that you can mature and never lose the core of who you are or lose that special zest to live life with a young attitude!
After the show Saturday night I am a bigger fan of Gino Vannelli than I was then! This was my first time in the newly renovated Joy Theater and it is a sensational venue with an impeccable sound system.
I hope the audience appreciated the Gino Vannelli I saw on stage. Beyond his excellent voice, there was a man who represented appreciation for his past, present and future, and a man who was proud to talk about being married to his wife for 38 years! That's an accomplishment, especially in the world of music.
When a devout liberal and Obama supporter, like filmmaker Michael Moore, tweets that the Obama administration has "lost all credibility" following revelations about the NSA program to collect phone and internet records from millions of Americans, it was the perfect time to shift national attention by announcing from the White House that the U.S. will support the Syrian rebels.
It was confirmed today that the Assad regime in Syria used chemical weapons against its own people. Last August, President Obama said if Syria used chemical weapons that would cross a"red line" that would lead to U.S. involvement. With the potential scandals the White House has been dealing with and the release of classified information that the government has been tracking the phone and internet activity of millions of Americans, this would be the right time for a major story to distract from news that has plagued the White House.
In the 1997 black comedy, "Wag the Dog" starring Robert De Niro and Dustin Hoffman, the White House distracts America from a sex scandal by hiring a movie producer to create video of a fake war with Albania. The expression, "wag the dog" comes from the idea that a dog is smarter than its tail and if the tail were smarter, then the tail would wag the dog.
It is widely known that administrations attempt to control the daily news with the release of agendas and by taking on hot-button social and political issues, but would an administration actually time the announcement of something as significant as involvement in a conflict in another country in order to deflect the attention of potentially damaging news?
The answer is "yes" – and not just this administration. The news media may not always bite on the White House's bait leading to a new, distracting story, but you can be sure that manipulation of the news is part of the inter-workings of every administration.
Since the White House has been deliberating for months on reports that the Assad regime in Syria used chemical weapons, it's fair to question the timing of today's announcement that the U.S. will now support the Syrian rebels.
Following recent involvement in conflicts in this region of the world, arming the rebels in Syria does not come without great risk. We have supported leaders like Saddam Hussein, who changed from ally to enemy. Can we be sure that by supporting the Syrian rebels we are supporting a group that will be our ally if and when, Assad is removed from power?
To further complicate the decision to get involved in the conflict, Russia and Iran are becoming stronger supporters of the Assad regime. Russia still has its nuclear weapons and Iran is working in that direction. Could U.S. involvement in Syria lead to increased tension with Russia and Iran? And, could that only solidify the relationship between two of our potential adversaries?
It is difficult for the American people to watch the horror of a civil conflict, like the one we are witnessing in Syria, and not want to intervene, but we should have learned through recent wars that we cannot be the world's police, and aiding rebels without a definite understanding of their ultimate motives can lead to American men and women facing another enemy in another part of the world. Or, should we always judge the motives of a rebel group opposing a murderous dictator in that moment in history and not be concerned about what could happen in the future?
Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) said today during a House Judiciary hearing on his abortion bill that he opposes an exemption for rape victims to have an abortion because the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy is very low.
It is true that pregnancies resulting from rape are rare, but in any case where that might be the result, I believe it is still wrong for a politician to force a woman to have a baby conceived under such a horrific human act.
Congressman Franks is not alone in his strict opinion about abortion, even in the case of rape. Last year during the presidential campaign, several Republicans running for office tainted the image of the entire party by making statements about abortion that reinforced the belief that Republicans don't care about women. The female vote was one area where Mitt Romney and the party failed to attract enough votes to win.
The Republican Party continues to change its image with women, minorities and young voters. Today, Gabriel Gomez (R), a candidate for the Senate from Massachusetts, commented on Congressman Franks' statement, saying – "I have no idea what goes into the mind of a moron like that…these kinds of comments only come from a moron and they shouldn't be tolerated one bit."
