Buftex Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 i kinda of agree with you about his football knowledge, but at the time, "monday night football" was more about entertainment than the purity of the game and i am quite sure that is why they gave him a shot. Yeah, you are probably right. I do remember, kind of liking him at first. I also remember at one point, late in the football season, there was a really good MNF game on (I can't remember the details of the game now), but Miller was just talking incessantly, and thinking "my god, just stfu!" He would often go on his soliloquy, and Al Michaels would have to interrupt him, to call the play (always very awkward), or worse, they would have to cut to a commercial break before he could finish. Not knocking Miller for that (it is his shctick) but it just didn't work for MNF. His style just didn't work with a sports broadcast. I think ESPN tried to go the same rout with Tony Kornheiser. TK understood the medium more than Miller (at least at that time) I think, but had to water himself down too much to make it work. I like TK, but I didn't care much for him on MNF. It just wasn't a good match for him, just as MNF wasn't a good match for Miller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Totally agree with your points. Maher is best when he interviews and has a panel to discuss the issues with. His monologue and ending riffs are decent but nothing special. His knowledge is broad and is very capable of holding his own over a broad political spectrum, something Miller does not do. Dwight, it's a bit ironic to call Maher an elitist when half of Miller's words require a thesaurus for translation. Being elite is good, this was a principle America used to push on everyone. Now it's something people pick on and has taken on a negative connotation. today's "elitism" is totally different from the elitism you say was good. the elite today are people who tell us what is good for the populace because the populace is incapable of "figuring it out" , according to their mindset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 today's "elitism" is totally different from the elitism you say was good. the elite today are people who tell us what is good for the populace because the populace is incapable of "figuring it out" , according to their mindset. At the risk of sounding elitist...a lot of people can't figure out what is best for them, until it is too late...that is why we consultants and experts, etc, etc...why people seek advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 At the risk of sounding elitist...a lot of people can't figure out what is best for them, until it is too late...that is why we consultants and experts, etc, etc...why people seek advice. Buftex I'm just glad we're not the only ones out there. I agree with you on almost every point. I have seen every episode of Maher since he came to HBO, I watch it religiously. Of course, I'm sure Dwight in Philly has never watched it once. I agree that his monologue rarely makes me so much as chuckle, but the show itself is thoroughly informative. He ALWAYS plays devil's advocate, he ALWAYS calls out the Democrats for having no balls and not standing up for themselves and he ALWAYS at least tries to get a balanced panel. Next to Meet the Press it regularly has the most credile panel of any politically-oriented news show on television. One of the things Maher always harps on is how in the world did beig smart become a bad thing? Calling someone out for being an elitist because they went to grad school, actually believe in science instead of Pat Robertson, etc. In other western countries, intelligence is celebrated and people actually defer to the smartst people. In our country, the Sarah Palins smugly look down upon smart people and call them "elitists." Ahh, the Republican marketing machine, so successful over the last 30 years, I'm very jealous and I mean that sincerely. Republican, Democrat, I don't care, Dennis Miller is not funny, he is not personable, him and O'Reilly can have eachother. And if you're going around calling people elitists, I am quite certain you probably get, what 2% of his preposterous references and laugh anyway. peace, Metz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gumby Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 At the risk of sounding elitist...a lot of people can't figure out what is best for them, until it is too late...that is why we consultants and experts, etc, etc...why people seek advice. I think the key phrase there is "seek advice". You need to actively want another's advice. Not like what Dwight's saying where it's rammed down your throat whether you want it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enemarty Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Yeah, you are probably right. I do remember, kind of liking him at first. I also remember at one point, late in the football season, there was a really good MNF game on (I can't remember the details of the game now), but Miller was just talking incessantly, and thinking "my god, just stfu!" He would often go on his soliloquy, and Al Michaels would have to interrupt him, to call the play (always very awkward), or worse, they would have to cut to a commercial break before he could finish. Not knocking Miller for that (it is his shctick) but it just didn't work for MNF. His style just didn't work with a sports broadcast. I think ESPN tried to go the same rout with Tony Kornheiser. TK understood the medium more than Miller (at least at that time) I think, but had to water himself down too much to make it work. I like TK, but I didn't care much for him on MNF. It just wasn't a good match for him, just as MNF wasn't a good match for Miller. MNF has been looking for the next Don Meredith since Dandy Don left the show. The problem with the Dennis and Tony's of the world is that while both know a fair amount about football, their primary focus will always