Skip to main content

The Blurred Lines of Identities

A long-time friend of mine will be hosting a political talk radio show before too long, which I will be doing work for. It's been interesting to observe. His Facebook posts have been attempting to offend, prompt comments and generate attention/traffic. Unfortunately, things have gotten pretty heated at times between he and other commentators. In his mind, he's just trying to be a radio-show personality, get under people's skin, get them talking and hope that word of mouth helps with ratings. As he told me, "It's all a game." To him, he wants people to hate him. He wants to be like that car accident, where people are saddened/angered by what happened, yet can't look away.

Unfortunately, it's difficult for many who know this guy to separate the on-air from off-air personalities and when the on-air personality sends a perhaps rather insulting comment in response to one of theirs, they take it personally - like they would from the off-air personality, a friend of theirs. I think it's the most difficult for those who are partial friends of his, people who may know him, may have talked to him before, but don't know him/talk to/hang out with him very much. For those that know him well, like myself, it's easier for me to read his comments and not take things personally, knowing it's all part of the game. For those that don't know him at all, when they're listening to him on the radio, they won't have any knowledge of he the actual person, so the lines between on-air and off-air personality won't be blurred to them either. It's those in-betweeners I think whom have the most difficult time distinguishing the two from one another.

Like I mentioned initially, I find it all to be quite interesting and I'm sure that intrigue will only increase as the days, weeks and months come along, the show airs, the election comes about, word travels about regarding the show, etc. I'm not sure I could ever be a shock jock and create an entirely different personality for on the air, but then again, I won't have to worry about that, fortunately.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"