Offline
CFRB has become tired and very routine now. The Round Table has become very tedious with the same set of characters pontificating the same mantra. The voices of various CFRB features have become superfluous, and in many cases, annoying. Don’t those at Bell, who purport to be radio savvy, have the skill to find new commentators who would put a fresh viewpoint on their commentary? It’s the same old same old with some of the characters heard far too often on other features. I think I’ve heard enough of Hutton and Hudak.
Offline
Let me recommend "Think Tank" on AM 640, which starts around 7:35 AM and goes commerical free to near 8 AM. It features pundits like Steve Paikin, Ben Mulroney, Dave Kaufman, Warren Kinsella, Stephanie Smyth and others. A lot of the guests repeat over the week, but at least it's different from what CFRB is doing and the extra length allows them to spend more time on a breaking story.
Give it a shot and if you hate it, well, there's always a separate Roundtable on CKTB!
Offline
Both stations are dying a slow and painful death...just like many of their ageing listeners....with cancerous hosts and guests spewing the usual stuff talk radio in North America is now unfortunately mostly known for...right wing, political drivel and conspiracies, the Fvck Trudeau/MAGA/freedumb convoy crowd and the promotion of their interpretation of so-called 'Christian' values in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ...
Offline
I will agree, there's a lot of that. But there's also people like Laura Babcock (who's on way too often), Tamara Cherry, Kathleen Wynne, Thomas Mulcair, Robert Benzie and others who definitely do not fit that mould. I have to wonder if this is a case of the listener's leanings coming out more than just the guests.
Offline
Used to be fairly regular 1010 listener. I even remember Wally Crouter. Now, the only show I put on is Vassy from noon to 2. The rest of the day is 640. Bell has let CFRB rot.
Offline
RadioActive wrote:
I will agree, there's a lot of that. But there's also people like Laura Babcock (who's on way too often), Tamara Cherry, Kathleen Wynne, Thomas Mulcair, Robert Benzie and others who definitely do not fit that mould. I have to wonder if this is a case of the listener's leanings coming out more than just the guests.
Let us know when any of these folks are given two or three hours a day, five-days-a-week, to push their personal agendas (or those of their corporate masters) on the air at any Toronto radio station.
Offline
Much as think former premier Kathleen Wynne is an intelligent woman and well qualified to speak on a variety of topics, her time has come and gone.
Do we care what she thinks about "things that work and things that don't work" on her CFRB segment?
And of course who cares what Deb (I aided and abetted Mike Harris) Hutton thinks.
Offline
newsguy1 wrote:
Much as think former premier Kathleen Wynne is an intelligent woman and well qualified to speak on a variety of topics, her time has come and gone.
Do we care what she thinks about "things that work and things that don't work" on her CFRB segment?
And of course who cares what Deb (I aided and abetted Mike Harris) Hutton thinks.
I don't think there's anything wrong with getting former politicians who are possibly somewhat removed from current political activity. A former this or a former that, even when years have passed, can potentially offer wisdom and hindsight.
It's also nice to get truly non-partisan people, and people without significant vested self-interests, on-air for insight.
It also could make for interesting discussions to get people who will truly disagree with each other. Maybe Hutton and Wynne on at the same time, with a host who can keep the discussion constructive. It's a matter of carefully and thoughtfully choosing two or maybe three people who will not simply pat each others' backs but at the same time will remain civil. I'm thinking any two people we've all wanted to see duke it out - and get to the heart of a matter - in at least a relatively civil, constructive way.
The host should be ready and waiting to dive into contradictions and elephants in the room that never really get thrashed out by any of the parties. Bring guests into the equation ... someone thoughtful and articulate from a Trans movement, for instance, or reasonably thoughtful people from Palestinian and Jewish movements, with a host who can guide the discussion and get the parties to listen as well as to speak.
Offline
Saul wrote:
newsguy1 wrote:
Much as think former premier Kathleen Wynne is an intelligent woman and well qualified to speak on a variety of topics, her time has come and gone.
Do we care what she thinks about "things that work and things that don't work" on her CFRB segment?
And of course who cares what Deb (I aided and abetted Mike Harris) Hutton thinks.I don't think there's anything wrong with getting former politicians who are possibly somewhat removed from current political activity. A former this or a former that, even when years have passed, can potentially offer wisdom and hindsight.
It's also nice to get truly non-partisan people, and people without significant vested self-interests, on-air for insight.
It also could make for interesting discussions to get people who will truly disagree with each other. Maybe Hutton and Wynne on at the same time, with a host who can keep the discussion constructive. It's a matter of carefully and thoughtfully choosing two or maybe three people who will not simply pat each others' backs but at the same time will remain civil. I'm thinking any two people we've all wanted to see duke it out - and get to the heart of a matter - in at least a relatively civil, constructive way.
The host should be ready and waiting to dive into contradictions and elephants in the room that never really get thrashed out by any of the parties. Bring guests into the equation ... someone thoughtful and articulate from a Trans movement, for instance, or reasonably thoughtful people from Palestinian and Jewish movements, with a host who can guide the discussion and get the parties to listen as well as to speak.
Only if there was video feed as well, so listener / viewers could enjoy the inevitable fist fights.
Offline
Turfing the PR muffins would go a long way to improve things. If they want to be on air they can pay like the advertisers do.
Offline
Chrisphen wrote:
Turfing the PR muffins would go a long way to improve things. If they want to be on air they can pay like the advertisers do.
OMG so spot on, PR muffins I love that phrase.
Offline
Toronto talk radio is so tame/lame - nothing insightful, nothing edgy, nothing quirky, nothing bombastic, nobody loud and annoying - just tepid dishwater...
Online!
echomaster wrote:
Toronto talk radio is so tame/lame - nothing insightful, nothing edgy, nothing quirky, nothing bombastic, nobody loud and annoying - just tepid dishwater...
It's been garbage for years.