be comedy and it became a distraction, especially when the games started to improve. Not that I'm a big fan of the Mike and Mike show, but someone like Golic might do a decent job as the third wheel, offering football talk when appropriate, and just being goofy when the game gets boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 MNF has been looking for the next Don Meredith since Dandy Don left the show. The problem with the Dennis and Tony's of the world is that while both know a fair amount about football, their primary focus will always be comedy and it became a distraction, especially when the games started to improve. Not that I'm a big fan of the Mike and Mike show, but someone like Golic might do a decent job as the third wheel, offering football talk when appropriate, and just being goofy when the game gets boring. I think the crew right now is awesome. Definitely best it's been since I was a kid and it was Frank, Al and Dan. Although they do not have the comedian, but they didn't then either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Buftex I'm just glad we're not the only ones out there. I agree with you on almost every point. I have seen every episode of Maher since he came to HBO, I watch it religiously. Of course, I'm sure Dwight in Philly has never watched it once. I agree that his monologue rarely makes me so much as chuckle, but the show itself is thoroughly informative. He ALWAYS plays devil's advocate, he ALWAYS calls out the Democrats for having no balls and not standing up for themselves and he ALWAYS at least tries to get a balanced panel. Next to Meet the Press it regularly has the most credile panel of any politically-oriented news show on television. One of the things Maher always harps on is how in the world did beig smart become a bad thing? Calling someone out for being an elitist because they went to grad school, actually believe in science instead of Pat Robertson, etc. In other western countries, intelligence is celebrated and people actually defer to the smartst people. In our country, the Sarah Palins smugly look down upon smart people and call them "elitists." Ahh, the Republican marketing machine, so successful over the last 30 years, I'm very jealous and I mean that sincerely. Republican, Democrat, I don't care, Dennis Miller is not funny, he is not personable, him and O'Reilly can have eachother. And if you're going around calling people elitists, I am quite certain you probably get, what 2% of his preposterous references and laugh anyway. peace, Metz again, if you have two comedians, one from the left, one from the right, the "funny" one will be the one whom you agree with politically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 again, if you have two comedians, one from the left, one from the right, the "funny" one will be the one whom you agree with politically. I just said I don't necessarily find Maher all that funny. You called him an elitist and I said I think it's ridiculous that we criticize people for being intellectual in America in 2011. Oh Maher went to Cornell and knows a lot, what a jerk. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, neither ever graduated from college (I don't think Beck ever even went). Sarah Palin- I probably could've beat her in Jeopardy when I was in 7th grade. Now those are men/women of the people, aren't they? They really represent the working class blue-collar folk, shame on these elitists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 I just said I don't necessarily find Maher all that funny. You called him an elitist and I said I think it's ridiculous that we criticize people for being intellectual in America in 2011. Oh Maher went to Cornell and knows a lot, what a jerk. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, neither ever graduated from college (I don't think Beck ever even went). Sarah Palin- I probably could've beat her in Jeopardy when I was in 7th grade. Now those are men/women of the people, aren't they? They really represent the working class blue-collar folk, shame on these elitists. so, you made my case! you have judged limbaugh and beck solely on their college attendance, or lack thereof, and praise maher because he went to cornell! if that isnt an "east coast elitist" attitude, i do not know what is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 so, you made my case! you have judged limbaugh and beck solely on their college attendance, or lack thereof, and praise maher because he went to cornell! if that isnt an "east coast elitist" attitude, i do not know what is! If you don't think that Bill Maher and say, Rachel Maddow, have more worldly knowledge than Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin for that matter, I'm not really sure what to tell ya. And yes, as a very general rule, someone who went to Cornell double-majoring in English and History is going to bring more to the proverbial table than someone who was addicted to drugs, contemplated suicide and dropped out of college his freshman year. That's not being an elitist, that's being a rational human being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) If you don't think that Bill Maher and say, Rachel Maddow, have more worldly knowledge than Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin for that matter, I'm not really sure what to tell ya. And yes, as a very general rule, someone who went to Cornell double-majoring in English and History is going to bring more to the proverbial table than someone who was addicted to drugs, contemplated suicide and dropped out of college his freshman year. That's not being an elitist, that's being a rational human being. i would think as a liberal, you would be praising those that overcame drug addiction, emotional problems etc and have turned their lives around. Edited February 16, 2011 by dwight in philly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 i would think as a liberal, you would be praising those