I understand that opposition to abortion in all cases is extremely passionate, but for a man, who does not understand rape from the perspective of a woman, to demand that the survivor of rape have a baby resulting from rape further widens the gap between Republicans and a presidential victory.
More Republicans, like Gabriel Gomez, should stop being afraid to offend the base of the party and publically denounce any ignorant comment made by a fellow Republican concerning rape, abortion or issues that have continued to inspire desertion from the party.
As a man, there are things I don't understandabout being a woman – but that is the first step toward men actually understanding women.
After seeing the movie "The Purge" over the weekend and commenting on the movie on the show last night - now it's time to talk about the audience!
Since I live downtown, I have spent the past year and a half going to movies at the Canal Place Theaters. If you have never experienced a movie at Canal Place – treat yourself! Each theater is smaller than the big suburban theaters and each seat is similar to a first class airline seat - complete with a retractable tray. Your seat is reserved and you are presented with a full drink, wine and food menu upon being seated by the wait staff. There is enough room to walk down the aisle without everyone getting up as you pass. The first row, which is actually not too close to enjoy the movie, features ottomans. It is quite a movie-going experience!
Having been admittedly spoiled by going to movies at Canal Place, I found myself bothered by the rudeness of the general movie-going audience at a big suburban theater. Why was the crowd so different? There was constant talking during the movie and that was very distracting. The woman in front of me was texting and the light on her damn phone was very annoying. Did she care?
If the ambience of the posh Canal Place Theaters attracts an audience that, on average, is more sophisticated, then that suggests that less sophisticated people are naturally less polite. Should we expect some people to be less polite? Politeness should transcend sophistication, education and economic status.
When you go to a movie – I don't care who you are – be polite. We should all expect that. A whisper to the person you are with is not the problem, but lengthy commentaries during the movie, either to the person next to you or to the movie itself, are rude and unnecessary. And DO NOT kick the seat of the person in front of you, either.
If you want to talk and kick seats and use your cellphone while you watch a movie, then do us all a favor and stay home and rent a movie. Otherwise, we expect you to be polite and respectful of others.
Perhaps something needs to be added to the announcement to shut off cellphones when the movie begins – SHUT YOUR MOUTH, TOO!
What if…all crime – even murder – went without punishment in America one night a year when citizens could unleash their rage about each other and society? That's the premise of "The Purge" – the #1 movie at the box office this weekend.
"The Purge" is set in America in 2022 at a time when our 'new founding fathers' control America. The new government sanctions and promotes, as a patriotic duty, one night annually when citizens can seek revenge on anyone. That one night is a national holiday of sorts when there are no police, no ambulances and no firefighters from 7:00pm to 7:00am.
Before seeing "The Purge," I read a few critiques that blasted the movie and I even talked to a couple of listeners Friday night on The Scoot Show who had seen the movie and had only negative comments about it.
I will talk about the general message of the movie and if you read further nothing will prove to be a 'spoiler' if you haven't seen it yet. "The Purge" delivers a commentary on where America may be headed if we, as a nation, don't find ways to ease the expanding hate in our country.
On the night of the "Purge," an injured homeless man wanders into the streets of a prominent neighborhood while he is hunted by a group of young people. The young son a family in a fortified house in the neighborhood watches and hears the pleas of the homeless man and decides to disarm the house and offer the man refuge. This, however, jeopardizes the safety of the entire family.
The homeless man is black and the group hunting him appears to be young white conservatives who are demanding their right to kill the homeless "swine" and purge him from society since he is seen as a non-contributor. Since this family has given the homeless man shelter, the young group threatens the entire family unless they turn him over to be killed during the Purge. The battle over whether to turn the man over is compelling and there is intense action from the moment the sirens sound to officially being the Purge.
I'm sure I will be challenged on my assumption that the young group hunting the injured homeless man is a group of young conservatives. While it may not be fair to judge people by the way they dress, in this movie the attire and the dialogue project a definite right-wing extremist attitude. But you can decide for yourself.
The message of 'art' is always the result of individual interpretation, but the message of "The Purge" seemed obvious. The word 'purge' had two meanings in the movie – to 'purge' society of those people seen as not contributing to this country and to 'purge' one's soul of rage on this annual night when all crime goes unpunished.
The movie may be criticized for what many will perceive as an anti-right-wing message, but there is also an obvious message toward the end that could be considered anti-liberal. There was also a compassionate moment near the conclusion that gives hope that those who help others are appreciated.
Ethan Hawke plays the main character, the father of the family in the fortified house during the Purge, and was very credible in the role. The directing, storyline and editing made for a compelling movie that even inspired the audience I was in to applaud several times when they felt justice had been served. The movie almost became interactive at times.
So why have there been so many negative reviews and comments? Maybe it was the subject matter that gave some critics and movie-goers an uncomfortable feeling. As we were walking out of the theater I asked my date what she thought of the movie and she said, "I hated it!" I asked her if she hated the movie or the message and she said she enjoyed the movie but hated what the movie said the direction of our society.
I enjoyed the movie and the message, but to say I enjoyed the message does not mean I like the message – I just saw it as a fictional manifestation of the growing hate we witness everyday in America today when it comes to political debate.
I recall reading in a book years ago about success and the idea was rather than think about where you want to be in your life in the future from where you are now – it's better to visualize where you want to be in the future and look back and think about what it took to get there.
Movies are usually exaggerations of life and "The Purge" gives us an exaggerated theory of where America might be headed if the social and political hate continue to grow.
Whether the Obama administration is guilty in any of the potential scandals it currently faces has yet to be determined, but the administration is failing to assure the country that it is living up to its promise of transparency.
Facing possible damaging scandals from how the information about the terror attack on Benghazi was released, to obtaining reporters' phone records, to the IRS targeting political enemies of the President, and now the most recent information about the administration collecting the personal phone records of millions of individuals in America in the "fight against terrorism," President Obama has presented an arrogant attitude that gives the suggestion of hiding the truth – even if that's not the intent.
The President finally had something today about the email/phone monitoring program. According to the Associated Press, Mr. Obama says "safeguards are in place," and says "nobody is listening to the content of phone calls." He's also saying that Congress approved the programs. (Click HERE to listen to President Obama's full comments...)
There is still much we don't know about the actions in question, but a president should have the ability and the responsibility to project honesty. If Obama is being honest, he is definitely failing to use his charisma to project honesty and transparency. Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton would be doing a much better job of reassuring the American public that the truth will be revealed.
I hear calculated words and statements about investigations and holding any wrongdoers accountable, but I get the impression that protecting the image of the administration is more important than the truth. I am not suggesting that a more charismatic and convincing approach are more important than the truth, but presidents serve as figureheads and leaders that bear the responsibility of convincing the country that the truth trumps protecting an image and a legacy.
Perception is reality - and right now there is a growing perception that President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are on a mission to deflect controversy at the expense of uncovering the truth. The New York Times endorsed President Obama twice and is now saying that the Obama administration has "lost all credibility."
If there is transparency in the Obama administration – it seems transparent that it is NOT being transparent. Only the President can fix this perception. Otherwise, missteps, no matter how small, will be magnified.
It happened 45 years ago this week and it was witnessed by today's Establishment.
This week is the 45th anniversary of the assassination of Senator Bobby Kennedy. Kennedy had just won the California Primary when he was gunned down following a speech. And just about 3 months prior to that tragedy, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. Both of these assassinations of public figures who would have been considered 'liberals' occurred within about 5 years of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
It was actually the assassination of President Kennedy that gave birth to the original 'anti-Establishment' generation in the 1960s. Three months after the President was assassinated, The Beatles arrived in America with a new sound and a new look that became the rallying cry for a young generation that was searching for identity after subconsciously losing faith in the Establishment. At the time, parents had no idea that the killing of a president would instill a silent distrust in the Establishment among a young generation that was watching and listening, but wasn't sure what to think.
Imagine today, 5 years ago the President of the United States was assassinated and this year a prominent, peaceful activist for equality and a liberal senator who appeared to be on his way to winning the Democratic nomination for president were both killed. Imagine the mood in this country – imagine the debates and the conversations and the predictions for America's future.
The generation that is today's new Establishment was the generation that witnessed the killings of a president, a prominent voice for equality and a senator on his way to becoming a president candidate all within a span of about 5 years. That is the generation that today is saying that this country is 'going to hell' and that our leadership is destroying America.
When I think about the political pettiness of both parties today and the failure to work together for the good of the American people and the hateful condemnation of a president and Congress and then remember all that my generation witnessed as young Americans, I am saddened by the current assessment that America is doomed!
The generation that has seen this country survive much more turbulent times than we are seeing today it is the same generation that is inspiring the hate in today's debates about social and political issues and in the debate about the direction of America. This is the same generation that has also witnessed how strong America is and the resiliency of Americans to survive riots over racial equality, the national divide over an unpopular war and a series of assassinations of a president and prominent voices in American politics.
I am a 'hostile witness' to the Baby Boomer Generation because I don't agree with the collective judgment and hypocrisy of my generation. There was a time when we came together as Americans and united behind causes and people regardless of the adversity. There was a time when my generation rebelled and wore hairstyles and clothes and listened to music that was condemned by the then-Establishment and considered symptoms of a young generation destined to fail as the Establishment – if they even made it that far.
Now, we are that Establishment and we have been a generation that has launched the same criticism of the sex, drugs and music that our parents launched against us. Why do so many fail to see the obvious parallels?
This week on the show, I have talked about the similarities between the national debate over whites and blacks marrying and today's debate over same-sex marriage.
The generation that, as a group, would have fought for the rights of blacks and whites to marry is the generation that today is fighting against the rights of gays to marry. I realize that the arguments against same-sex marriage are totally different in the minds of many, but the idea of interracial marriage was just as outrageous in the minds of many at the time. In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state laws prohibiting interracial marriage were unconstitutional. Don't you see the haunting parallels with today's debate over same-sex marriage?
It's time for my generation, the Baby Boomer/Rock Generation, to end the hate that we once railed against. It's time for my generation to remember the incredible turmoil that we witnessed as young Americans and realize that this country has seen difficult times before and we united and survived. We can blame the politicians, but they reflect what they think we want from them and right now that's a very ugly reflection.
Again, I ask you to image what the mood in America would be today if a Democratic senator on his way to winning the presidential nomination was assassinated only a few months after a prominent voice for equality was assassinated and within 5 years of a president being assassinated.
We should have gained great strength from all our generation has endured, but instead we have become a nation that thrives on hysteria over certain issues that compared to our past, should not be dividing us. We should look at each other and realize that if we have made it this far - we should embrace the future with faith, confidence and optimism – rather than with a 'doom and gloom' attitude because we don't like a politician or the way young people dress.
I remain a 'hostile witness to the Baby Boomer Generation'.
The news that families were hiring disabled people to pose as family members so they could go to the front of long lines at Disneyland has ignited a passionate debate about whether this is "rewarding" or "taking advantage of" the disabled.
With new video exposing the practice of paying disabled people for the purpose of advancing to the front of the lines, Disney has reacted by calling this practice deplorable and has issued a warning that anyone found guilty of this practice will lose their Disney pass.
Advertising on Craigslist, "Tour Guides with Disabilities" has successfully "rented out" disabled people to those Disney guests, who want to beat the long lines with their families. One disabled person, who offers her "services" charges $50 an hour to help families jump to the front of the lines. She says that we live in a capitalist society and does not think it is morally wrong. A disabled man, who charges $200 an hour to pose as a disabled family member, says he doesn't care if it's morally wrong.
If the people with disabilities are being paid, then it may not be fair to say that the disabled are being "taken advantage of," but it is morally wrong! Hiring a person with a real disability for the sole purpose of passing others in line for an attraction at Disneyland is deceiving and perpetrating fraud. How can that be moral?
The most damaging factor ...what lesson this teaches the children of the families that hire the disabled? The children of these families are taught that if you have money then you are more important than others and you shouldn't have to wait in a long line. It also teaches children that lying for the purpose of getting ahead, in a line or in life, is perfectly acceptable. And to utilize the services of a disabled person to advance a lie only deepens the negative lesson.
Justification that the disabled are being paid does not erase the reality that they are being used for extremely selfish reasons. The disabled, who are allowing themselves to be hired, are not without guilt. As a country, we have made many provisions that make it easier for the disabled to navigate through our society, and a disabled person perpetrating fraud only diminishes the reverence we have extended to that segment of society that faces certain challenges.
When the subject of entitlement and fraud become part of a debate, there is the stereotypical person who becomes the target… low-income, less educated and most often a person of color.
The action of hiring disabled people for the purpose of getting to the front of the line reveals that fraud transcends socio-economic boundaries and further passes on a tradition of dishonestly to the children of a new generation.
I witnessed an extraordinary example of parents disciplining a young child over the weekend and in a very unlikely place.
I was with a band in their bus before a show. The band was doing their make-up and getting ready for the show. The bus was crowded with wives, girlfriends, family and a few kids. It was a typical scene backstage in a band's bus – shots were poured, band members made fun of each other and it was the atmosphere you'd expect to experience in that setting right before a show.
But in all of the pre-show loudness and chaos, there was one moment that reminded me that there are some parents who are doing the right thing. I'm sure they wouldn't mind me mentioning their names or the band, but I choose not to mention the name of the band or the band member involved. My date was sitting at the table in the bus where the band was doing make-up and that attracted the attention of a few of the kids. The young daughter of one of the guys in the band was sitting next to my friend and the young girl was lying on the bench seat. Upon seeing this, the father, the 30-year-old singer in the band, asked his daughter to be respectful and not lie down so the person next to her would have more room. She did not respond to her dad's request.
The young father then said, with a polite and definite tone, "Honey, it's time to go talk to your mommie." He was still getting ready for the show. The mother escorted the young girl, who was about 2-years-old, to a room in the back of the band's bus. They were gone about 5 minutes. I heard no yelling and no spanking. When the young mother and the young child returned to the general area of the bus, she returned to her spot at the table, but was sitting, not lying, on the seat. And there was not another moment of behavior worthy of discipline again.
I'm not sure if anyone else noticed this excellent example of parenting, but I did and I complimented the singer and the young girl's mother. He told me that they want their daughter to learn to respect others when she is in those situations with adults. He told me he spanked his daughter once and HE started to cry! When his daughter saw him crying she said, "Daddy, don't cry – it doesn't hurt anymore!"
Whatever the young mother said to that young child in the band's bus was effective and demonstrated that this young couple is making a commitment to raise a child who respects others and they are teaching their child the very important lesson that there are consequences for negative behavior.
With all the examples there are of parents not making the effort to discipline their children, the episode I witnessed over the weekend was a refreshing reminder that some parents do care about doing the right thing.
It would have been easy to let that moment go and not say anything to the child in the middle of the loud activity of a rock band's bus before a show – no one would have noticed if nothing had been said by the parents. But I noticed that something was done and I applaud that young couple and every couple that understands their responsibility to teach their children respect and that there are consequences for negative behavior.
For the record – you can spank your children. You can't beat young children, but you can spank your children. But you don't have to always use spanking as the only form of discipline. 'Time-out' works. The parents who say it doesn't work are the parents who don't understand it or do not take the time and effort to establish it as a consequence.
Talk radio is easily driven by the negatives in our society and as humans we show more emotion and passion over life's negative episodes than the positive ones. But just like with child-rearing, positive reinforcement is also important and it's important to use a medium, like talk radio, to give society some positive reinforcement – when it's deserving!
