Talk:John Batchelor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Too good to be true?
Awesome radio show. I'm just wondering if it's too good to be true.
- The comment above is unsigned; and is really an issue that needs to be addressed. Matt Drudge, on his WABC radio show, (that precedes his national broadcast), said, shortly after the cancellation of John's show, something to the effect that radio is a tough business; (and, incidently commented on the amazing bumper music John used on the show).
- So was it just a mere business decision to cancell John's show?
- The article raises the suspicion that the show was too Jewish. Let's analyze this assertion. NYC is a pretty Jewish place, and I, myself, was a regular listener from Canada, where WABC's signal is very clearly heard after nightfall; just when John's show began. And, I tuned in every night precisely because of the Jewish and Israel coverage; content nowhere else available outside of Israel (e.g., the content was a kind of a secular version of Arutz Sheva, or Israel National Radio, banned from the airwaves in Israel; and available only on the Internet). On Wednesday nights John's co-host, Eddie Hayes, was consistently hostile to both Jews and Israel; and otherwise mostly offensive to the extent that, towards the end of the show, Malcolm Hoenlein didn't appear with him. Am I mistaken about this? There were Arabs, Pakistanis, and Europeans on the show all hostile to Israel; and John rarely challenged them; and when he did, it was gentle criticism, or a "agree to disagree" retort.--Lance talk 21:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I tend to agree.
- While the host himself was very pro-Israel, and by extension, very anti-IRI and anti-Ba'athist-even visiting Gush Khatif during the volatile forced relocation campaign initiated by the Sharon government-he had guests and opinions that spanned the philosophical spectrum in this respect, including the voices of actual Arab-Muslim terrorists from the Palestinian territories.
- I'm not entirely discounting this theory-anything is possible in radio-but I'm highly skeptical of it myself. Ruthfulbarbarity 19:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Batchelor and Alexander" moniker?
Is it just me or didn't this show go by the name "Batchelor and Alexander" for a while surely its worth a mention...
Superb radio show BTW.
Cleaned it up a little, added links to a couple unlinked topics of interest, and added a citation needed to the 'ABC News asked Batchelor...' part - hadn't heard that before, and it would be a good idea to be able to verify that. Anyone? Chris Berry 04:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] National Syndication Ending
So, on June 12th, an anonymous editor said that syndication would end in September. Anyone know what this is all about? I'm going to ask for a citation. User:Ke4djt 03:25 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted it. When I or another editor has some verification, it can go back in. patsw 20:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think verification has come. It also sounds like the rumors below are rumors. Mrdthree 10:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rumors
This section was moved from the article:
Rumor has it that the Gaza kidnappers who kidnapped, and have since released, the Fox News journalist, Steve Centanni, and his camera man, Olaf Wiig, demanded that John Batchelor be taken off the air. There is however no official verification of this rumor. Batchelor held interviews with people, including terrorists, in theater, and many of his guests had intelligence they claimed was not appropriate for broadcast (such as troop locations, particularly during the recent Israeli war with Hizbollah). The logic follows that the demand for Batchelor's removal was prompted by his revealing potentially sensitive information on air. Batchelor never provided a clear explanation for the cancellation of the show, if that is indeed what happened. The rumor was revealed as part of the speculations of a guest on the show. When the comment was made, Batchelor neither confirmed nor denied its truth. Given the provocative nature of the rumor, the tone of the guest, and Batchelor's theatricality in general, its truth is ambiguous. As Batchelor himself says, "In war the first three reports are wrong." We might be well-advised to heed his words of caution.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.139.73 (talk • contribs). with comments—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.249.125.65 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Back on XM?
Article now mentions that "some bloggers report that Batchelor is now back on XM". Is there any way to get this pinned down a little more accurately than this? I have an XM radio that's been little used of late--but I'd dig it out and get it hooked up to my antenna if I knew for sure that the show was back.
Anybody have a channel and time for this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.189.241.8 (talk • contribs).
I believe "some bloggers" are looking at obsolete info. According to John Batchelor's web page, he is still not on the air. patsw 13:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] It is time for "was"?
Enough time, I believe, has passed to modify the article's grammatical tense from present to past with respect to his occupation as talk show host. Consensus? patsw 13:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. He was replaced by a 13-hour delayed re-broadcast of the Laura Ingram show on WABC. What's that about?--Lance talk 21:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hoover Institution?
If there's no mention of Batchelor's affiliation in 2006 or 2007 with the Hoover Institution here, why is it referenced in the article? patsw 03:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Not sure why this would be, but as a habitual listener to the show when it was on the air, I remember distinctly when both he and his then co-host, Paul Alexander, were inducted as "Fellows" of the Hoover Institution. Many of John's guests were likewise Hoover fellows, and the program was occasionally broadcast from that location, as well.
I would assume that the new show, whenever it appears, will be some sort of professional quality "podcast", possibly as part of a whole "network" of related shows produced by the Hoover Institution and other affilated groups and think tanks. This appears to be hinted at, in the scant amount of information that is available.