that overcame drug addiction, emotional problems etc and have turned their lives around. I'm not sure that Glenn Beck has overcome any emotional problems, but OK... Yes, he has turned his life around. He is very successful at scaring middle-Americans who don't think for themselves into believeing that the apocalypse is coming and pulling the rug out from under the president of the United States. Extremely patriotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) I'm not sure that Glenn Beck has overcome any emotional problems, but OK... Yes, he has turned his life around. He is very successful at scaring middle-Americans who don't think for themselves into believeing that the apocalypse is coming and pulling the rug out from under the president of the United States. Extremely patriotic. thats his idealogy, so be it.. but i hardly think his rhetoric "scares" middle america, i think middle america is scared, with or without beck i e: govt overspending, unemployment off the charts, beck plays off it, no doubt, but why "shoot the messenger"?... (cue the "its bush's mess obama is cleaning up" speech) Edited February 16, 2011 by dwight in philly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) thats his idealogy, so be it.. but i hardly think his rhetoric "scares" middle america, i think middle america is scared, with or without beck i e: govt overspending, unemployment off the charts, beck plays off it, no doubt, but why "shoot the messenger"?... (cue the "its bush's mess obama is cleaning up" speech) Actually, that would come after the "it's Clintons' fault, he signed NAFTA" speech... Sometimes the truth is just the truth! Edited February 16, 2011 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Actually, that would come after the "it's Clintons' fault, he signed NAFTA" speech... Sometimes the truth is just the truth! i agree!, NAFTA is a killer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 i agree!, NAFTA is a killer! Somehow, I knew you would! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trolls_r_us Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 I listened to and really liked Brad Riter's show on WGR, and I listen from time to time to WECK, but with all due respect to Mr. Riter (and I know he reads these boards often) WECK has so far to go that I highly doubt that WGR is "afraid" of WECK. For one thing, WGR has all the "big names." It gets the Lindy Ruff interviews, Thurman Thomas' show, the segments with Roby and Rob Ray, access to Paul Hamilton, and even Jerry Sullivan (say what you will about him, people obviously care). WECK has no "buzz" or relevance. That does NOT mean that WGR is "better," but to the average sports fan who wants to hear Bills/Sabres talk it remains the station most turn to. I'd love to see that change. Even many WGR listeners don't really LIKE the station, but they DO like hearing Lindy Ruff, Roby, Thurman, Rob Ray, Jerry, etc. IF WECK can start to get those types of guys on their station, then something might change. WGR is not worried about Schopp or the Bulldog going to WECK. There will be people beating down the door to take the 3-7 slot and do that gig. Meanwhile, it will be (to the average Buffalo radio listener) as if Schopp and the Bulldog quit radio and vanished. In short, you know how Riter dismissively referred to "other small stations I might not know about" in his manifesto? That's WECK to a vast majority of Buffalo sports fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Somehow, I knew you would! so does most of america, those with, or without jobs.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 I listened to and really liked Brad Riter's show on WGR, and I listen from time to time to WECK, but with all due respect to Mr. Riter (and I know he reads these boards often) WECK has so far to go that I highly doubt that WGR is "afraid" of WECK. For one thing, WGR has all the "big names." It gets the Lindy Ruff interviews, Thurman Thomas' show, the segments with Roby and Rob Ray, access to Paul Hamilton, and even Jerry Sullivan (say what you will about him, people obviously care). WECK has no "buzz" or relevance. That does NOT mean that WGR is "better," but to the average sports fan who wants to hear Bills/Sabres talk it remains the station most turn to. I'd love to see that change. Even many WGR listeners don't really LIKE the station, but they DO like hearing Lindy Ruff, Roby, Thurman, Rob Ray, Jerry, etc. IF WECK can start to get those types of guys on their station, then something might change. WGR is not worried about Schopp or the Bulldog going to WECK. There will be people beating down the door to take the 3-7 slot and do that gig. Meanwhile, it will be (to the average Buffalo radio listener) as if Schopp and the Bulldog quit radio and vanished. In short, you know how Riter dismissively referred to "other small stations I might not know about" in his manifesto? That's WECK to a vast majority of Buffalo sports fans. Well, in all fairness to Brad, he did say he was going after the "good" people at other stations... I agree with your point about guests, but, you know, there are other guys in similar positions. WECK would have to hire their own Paul Hamilton...isn't he, after all, just a GR employee that gets paid to cover the Sabres and Bills. Isn't Danny Gare back in town? An experienced broadcaster, who knows hockey. He could be their equivalent to Roby. I don't think GR is great, but, I also appreciate the local programing it does have (maybe some of us former WNYers aren't as hard on them), but I also appreciate Ritters' point about GR squeezing locals out of their programming. WECK doesn't have the strong tie-in with Buffalo's two pro teams, so, they are in an uphill battle, but I will do my best to support them from where I am...but I must say, hearing promos for Dennis Miller, and to an even larger degree, Laura Ingraham is a major turnoff... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts