Springer: he has a good approach. Single issue programs. Repeat, repeat

[LittleApple81]

repeat. I was not sure I was going to like his program, and for my taste "Unfiltered" was much more fun. But he knows Americans. Do not provide fun, provide single minded issue, hammer it in. I remember his programs much more than what was such fun in "Unfiltered." What do you think?

[vi5]

1. Much as I am an AAR fan in general...

I'm still not convinced that any of the shows do anything other than preach to the choir of hardcore liberals. I believe that right wing radio does more or less the same thing so it's not bad that we have that as well. I just don't think that anyone on the station is doing any convincing or converting so to speak.

And for my taste if I'm going to hear stuff that I already agree with and know about, I'd like it to be done in an entertaining manner (ie. more unfiltered than Springer.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. I don't think it's really supposed to convince anyone.

It gets our point of view out there without a filter. That's incredibly important, given that the Rethugs have Limbaugh, Boortz, O'Reilly, Coulter, ad infinitum on their side.

[vi5]

6. Yeah, but the people who listen to AAR don't have that filter...

I know what you're saying but I always read on here how people refer to AAR as being effective at "reaching people" and "getting the information out there". I think that's the difference. I think that the right doesn't get their information from anywhere OTHER than those sources you mentioned. So that's why they are more powerful for their side than AAR is for ours. I would venture to guess that most, if not all AAR listeners are already well informed about our side and the facts in general because they get their info from a variety of sources OTHER than AAR.

Like I said, I love listening to AAR but when people start talking about it in terms of getting a message out there or reaching middle americans, etc. I just think it tends to be a misdirected way of looking at things. Just my opnion though.

[redqueen]

8. IMO, it helps me communicate with others more effecitvely.

The next time I have an opportunity to talk to an undecided or a moderate Republican, it's easier to use his sound-bite quality message - I tend to be wordy. :)

[vi5]

9. Good point.....I don't disagree with that...

I've done the same thing since I have the same problem (I'm very wordy, especially when arguing/debating).

[redqueen]

2. I do agree that Springer's style is effective.

I love hearing his show on my morning drive.

[shrike]

3. Like I said in an earlier post, we need all the help we can get

Welcome, Jerry.

[More Than A Feeling]

5. I think I would love to see him go head to head with Rush, Hannity...

any of those. After all, he has had years of experience dealing with people scarier than them on his show. He is also much smoother as a host than say, Franken, whom I like very much also. But Springer right now is definitely a star attraction, he needs it for his governors bid, and we need his big name. Its a perfect marriage.

[BrainRants]

7. I miss Liz, Chuck D, and Rachel, but Jerry's technique

is effective and it's nice having another national name attached to AAR.

I know he brings some baggage with his background, but in an odd way, I think some curious fans of his TV show may tune in and might just stick around.