Talk:John Batchelor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.139.73 (talk • contribs) with comments—Preceding unsigned comment 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? —Preceding unsigned comment 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.

[edit] Removed speculation about his return

If and when Batchelor gets a show, it should be added. The speculation from September 2006 to May 2007 about that possibility doesn't belong in the article. patsw 02:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Return/C-SPAN/Loftus Report

John Batchelor guest-hosted The Matt Drudge Show om WABC radio, 7-25-2007

John Loftus had a regular segment (the "Loftus Report") on the ABC Radio program, "The John Batchelor Show", for five years. The show had a national audience of 5,000,000. The show was cancelled in September 2006 with no explanation provided by the network. In the year since, there has been great anticipation for the return of the show and just last week Brian Lamb (a fan of the show) had John batchelor on C-SPAN to discuss the show, its cancellation/return, and existing audience. John Batchelor has recently made a flurry of appearances on the new "Loftus Report" program and this is very significant to the audiences of both Jonh Loftus and John Batchelor. [Personal attack removed] Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A bullet point list of appearances and podcasts is inappropriate and irrelevant for an encyclopedia article. Please refrain from personal attacks during an editing dispute. Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Please avoid mischaracterizations - apprising the community of removal of relevant information is not a personal attack. Editing is most welcome. Removing relevant information is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.140.9 (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You can "apprise the community" without resorting to wild accusations and attacks. We have different opinions on the relevance of this information, that is all. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You are a very good editor and your efforts are sincerely appreciated when they do not remove important information. Perhaps you simply lacked familiarity with the subject and did not realize the importance of the content you removed? I have no idea. Regardless - pointing out removal and repeated removal of relevant information in the case of the John Loftus entry is not a "personal attack".


Thank you. But that still doesn't change the fact that accusations and attacks are not simply "pointing out" a removal of information. Now if I don't "realize the importance" of this information, please use this talk page to explain it. Also, please explain why we should in this case differ from Wikipedia content and style guidelines and include a bullet point list of podcasts in the main section of the article, when this occurs nowhere else in Wikipedia. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You are missing the point. You initially removed content pertaining to C-SPAN and the Batchelor appearances on the Loftus Report on the grounds of relevance. After this was addresed by pointing out the recent coverage by the C-SPAN network on this very same thing, you then changed your grounds to formatting. If you had re-formatted the relevant info, no bias could be construed on your part. However, in light of the fact that you changed your rationale and continued to pursue removal of content, it is not unreasonable to infer agenda. If there is no agenda on your part, that is a relief. I have no objection whatsoever to your exerting energy in reformatting this relevant information.
I didn't change my rationale. I object on the grounds of relevance, formatting, and importance. No bias should be construed because civility and Wikipedia policy demand that you treat other editors with respect and prohibits you from throwing out attacks and accusations. Please familiarize yourself with our guidelines and policies and let me know if you have any questions. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I will try to familiarize myself more with "your" guidelines and policies. In the future, please refrain from removing information that is deemed relevant by the wikipedia community and by C-SPAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.140.9 (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Once again, I disagree that it is relevant and I am free to edit the article just as much as you are. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
While you may hold yourself in a higher regard than C-SPAN, I would expect that you have the ability to consider the possibility that others respect C-SPAN more and find their coverage of a story affecting an audience of 5,000,000 relevant and deserving of a wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.140.9 (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no need for that kind of snide response. Now if you wish to justify the inclusion of this material in this form, please explain what CSPAN has to do with a bullet point list of podcasts. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You removed information that communicated John Batchelor's recent appearance on C-SPAN. The C-SPAN show dealt with the fact that the John Batchelor Show had a national audience of 5,000,000; was cancelled in September 2006 with no explanation provided by the network; and in the year since, there has been great anticipation for the return of the show. If you don't like the formatting, I welcome you to change it. That would be a good thing. However, please refrain from removing the content entirely. That is a disservice to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.140.9 (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I have made an edit which removes the material I find irrelevant and unnecessary but preserves a link to the C-Span appearance. A C-Span appearance may reach a large audience but is generally not considered important enough to justify a paragraph in an encyclopedia article unless something particularly noteworthy happened during the broadcast. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Wiki link to Loftus was removed without note or rationale. Too much important information lost. Changes reverted. While formatting help is welcome. Content must be respected and preserved. It is interesting to observe similar issues on the Loftus discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Loftus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.140.9 (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Without note or rationale? There's a note and rationale right above your comment. Are you objecting just for the sake of objecting here? Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I am referring to the differences in line 30 on this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Batchelor&diff=160756189&oldid=160753575 wherein the open and close wiki link double brackets are reported to differ. If I am misattributing these to your editing, I'd appreciate your help in allowing me to see this.
On line 30 I added double brackets to create a wiki link to the article John Loftus. Is this what you are referring to? If so, what could possibly be wrong with that? Also, please start signing your posts. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I incorrectly thought the report was portraying your removal of these. You have helped me see that I was wrong in that observation and I apologize. I will consider availing myself of the option of creating a wiki user id. Thank you for the suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.140.9 (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't have the time to deal with Gamaliel's efforts to remove relevant content to this story. All I know is that important and relevant information has been removed - not because it isn't relevant, but because of its formatting. Gamaliel has not helped anyone interested in the story but prevented you from ever reading it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.140.9 (talk • contribs)
It's obvious that you aren't interested in learning how to contribute properly, you just want to complain. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.140.9 (talk • contribs)
Practice that, then you can preach it. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Are the new WABC and KFI shows identical, or two independent entities? I just got word of Batchelor's return to the air earlier this evening, in time to listen to most of the KFI show. Batchelor seemed to be giving out multiple station IDs during the broadcast--nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that he and his guests would participate in two entirely different shows. Perhaps the interviews are conducted earlier in the day/week, and there is some post-production to insert the station IDs. SteelWheel 05:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I listened to both shows (streaming)Oct 7 & 14 and they are different. In fact,the later hours are better for his European guests. Last week he told WABC listeners to multitask and listen to streaming KFI while listening to WABC. However, Oct 21 there was no show on KFI. They were covering Calif. wildfires. I listened to his original WABC program on Sirius satellite and there was post-production, an early portion was replayed in the final hour. And what happened to "God Bless America?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.182.69 (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Tonight, the first half hour was the post-game show of the NY Jets Football game, followed by an informercial for selling covered put options. I don't think this is a good sign, but I can find no information about what is going on. Perhaps Citadel is saving up money to pay for the Imus contract... KFI is owned by Clear Channel, which competes head to head with KABC in Los Agneles (WABC and KABC are owned by Citadel)... I'm thinking appearing on KFI was not a smart radio career move.StreamingRadioGuide 23:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Pundita has a new entry explaing the irregular show hours and linking a KFI show archive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.133.193 (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)