Talk:The Al Franken Show

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Name change 2 Off-Balance 3 Music 4 Recurring segments 5 Why no critical reviews or stats on ratings?

[edit] Name change

Does anyone know why the name was changed? I can't imagine why such a clever (I personally would say hilarious) name would be switched to, well, an odorless standard. ...unless they wished to make it more neutral, or unless someone from Fox, or O'Reilly, complained or threatened to sue. --Liberlogos 22:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Al Franken did this as bait and no one bit, so he just changed it to an easier name. Besides, having a show title that caps on O'Reilly gets old pretty fast. --RNJBOND 20:18, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Franken stated that "The Al Franken Show" was his original name for the show, but thought he could help its ratings if he baited Fox into suing him(see Fair and Balance).

[edit] Off-Balance

Why are there criticisms on the Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh pages, but not here?

If you can add something in a NPOV way, it might stay here. - dcljr (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Music

Theme: Sugaree? I had used the word "theme" to mean the opening theme. This surely is merely TP. (This comment left by user SomeYoungGuy. - dcljr (talk)

[edit] Recurring segments

Do they still do "boring corrections"? This should be added to the appropriate place, depending on the answer. - dcljr (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

They do sometimes, but rarely. I'd say it's a toss-up whether it should be included. - Kazim27 18:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I know this is all "old news" by now, but should there be some mention of his call-ins back to the show while he was on USO tours? They were touching and funny, and he always sounded drunk (might have been a time of day thing). Huw Powell (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why no critical reviews or stats on ratings?

I heard this show was a sleeper. Why is there no mention to it's poor ratings? Reading this, you would think it was the only thing saving Air America, when I hear it was what sunk the network. Surely there must be references to this. Bytebear 17:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to mentioning these things, though if you're looking to have the article say that the show "sunk the network", obviously that would be a POV problem. If I recall, the ratings were generally mediocre, but they did OK in certain key demos from time to time. If you find information about these topics and want to add it in a neutral way, please do that. Croctotheface 18:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the show sunk the network either, but I do think it was a contributing factor in its demise. The way the article is written, it sounds like the show was doing well, and the station just disappeared, and the show was a victim of the bankruptsy. At any rate the ratings for a radio show seem to be a given for such an article. Bytebear 19:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the network is still running, albeit without the show. I don't have ratings data, but I certainly don't object to including it. Croctotheface 19:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Sunk the network" is a rather bizarre way to phrase a discussion about a currently operating network, that does suggest a certain, um, POV. However, any real ratings stats presented neutrally, with citations, would be cool. Huw Powell (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)